Mortgage Fraud, a Disbarred Lawyer, His Wife and a Percolatin’ Criminal Plea Deal Before a Wolf

Former Real Estate Attorney and Wife Indicted on Mortgage Fraud and Tax Charges

JULY 28, 2020 | REPUBLISHED BY LIT: DEC 14, 2021

BOSTON – A former Massachusetts attorney and his wife were indicted today in federal court in Boston in connection with various mortgage fraud schemes.

Barry Wayne Plunkett Jr., 60, and Nancy Plunkett, 55, both of Hyannis Port, were indicted on five counts of bank fraud and one count of aggravated identity theft. Barry Wayne Plunkett Jr. was also charged with one count of tax evasion.

According to the indictment, until he was disbarred in October 2017, Barry Wayne Plunkett Jr. owned and operated the Plunkett Law Firm where his wife, Nancy Plunkett, was his office assistant and paralegal.

The indictment alleges that the defendants engaged in several bank fraud schemes. In one scheme, from September 2012 to July 2016, the defendants defrauded six mortgage lenders and 14 homeowners for whom the Plunkett Law Firm handled the closings for new mortgage loans to refinance residential properties.

The defendants informed the mortgage lenders that pre-existing mortgages were paid off from the new loan proceeds when, in fact, the Plunketts intentionally failed to pay off the prior liens and instead converted more than $900,000 in payoff funds for their own purposes.

In other bank fraud schemes – between April 2015 and March 2018 – it is alleged that the Plunketts fraudulently used various names, entities and false documents to obtain three successive mortgage loans on their home in Hyannis Port in amounts of

$412,000,

$470,000

and

$1.2 million.

The defendants pledged as collateral a property in Hyannis Port that was held in a family trust for which Barry Wayne Plunkett Jr. was one of three beneficiaries.

Both defendants participated in providing false documents to the lenders, including false title reports and other records to falsely represent that the property was free and clear of existing mortgage liens and forged documents in the names of other people.

The defendants also allegedly made misrepresentations to a lender that Nancy Plunkett was a single woman living in Wellesley who was purchasing the property in her maiden name as a business investment when, in fact, the defendants had been married since 2014 and the property was their residence.

The charge of bank fraud provides for a sentence of up to 30 years in prison, five years of supervised release and a fine of $250,000.

The charge of tax evasion provides for a sentence of up to five years in prison, three years of supervised release and a fine of $250,000.

The charge of aggravated identity theft provides for a mandatory two-year sentence to be served consecutively to any other sentence imposed. Sentences are imposed by a federal district court judge based upon the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines and other statutory factors.

United States Attorney Andrew E. Lelling; Joseph R. Bonavolonta, Special Agent in Charge of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Boston Field Division; and Kristina O’Connell, Special Agent in Charge of the Internal Revenue Service’s Criminal Investigation in Boston made the announcement today. Assistant U.S. Attorney Victor A. Wild of Lelling’s Securities, Financial & Cyber Fraud Unit is prosecuting the case.

Former Real Estate Attorney and Wife Indicted on Mortgage Fraud and Tax Charges: Barry Wayne Plunkett, Jr., a former Massachusetts attorney, and his wife were indicted in Boston in connection with various mortgage fraud schemes. https://t.co/obnOEnAkLc

— FBI Boston (@FBIBoston) July 29, 2020

In the Matter of Barry Wayne Plunkett, Jr.

33 Mass. Att’y Disc. R. ___ (2017)

NO. BD-2017-096

S.J.C. Judgment of Disbarment entered by Justice Kafker on October 10, 2017, with an effective date of November 9, 2017.

The respondent was disbarred by stipulation for intentional misuse of trust funds with deprivation. While serving as settlement agent on multiple residential real estate transactions, the respondent converted loan proceeds to his personal use.

SUMMARY2

The respondent, Barry W. Plunkett Jr., was disbarred for a pattern of unethical misconduct in a series of real estate transactions. In each, the respondent was the settlement agent responsible for paying off a homeowner’s loan. Rather than doing that, the respondent intentionally misused the payoff monies for his own personal use. The Board of Bar Overseers found that the respondent’s actions violated Mass. R. Prof. C. 1.15 and additional provisions of the Massachusetts Rules of Professional Conduct. His misconduct is summarized below.

The respondent was admitted to the Bar of the Commonwealth on December 20, 1994. At all relevant times, the respondent was a solo practitioner concentrating in real estate closings. Among other things, the respondent acted as settlement agent on behalf of lenders for residential real estate purchases and refinances. He has no history of prior discipline.

The Walpole Refinancing

At the end of 2013, the respondent was the settlement agent for the refinancing of a home in Walpole, Massachusetts. The homeowners were replacing their existing home mortgage loan at Bank of America with a new one at EverBank. It was the respondent’s responsibility to pay off the Bank of America loan with funds provided to him by EverBank. The respondent accordingly received funding for the refinancing from EverBank; he failed, however, to pay off the loan. Instead, he intentionally misused the payoff monies for his own personal use. To avoid detection, over the next fifteen (15) months, the respondent made monthly payments to Bank of America on the loan. Ultimately, in May of 2015, the homeowners learned on their own that the loan remained active. They confronted the respondent, who assured them that there must have been an administrative error at his firm. He promised to make the payoff payment, which he accomplished only after transferring personal funds and funds from family members into one of his firm’s trust accounts. An investigation by bar counsel followed, during which the respondent initially repeated the false representation that the delayed payoff was an administrative error.

The respondent’s intentional misuse of trust funds for his own personal or business purposes with actual deprivation resulting violated Mass. R. Prof. C. 1.15 and 8.4(c) and (h). The respondent’s false representations about his failure to make the timely payoff violated Mass. R. Prof. C. 8.1(a), 8.4(c), (d) and (h).

The Melrose Refinancing

In June of 2014, the respondent was the settlement agent for the refinancing of a home in Melrose, Massachusetts. The homeowners were replacing each of their existing home loans at Cole Taylor Bank and TCF National Bank with a new one at EverBank. It was the respondent’s responsibility to pay off the loans with funds provided to him by EverBank. The respondent accordingly received funding for the refinancing from EverBank; he failed, however, to pay off the loans. Instead, he intentionally misused the payoff monies for his own personal use. To avoid detection, over the next six (6) months, the respondent made monthly payments to Cole Taylor Bank and TCF National Bank. He did not pay off the loans until the end of 2014.

The respondent’s intentional misuse of trust funds for his own personal or business purposes with actual deprivation resulting violated Mass. R. Prof. C. 1.15 and 8.4(c) and (h).

The Ipswich Refinancing

In December of 2014, the respondent was the settlement agent for the refinancing of a home in Ipswich, Massachusetts. The homeowners were replacing each of their existing home loans at Eastern Bank and JP Morgan Chase Bank with a new one at United Bank. It was the respondent’s responsibility to pay off the loans with funds provided to him by United Bank. The respondent accordingly received funding for the refinancing from the bank and paid off the Eastern Bank loan. He did not, however, pay off the loan at JP Morgan Chase. Instead, he intentionally misused the payoff monies for his own personal use. To avoid detection, the respondent made monthly payments to JP Morgan Chase on the loan. During bar counsel’s investigation into the matter, the respondent testified falsely under oath that he had paid off the loan when, in fact, it remained active. He had made no restitution.

The respondent’s intentional misuse of trust funds for his own personal or business purposes with actual deprivation resulting violated Mass. R. Prof. C. 1.15 and 8.4(c) and (h). The respondent’s false representation to bar counsel about paying off the loan violated Mass. R. Prof. C. 8.1(a) and 8.4(c), (d) and (h).

The Needham Refinancing

At the end of 2014, the respondent was the settlement agent for the refinancing of a home in Needham, Massachusetts. The homeowners were replacing their existing home mortgage loan at Cambridge Mortgage Group LLC, a subsidiary of South Shore Bank, with a new one at United Bank. It was the respondent’s responsibility to pay off the loan with funds provided to him by United Bank. The respondent accordingly received funding for the refinancing from United Bank; he failed, however, to pay off the loan. Instead, he intentionally misused the payoff monies for his own personal use. To avoid detection, the respondent made monthly payments to South Shore Bank on the loan. During bar counsel’s investigation into the matter, the respondent testified falsely under oath that he was no longer misusing trust funds from any real estate transactions and that, in particular, he had made all of the necessary payoffs on matters in which he had acted as a settlement agent. In fact, the respondent had not made any restitution in the Needham refinancing matter. The respondent’s intentional misuse of trust funds for his own personal or business purposes with actual deprivation resulting violated Mass. R. Prof. C. 1.15 and 8.4(c) and (h). The respondent’s false representation to bar counsel about no longer misusing trust funds and having made all of the necessary payoffs violated Mass. R. Prof. C. 8.1(a) and 8.4(c), (d) and (h).

Disposition

This matter came before the Board of Bar Overseers on a stipulation filed by the parties in which the respondent acknowledged that the material facts which form the basis of the foregoing allegations and charges could be proved by a preponderance of evidence. The stipulation contained a joint recommendation that the respondent be disbarred from the practice of law. On September 11, 2017, the board accepted the parties’ recommendation and recommended a disbarment to the Supreme Judicial Court. On October 10, 2017, the Court issued a judgment of disbarment, effective thirty (30) days from entry.