Thursday, November 07, 2002

Prosecutor details charges against Richard Burrow

The lawyer for the former president of the National D-Day Memorial Foundation said the indictments are flawed and didn't list specific incidents of fraud. didn't list specific incidents of fraud. Because of that, the defense lawyer said Wednesday that th

By JAY CONLEY
THE ROANOKE TIMES

   When Richard Burrow's defense attorney asked a judge last month to dismiss three of four federal fraud charges against the former president of the National D-Day Memorial Foundation because they were too vague, a federal prosecutor offered to provide more specific allegations.

    This week, in a 37-page response, Assistant U.S. Attorney Patrick Hogeboom offered plenty of detail to back up the government's charges against Burrow, which relate to fund raising he spearheaded for the cash-strapped monument in Bedford.

    The allegations cast new light on evidence the government could put forth if the case ever comes to trial.

    According to its filing, the government claims that Burrow:

    Was warned by a bank that his plan to qualify for state matching funds with a short-term bank loan was improper.

    Supplied false information to the D-Day foundation's attorney so that the attorney could convince a bank that such a transaction was proper.

    Forced foundation staff to create a false list of donors in order to qualify for a $1.2 million loan from the Bank of the James.

    Berated a foundation employee who questioned the propriety of the funding scheme.

    The allegations came in response to a motion last month by Burrow's attorney, John Lichtenstein, to dismiss bank, wire and mail fraud charges against Burrow. The government alleges Burrow illegally acquired millions from the commonwealth of Virginia and a bank to build the $25 million monument. Burrow, 55, of Roanoke, also has been charged with loan application fraud. He has denied wrongdoing and pleaded not guilty to all the charges.

    A hearing on Burrow's motion to dismiss the charges is scheduled for Tuesday. Burrows' trial is slated to begin Dec. 9.

    The government's motion is full of biting criticism that portrays Burrow as a methodically calculating fund-raiser who worked hard to circumvent laws and regulations relating to bank loans.

    But, the motion claims, "The most reprehensible aspect of his scheme to defraud was his betrayal of honorable individuals who trusted him with their dreams to build a monument worthy of those who sacrificed much for their country."

    In his motion to dismiss, Lichtenstein argued the charges should be thrown out because they didn't list specific incidents of fraud.

    Because of that, the defense lawyer said Wednesday that the indictments are flawed and should be thrown out on that basis. He said he will argue in court next week that it's too late now for the government to provide specific instances of wrongdoing.

    "The time to be specific is at the time of the indictment," Lichtenstein said. "To respond to our motion to dismiss by responding with facts now is improper."

    Lichtenstein's motion to dismiss argues that Burrow can't be charged with mail or wire fraud because the foundation didn't lose anything tangible through his actions - in other words, it was defrauded of nothing.

    In his response, Hogeboom said that the foundation's reputation is tangible, and that Burrow tainted it by concealing the foundation's growing debt before he resigned in June of last year. A few months later, the foundation announced that it was unable to pay $5 million it owed to the contractors who built the memorial and that it had improperly spent $2 million in donations that were supposed to have been set aside for future projects.

    Because Burrow deprived the foundation of his "honest services ... the foundation is sliding into the abyss of overwhelming debt and the burden of having to explain to potential contributors the cause of their financial problems," Hogeboom wrote.

    Lichtenstein said there was nothing deceptive or illegal about the banking transactions in which Burrow participated , adding that Hogeboom's allegations contained in the response were "absolutely not factually accurate."

    "We don't think anything Richard Burrow did degraded the reputation of the foundation," Lichtenstein said. He said the memorial stands today because of Burrow's involvement and that he at all times had a good working relationship with his employees.

    According to the original indictment, Burrow used e-mails, faxes, phone calls and letters containing "material omissions, false representations and half truths" about the foundation's finances to defraud the commonwealth of Virginia, National Cooperative Bank of California and the Bank of the James in Bedford, as well as an unnamed private donor.

    The indictment also states Burrow used bank loans from National Cooperative Bank to secure $6.5 million in state matching funds appropriated by the General Assembly.

    Part of Burrow's defense to the charges is that he didn't profit personally from any actions he took in fund raising for the memorial.

    That has been a potent argument that has attracted a large cadre of supporters who have contributed more than $100,000 to Burrow's legal defense fund. On Oct. 27, they even held a fund-raising walk-a-thon for the fund.

    Hogeboom, who will prosecute the case, said it doesn't matter whether Burrow profited personally.

    "The fraud statutes were not designed to reward those who are inept at profiting from their scheme," the prosecutor wrote.

Let any elected or appointed official know what you think and how you feel by CLICKING HERE.