Genre:

The Anatomy of Public Corruption

Walnut Creek Real Estate Investor Indicted for Fraud

Walnut Creek Real Estate Investor Indicted for Fraud

U.S. Attorney’s OfficeMarch 28, 2014
  • Northern District of California(415) 436-7200

OAKLAND—A federal grand jury in Oakland yesterday returned a two-count indictment charging Benny Chetcuti, Jr. with wire fraud, stemming from Chetcuti’s Walnut Creek, California-based real estate investment business, announced United States Attorney Melinda Haag and FBI Special Agent in Charge David J. Johnson.

According to the indictment, as early as October 2002 and continuing through June 2010, Chetcuti allegedly defrauded private investors who loaned money to him and his business, Chetcuti & Associates. Chetcuti started Chetcuti & Associates in 1998 for the purpose of purchasing homes, renovating them, and selling them within a short time period. Chetcuti financed his business, in part, by obtaining loans from private investors in exchange for promissory notes that were supposed to be secured by interests in real properties. The indictment alleges that Chetcuti defrauded investors by misrepresenting how much debt was already secured by the properties, falsely promising to record deeds of trust that would have secured the investors’ interests in the properties, directing others to impersonate lenders or title company officers in telephone calls, and forging letters purportedly written by lenders and title company officers.

A summons was issued upon filing of the indictment. Chetcuti is scheduled to make his initial appearance on April 2, 2014, at 9:30 a.m. before the Honorable Kandis A. Westmore, United States Magistrate Court Judge in Oakland.

The maximum statutory penalty for each count of wire fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343 is 20 years’ imprisonment and a fine of $250,000, or twice the gross loss or gain resulting from the offenses, plus restitution and forfeiture, if appropriate. However, any sentence following conviction would be imposed by the court only after consideration of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines and the federal statute governing the imposition of a sentence, 18 U.S.C. § 3553.

Andrew S. Huang is the Assistant U.S. Attorney who is prosecuting the case with the assistance of Vanessa Quant. The prosecution is the result of an investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

Please note, an indictment contains only allegations against a defendant, and, as with all defendants, Benny Chetcuti, Jr. must be presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.

This content has been reproduced from its original source.
Share:

Nancy Greenan Hamill and the Bennett Vs. Southern Pacific Murder


 

Nancy Greenan Hamill

Campus Counsel at UC Santa Barbara

Berkeley, California, United States227 connections

About

Corporate generalist attorney with substantial in-house legal experience. Focus on contract drafting and negotiation, corporate transactions, commercial law, real estate and civil litigation.

Specialties: Contract negotiation, real estate services, land use, litigation, regulatory compliance

Experience

  • Chief Campus Counsel

    UC Santa Barbara

     - Present11 years 7 months

  • Senior Counsel

    University of California

     - Present12 years 1 month

    Advise the University of California Board of Regents, President, and University system-wide campuses and research laboratories on governance and compliance matters including assistance with and preparation of agenda items for each of The Board of Regents meeting cycles; review and preparation of Presidential and OGC delegations of authority; advise on conflict of interest, and regulatory compliance matters.

  • Counsel

    Cushman & Wakefield

     - 7 years 1 month

    Regional in-house counsel for global real estate services firm. Supported all service lines across the country with primary responsibility for California, Washington, Oregon & Colorado. Contract negotiation, litigation management, risk management, regulatory compliance, training and education.

  • Vice President / Counsel

    Old Republic Title Company

     - 2 years

    In-house corporate litigation and claims counsel

  • Associate attorney

    Reuben Weintraub & Cera

     - 3 years

    Transactional, land use and litigation associate

  • Associate Attorney

    Peitzold White & Brodsky

     - 1 year

    Litigation associate in boutique admiralty and maritime insurance defense firm with emphasis on personal injury, wrongful death and asbestos litigation.

  • Associate Attorney

    Hagenbaugh & Murphy

     - 3 years

    Civil and appellate litigation associate specializing in insurance defense matters

Share:

Foster Family Agencies - Contra Costa Baby Snatchers

Contra Costa Kidnapping Network

Contra Costa Kidnapping Network

The secrets of Contra Costa District Attorney and Contra Costa Sheriff linked to a long run of witness murders in the courts, streets, officers down.
Card image cap

Foster Family Agencies

County placement agencies use licensed private Foster Family Agencies (FFAs) for the placement of children who require more intensive care as an alternative to group homes. By statute, FFAs are organized and operated on a non-profit basis and are engaged in the following activities: recruiting, certifying, and training foster parents, providing professional support to foster parents, and finding homes or other temporary or permanent placements for children who require more intensive care.
 
There are two types of FFA programs, "treatment foster care," and "nontreatment foster care." An agency providing treatment service to a child has determined that the child has service needs which: cannot be provided in an available family home, may require group home placement if the child was not referred to an FFA, and can be met by the program offered by the FFA to which the child is being referred. In contrast, a FFA providing nontreatment services certifies a home for placement of a child pending the adoption of the child by that family.

The "nontreatment" FFA does not provide treatment services. It provides for a child's basic needs and may provide specialized care services in a "certified" family home if the following conditions are met: the placement agency has determined that the child has care needs greater than those of a normal foster child; and the placement county has a specialized care system. The California Department of Social Services (CDSS) has statutory responsibility for developing, implementing, and maintaining a rate setting system for FFAs receiving AFDC-FC funds.
 
The AFDC-FC rates vary by age group. For the purpose of determining FFA rates, CDSS regulations specify the purposes, types and services of FFAs. Currently, CDSS sets AFDC-FC rates for approximately 220 FFAs as of January 2015. The rates are organized into five age groupings and are established according to two different rate structures. The two FFA rate structures are designed to accommodate services provided under the two program types: Treatment and Nontreatment programs.

A list of AFDC-FC FFA rates is available on the Foster Care Rate Setting web page. Information regarding AFDC-FC FFA audits and rates is available on the Foster Care Audits and Rates Branch web page.

For Additional Information:

Foster Care Rates Bureau
744 P Street, MS 8-11-38
Sacramento, CA 95814
(916) 651-9152
fosterca@dss.ca.gov

Share:

The Northern California Family Center

ORGANIZATION BACKGROUND

 

The Northern California Family Center is a non-profit, licensed Foster Family Agency that has been serving the needs of youth and families for over 38 years. Our staff are dedicated professionals on-call 24 hours a day to provide experienced clinical care and assessment for a wide range of personal and family problems.

RUNAWAY SERVICES

 

The Northern California Family Center works with youth, who have run away, have been kicked out, are truant, are out of parental control, or homeless. We provide four services: 

  • Outreach/Safe Place
  • Short-term shelter for youth
  • Family Mediation
  • Follow-up counseling

We also provide assistance with emancipation and referrals for youth employment. There is no charge for a youth to come into shelter. Our shelter is available for youth up to and including 17 years of age and accessible through our Martinez office.



SAFE PLACE AND OUTREACH

 

CALL 800-718-4357


Youth can also access our services through the Safe Place Program.  Anywhere this logo is displayed; a youth can walk in and request assistance. Look to the Contra Costa Fire DistrictYMCAYWCA, County Connection and other local service providers for this logo.

MEDIATION

 

The Northern California Family Center counselors work with the youth and their families for reunification, or to develop a mutually agreed upon (sometimes alternative) stable living arrangement.  Choices can include agreements to:

  • Live at Home
  • Live with Extended Family
  • Live with Friends of the Family
  • Enroll in Job Corps
  • Apply for Work & Emancipation
  • Combinations of these
  • Transfer Guardianship

 The Mediation Agreement is usually written and signed. Those who come to short-term shelter are eligible for two free mediation sessions.  All others will be charged on a sliding scale. 

FOLLOW-UP COUNSELING:

 

As the youth’s living situation is stabilized, there is often a need for the family to learn new and different ways to discuss their feelings and resolve conflicts.  We can forward the written Mediation Agreement to the current therapists.  We will continue to see those who seek counseling: on a sliding scale.  We will also refer families and youth to other providers, who may be geographically closer to the family.


COMMENTS:

“My parents and I got to the point that we were so angry we just couldn’t talk; so I ran away.  My counselor at school gave me Northern California Family Center’s number…” Runaway, age 14.

“I’ve never really been able to talk much with my dad.  The Northern California Family Center counselors helped me sit down and talk about my feelings without getting angry.”  Runaway, age 16.

LOCATION

 

We are located at

2244 Pacheco Blvd.Martinez.  Go north on Highway 680   2 ½ miles past Highway 4 and then take the Pacheco Blvd. Exit 54.  Go another

and 2/10 miles.  We are on the left (south) side of the street next to the Cinco De Mayo restaurant. Going south on 680 take Marina Vista Exit 56. Turn left on Marina Vista, Left on Shell Ave. then right on Pacheco Blvd.


 

WE COORDINATE WITH:

The Contra Costa Fire Protection District

The County Connection Bus Lines

The Contra Costa Crisis Center

Contra Costa County Mental Health Services

Contra CostaCounty Employment and Human      Services Department

The Contra CostaCounty Office of Education, Youth Development Services

Contra CostaCounty Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Commission

County of Contra Costa Office of Sheriff

The Contra Costa Probation Department

The Contra Costa Public Health Homeless Program

The Antioch Police Department

The Concord Police Department

The Martinez Police Department

The Pittsburg Police Department

The Richmond Police Department

The Pleasant Hill Police Department

The National Runaway Safeline

The

National Safe PlaceProgram

Shelter Inc.

The Solano County Health and Social Services Department

BayPoint Family Health Center

The Vallejo Fire District

The YMCA of Mt. Diablo

The YWCA


WE RECEIVE FUNDING FROM:

Dept of Health and Human Services

 Administration for Children and Families

 Runaway and Homeless Youth Program

The Thomas J Long Foundation

The John Burton Foundation

The Five Bridges Foundation

The Union Bank of California Foundation

Share:

Seeno Litigation - The Deadly Superior Court

Login if needed

5, DEFENDANT, RICHARD B. SEENO, Serve Required (WaitS). 6, DEFENDANT, SEENO ENTERPRISES ... ALBERT D. SEENO CON, SEEDS, ROBERT G. Serve Required (WaitS).
Mar 25, 2008 — A.D. SEENO CONSTRUCTION CO. SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA o. GREEN&HALL. ATTURNEYS AT LAW. 4191 SSIUSN.
Mar 25, 2008 — WEST COAST HOME BUILDERS, INC. and A.D. SEENO. CONSTRUCTION CO. SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA. Case No.
When was my last court date? AURORA LAPUS VSALBERT D. SEENO, JR. MSC91-00585. Date/Time, Description, Location. 02/10/1992 8:00 AM, JURY TRIAL - LONG CAUSE ...
Mar 13, 2009 — California Corporation, ALBERT D. SEENO. CONSTRUCTION CO., INC., a California. Corporation, and DOES 1 through 500, inclusive,. Defendants.
Dec 19, 2019 — Seeno II, CEO of DBI, and that Mr. Tofft and Mr. Laidlaw also worked directly as counsel for DBI, including attending site inspections and ...
19 pages
S AND A.D. SEENO. ) CONSTRUCTION CO.'S CROSS-. WEST COAST HOME BUILDERS, INC., et al., ) COMPLAINT. Defendant. Action Filed: March 25, 2008.
Feb 3, 2017 — SEENO ENTERPRISES. HEARING ON MOTION TO STRIKE PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT. FILED BY NORTHPOINT SECURITY SERVICES, INC. * TENTATIVE RULING: *.
19 pages
Jan 8, 2020 — FILED BY ALBERT D. SEENO CONSTRUCTION CO., et al. * TENTATIVE RULING: *. The demurrer is overruled. Defendants have failed to demonstrate ...
21 pages
MARIA LUZ ALVAREZ; RICH ARZAVE, JR. and SUSIE ARZAVE; et al.,. Plaintiffs, vs. WEST COAST HOME BUILDERS, INC., a. California Corporation; A.D. SEENO.
Mar 17, 2011 — and A.D. Seeno Construction Co. A settlement was reached between Allstate Contract Floors, Inc. and Defendant/Cross-.
Jan 12, 2018 — The demurrer of Defendant Seeno Enterprises, LLC (Seeno) to the third cause of action in the. Third Amended Complaint (TAC) is sustained ...
18 pages
Mar 25, 2008 — California Corporation, ALBERT D. SEENO. CONSTRUCTION CO., INC., a California. Corporation, and DOES 1 through 500, inclusive,.
May 23, 2008 — ALBERT D. SEENO CONSTRUCTION CO., INC., A. CALIFORNIA CORPORATION (Defendant) b. Person Served: JEANNE C. PAVAO, GENERAL COUNSEL.
May 23, 2008 — A.D. SEENO CONSTRUCTION CO. (Defendant) b. Person Served: JEANNE C. PAVAO, GENERAL COUNSEL. 4. Address where the party was served: 4061 PORT ...
Dec 17, 2010 — California corporation, ALBERT D. SEENO. CONSTRUCTION CO., INC., and DOES 1-. 500, inclusive,. DATE: TIME: DEPT: JUDGE: January 4, 2011.
Sep 3, 2021 — CASE NAME: SAFECO INS VS SEENO HOMES. HEARING ON MOTION TO/FOR FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT FILED BY SAFECO. INSURANCE COMPANY OF ILLINOIS.
SEENO ENTERPRISES. 8:30 FURTHER CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE. 5. MSC19-02097 WILBUR VS. MEYER. 8:30 FURTHER CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE.
Mar 16, 2021 — MSC19-01885 RAHMANY VS SEENO CONSTRUCTION. 8:30 FURTHER CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE. 5. MSC19-02325 VILAIKHAM VS. 801 CHESLEY.
MSC20-02602 ALBERT SEENO CONSTRUCTION VS H. 8:30 HEARING ON OSC RE: DISMISSAL FOR FAILURE TO RSP TO OSC, FILE (. CMC STMNT, SERV DEFTS/PROSECUTE CASE).
California Corporation and A.D. SEENO. CONSTRUCTION CO.,. Cross-Complainants, vs. ALLSTATE CONTRACT FLOORS, INC., a. California Corporation, et al.,.
Oct 13, 2017 — Defendant Seeno Enterprises LLC demurs to the third and sixth causes of action in plaintiffs'. Second Amended Complaint (SAC), asserted ...
27 pages
California Corporation, A.D. SEENO. CONSTRUCTION CO., a California Limited. Partnership; and DOES 1-500 inclusive,. Defendants,. CASE NO. C08-00776.
California Corporation, A.D. SEENO. CONSTRUCTION CO., a California Limited. Partnership; and DOES 1-500 inclusive,. Defendants,. CASE NO. C08-00775.
Mar 25, 2008 — California Corporation, A.D. SEENO. CONSTRUCTION CO., a California Limited. Partnership, and DOES 1 through 500, inclusive, wwwwwwwwwwwww.
California corporation, ALBERT D, SEENO) DEPOSITORY. CONSTRUCTION CO., INC., a California corporation, and DOES 1 through 500, inclusive,. LIS. Defendants.
Mar 25, 2008 — and Defendants/Cross-Complainants WEST COAST HOME BUILDERS, INC. and A.D. SEENO. CONSTRUCTION CO. and that CLYDE MILES CONSTRUCTION, ...
Aug 20, 2009 — California corporation, ALBERT D. SEENO inclusive, w wwwwwwwww. Defendants. AND RELATED CROSS-ACTIONS. 20 TO THE COURT AND TO ALL PARTIES ...
Mar 25, 2008 — California Corporation ALBERT D. SEENO. CONSTRUCTION CO., INC., a California. Corporation, and DOES 1 through 500, inclusive,.
California Corporation, A.D. SEENO. CONSTRUCTION CO., a California Limited. Partnership; and DOES 1-500, inclusive,. Defendants. AND RELATED CROSS-ACTIONS.
Mar 29, 2019 — Albert D. Seeno Construction Co. (1992). 11 Cal.App.4th 1059, 1067-70; Williams v. Braslow (1986) 179 Cal.App.3d 762, 774.).
Apr 21, 2021 — CASE NAME: RAHMANY VS SEENO CONSTRUCTION. HEARING ON MOTION TO/FOR LEAVE TO FILE 1ST AMENDMENT TO. COMPLAINT FILED BY NAJIB RAHMANY.
Jun 21, 2021 — Albert D. Seeno Construction Co. (1992). 11 Cal.App.4th 1059, 1069; Atkinson v. Elk Corp. (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 739, 760-761.).
Aug 31, 2017 — BUILDERS, INC, ALBERT D. SEENO CONSTRUCTION CO., ALBERT D SEENO. * TENTATIVE RULING: *. As previously discussed with all counsel, ...
You've visited this page 2 times. Last visit: 10/28/21
Jun 23, 2017 — SEENO ENTERPRISES. HEARING ON MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE 2nd Amended COMPLAINT. FILED BY LIPING NI, SHARON LI, JASON LI. * TENTATIVE RULING: *.
Jul 25, 2019 — Seeno Const. Co. (1992) 11 Cal.App.4th 1059, 1068. The First Amended Complaint shall be filed and served by August 15, ...
Nov 14, 2018 — Albert D. Seeno Construction Co. (1992) 11. Cal.App.4th 1059, 1069 (permitting an amendment even after a grant of summary judgment);.
Aug 29, 2019 — several Seeno related entities up to 2015 when the “Seeno Team” of attorneys split off from the firm. During that time two of the five ...
Nov 4, 2020 — Albert D. Seeno. Construction Co. (1993) 11 Cal.App.4th 1059, 1066-1067 (“Summary judgment is . . . inappropriate where the opposing party
Share:

Anchor links for post titles

Popular Posts

Blog Archive

Labels

Recent Posts

Popular Posts

Labels

Recent Posts

Pages

Labels

Blog Archive

Recent Posts