Skip to main content

Lancaster Attorney ( Kenneth G. Reidenbach) Indicted on Bankruptcy Fraud Charges

Kenneth G. Reidenbach was charged today by superseding indictment with bankruptcy fraud, concealing assets during a bankruptcy proceeding, and embezzling from a bankruptcy estate, announced United States Attorney Zane David Memeger. According to the superseding indictment, Reidenbach, an attorney in Lancaster, represented an individual in a bankruptcy proceeding. Reidenbach counseled the client to place nearly $40,000 in real estate proceeds into a law firm account controlled by Reidenbach and then concealed those proceeds from the bankruptcy court.

The indictment also alleges that Reidenbach falsely represented that he had agreed to receive only $1,500 for representing the client in the bankruptcy proceeding. The original indictment, filed December 9, 2010, charged Reidenbach and co-defendant Herbert P. Henderson, another attorney in Lancaster, with conspiracy to commit bankruptcy fraud and concealing assets in bankruptcy by concealing more than $51,000 of clients’ real estate sales proceeds from the bankruptcy court.

Information Regarding the Defendant
Name: Kenneth G. Reidenbach
Address: Lancaster, Pennsylvania
Age or Year of Birth: 1950

If convicted of the charges in the superseding indictment, Reidenbach faces a maximum possible sentence of 40 years in prison and a fine of $2,000,000.

The case was investigated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and is being prosecuted by Assistant United States Attorney David J. Ignall.

An indictment or information is an accusation. A defendant is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.

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 ...