Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

In the Courts

By Juliet Gunev
December 02, 2019

Maryland's Largest Ever Ponzi-Scheme: Kevin Merrill Sentenced to 22 Years in Prison for $396 Million Consumer Debt Fraud

On October 10, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, Kevin Merrill, 54, was sentenced to 22 years in federal prison following his guilty plea to charges of conspiracy and wire fraud in connection with a $396 million investment fraud scheme offering high returns on consumer debt products. He was ordered to pay at least $190 million in restitution by U.S. District Court Judge Richard D. Bennett, with the full amount of the victim's losses to be repaid still to be determined. An order of forfeiture was made, with the exact amount also still to be determined. Merrill's two co-conspirators and his wife have also plead guilty to charges relating to their roles in the scheme and subsequent obstruction of justice.

According to Merrill's plea agreement, the scheme, which operated from 2013 through September 2018, involved the use of fictitious sales agreements and other falsified documents, including quarterly reports and tax returns, provided by a co-conspirator Jay Ledford, 55, to induce investors to invest in consumer debt portfolios with Merrill's companies: Delmarva Capital and Global Credit Recovery. Merrill and Ledford, a certified accountant with offices in Texas, had been long term friends since meeting in 1999 before commencing the scheme in 2013. In the first year of the scheme, Merrill raised over $4 million from investors, far exceeding the $186,000 brought in by Ledford, at which point they agreed that Merrill would assume the "front man" sales role given his superior sales ability. Ledford continued to supply Merrill with the fictitious documents needed to lend credibility to the transactions, eventually bringing in a third co-conspirator in 2017, Cameron Jezierski, 28, to assist.

Merrill, assisted by Ledford and Jezierski, falsely represented to investors that he would use their money to purchase debt portfolios of commensurate value to the investment made before collecting on the debts or "flipping" the portfolios for profit to other third-party debt buyers. In fact, in most cases Merrill did not use the investments to buy any portfolios, did not manage, sell or collect on portfolios, and did not pay net profits back to investors as claimed. The vast majority of the purported "profits" returned to investors were paid from funds provided by other investors. Investors who requested additional due diligence were provided with false collection reports, false bank statements and false merchant account statements.

This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only

  • Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
  • Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
  • Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts

For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473

Read These Next
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws Image

This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.

Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin Image

With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.

The Article 8 Opt In Image

The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.

Removing Restrictive Covenants In New York Image

In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?

Fresh Filings Image

Notable recent court filings in entertainment law.