Skip to main content

Former CEO and President of Wextrust Capital Sentenced in Manhattan Federal Court to 160 Months in Prison for Real Estate Investment Fraud Scheme

PREET BHARARA, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, announced that STEVEN BYERS, the former president and chief executive officer of the private equity firm WexTrust Capital, LLC (“WexTrust Capital”), was sentenced today to 160 months in prison on charges stemming from a fraud that raised more than $9 million from investors in private placement real estate offerings. BYERS, 48, was sentenced in Manhattan federal court by U.S. Court of Appeals Judge DENNY CHIN.

Manhattan U.S. Attorney PREET BHARARA said: “Steven Byers used smoke and mirrors to defraud his investors out of millions of dollars. But his scheme was ultimately exposed for the sham that it was, and now he will be punished severely for his crimes.”

According to the indictment and other documents previously filed in Manhattan federal court:

From 2003 to 2008, WexTrust Capital was a globally diversified private equity company specializing in investments in real estate and specialty finance opportunities. It was affiliated with several companies of a similar name, including WexTrust Securities, LLC, a broker-dealer registered with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”).

Beginning in 2003, BYERS, along with co-defendant JOSEPH SHERESHEVSKY and others, raised money from investors pursuant to private placement offerings, and then used material amounts of that money for other purposes without disclosing the diversion of funds to investors. In one such private placement, BYERS and others raised approximately $9.2 million in investor funds by representing that the funds would be used to purchase and operate seven commercial properties that were leased to the United States General Services Administration (“GSA”). According to the GSA private placement memorandum issued to investors by WexTrust Capital, the $9.2 million raised from investors, together with a mortgage of approximately $21 million, would be used to purchase the seven GSA properties and cover related acquisition expenses. The seven GSA properties, however, were never purchased. Instead, funds raised from investors were diverted for other purposes, none of which was disclosed to investors. BYERS and others later agreed to make up a story that they would then tell the GSA investors regarding what happened to their investment.

* * *

BYERS, of Oakbrook, Illinois, previously pled guilty to conspiracy to commit securities fraud and securities fraud. In addition to his prison term, Judge CHIN sentenced BYERS to three years of supervised release and ordered him to pay $7,700,630.35 in restitution and to forfeit $9.2 million in proceeds from his crimes.

BYERS’ co-defendant, JOSEPH SHERESHEVSKY, 54, of Brooklyn, New York, and Norfolk, Virginia, pled guilty to similar charges on February 3, 2011, and is scheduled to be sentenced on May 13, 2011, at 10:30 a.m., before Judge CHIN.

Mr. BHARARA praised the work of the Federal Bureau of Investigation in this case. Mr. BHARARA also thanked the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for its assistance in the investigation.

This case was brought in coordination with President BARACK OBAMA’s Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force, on which Mr. BHARARA serves as a co-chair of the Securities and Commodities Fraud Working Group. President OBAMA established the interagency Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force to wage an aggressive, coordinated, and proactive effort to investigate and prosecute financial crimes. The task force includes representatives from a broad range of federal agencies, regulatory authorities, inspectors general, and state and local law enforcement who, working together, bring to bear a powerful array of criminal and civil enforcement resources. The task force is working to improve efforts across the federal executive branch, and with state and local partners, to investigate and prosecute significant financial crimes, ensure just and effective punishment for those who perpetrate financial crimes, combat discrimination in the lending and financial markets, and recover proceeds for victims of financial crimes.

Assistant United States Attorneys VIRGINIA CHAVEZ ROMANO and JILLIAN B. BERMAN are in charge of the prosecution.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

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 ...