Morrow, Ohio-based third-party plan administrator pleads guilty to embezzlement of $1 million from retirement plan clients

CINCINNATI — The third-party administrator to 56 employee benefit plans — most covered by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act — located throughout Ohio and several other states pleaded guilty to one count of embezzlement of $1 million in assets from 12 retirement plans.

The additional locations of the plans are Beth Park and Ford City, Pa.; South Plainfield, N.J.; Waltham, Mass.; Anderson, Ind.; Saco, Maine; and Orange Beach, Ala.

Rhonda Sue Irvin Cox, owner of Irvin Administrative Solutions LLC, embezzled the assets from the plans between January 2003 and April 2007 while serving as their administrator. Cox also pleaded guilty to one count of making false statements in documents required under ERISA to be kept and certified by the plans' administrator.

When sentenced, she faces a maximum of five years in prison on each criminal count, a $250,000 fine and a special assessment. Cox is scheduled to be sentenced on June 1, 2011.

"This defendant's theft of employee benefit assets jeopardized the retirement security of workers covered by these plans. This crime is particularly egregious in light of the duty of plan officials and service providers to protect plan assets from abuse," said Phyllis C. Borzi, assistant secretary of the Labor Department's Employee Benefits Security Administration.

This case was investigated by EBSA's Cincinnati Regional Office with assistance from the Warren County Sherriff's Department and was prosecuted by the U.S. Attorney's Office in Cincinnati.

U.S. v. Cox
Criminal Number 1:10CR094

Comments

15 Gang Members Convicted on Conspiracy, Weapons Possession, Firearms Trafficking Charges Case Follows Recent Convictions of 137th Street Crew and East Harlem Narcotics Trafficking Organization

Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., announced the results of the investigation and prosecution of one of Central Harlem’s most destructive criminal street gangs, referred to as “ONE TWENTY-NINE” or “GOODFELLAS/THE NEW DONS,” which terrorized the neighborhood surrounding West 129th Street between Lenox and Fifth Avenues. Thirteen members of the gang have previously pleaded guilty to importing, possessing, and using firearms over the course of the conspiracy.

The Myth, The Matrix, and The Malpractice: Unpacking the Sophia Stewart Saga

The internet loves a good underdog story, especially one where a lone creator battles Hollywood giants. Few tales have captivated online forums and social media quite like that of Sophia Stewart, the woman who famously sued the creators of The Matrix and The Terminator, claiming they stole her work, "The Third Eye." Her story is a complex tapestry woven with claims of stolen genius, judicial conflicts, and attorney negligence. Let's untangle the legal facts from the compelling narrative and examine the heart of her claims. The Core Allegation: "The Third Eye" and the Blockbusters Sophia Stewart alleged that her copyrighted manuscript, "The Third Eye," conceived in 1981 and finalized in 1983, was the blueprint for two of the most iconic sci-fi franchises: The Terminator (first film 1984) and The Matrix (first film 1999). From her perspective, the similarities were undeniable. Stewart’s supporters often point to broad, impactful themes and ev...

Charlie Kirk Was Right, and Charlie Kirk Was Wrong: The Enduring Legacy of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

Charlie Kirk, a prominent conservative commentator, has argued that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was unnecessary, contending that the 14th Amendment should have been sufficient to guarantee equal rights. There's a compelling argument to be made for both sides of this statement. Let's break down where Kirk was right and, more importantly, where historical context reveals he was profoundly wrong. Where Charlie Kirk Was "Right" (In Theory) Kirk's theoretical point hinges on the idea that fundamental constitutional principles, if interpreted and enforced correctly, should have negated the need for additional legislation. And, in a perfect world, he would be correct. The 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, explicitly states that "no State shall... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." The intent was to ensure all citizens, particularly newly freed African Americans, were treated equally under the law. If this ...

New York Paralegal Blog

Search This Blog