Skip to main content

HEDGE FUND MANAGER PLEADS GUILTY TO DEFRAUDING FAMILY AND FRIENDS OF MORE THAN $2 MILLION

Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., today announced the guilty plea of CHRISTOPHER VULLIEZ, 37, for running a scheme that resulted in thefts totaling in excess of $2 million from approximately a dozen victims. VULLIEZ pleaded guilty to seven counts of Grand Larceny in the Second Degree, six counts of Grand Larceny in the Third Degree, one count of Scheme to Defraud in the First Degree, and ten counts of felony violations of the Martin Act (the New York State securities fraud law). VULLIEZ will also forfeit approximately $2.2 million, which will be distributed to victims.

“The defendant abused his status as a hedge fund manager to steal from his friends and family, reminding us how vulnerable we all are to those intent on crime, even those in our inner circles,” said District Attorney Vance. “This case once again demonstrates the need to enhance the Martin Act, so that law enforcement authorities can more aggressively prosecute white collar crimes.”

According to documents filed in court and VULLIEZ’S plea allocution, VULLIEZ received funds from approximately a dozen friends and family members, who he had asked to invest in particularized securities, and solicited other individuals to lend money to him based on his claimed personal circumstances. VULLIEZ represented that he would be investing his investors’ money in specific, promising new businesses. At the time he made these representations, he did not intend to make such investments, and in fact, VULLIEZ never did so.

Additionally, to persuade individuals to lend him money, the defendant made numerous intentionally false statements and promises, telling certain lenders that he had sufficient assets to cover the loan money but that his assets were temporarily frozen due to divorce litigation. At the time he made these representations, there was no divorce litigation and no frozen assets. Instead of using the investors’ and lenders’ money in the way he represented, VULLIEZ re-directed their money to a company called EatStrong and to cover defendant’s other unauthorized business and personal expenses.

In September, the District Attorney’s Office also entered into a settlement agreement in a related civil asset forfeiture case against an individual who will disgorge approximately $1 million that she received from VULLIEZ traceable to these crimes.

District Attorney Vance thanked Assistant District Attorney Vimi Bhatia of the Major Economic Crimes Bureau, who handled the case under the supervision of Deputy Bureau Chief Micki Shulman and Bureau Chief Richard Weber. Trial Preparation Assistants Elah Lanis and Marisa Calleja assisted in the investigation, as did Investigator Louis Capolupo of the District Attorney’s Office’s Investigations Bureau, who assisted in this case under the supervision of Chief Investigator John Bilich. District Attorney Vance also thanked Assistant District Attorneys Tara Miner and Duncan Levin, Chief of the Asset Forfeiture Unit, who handled the asset forfeiture aspects of the case.

District Attorney Vance also thanked the United States Securities and Exchange Commission, New York Regional Office, for its participation and support in a parallel civil investigation.


Defendant Information:

CHRISTOPHER VULLIEZ, D.O.B. 4/24/73
New York, NY

Convicted:

Grand Larceny in the Second Degree, Class C felony, 7 counts
Grand Larceny in the Third Degree, Class D felony, 6 counts
Scheme to Defraud in the First Degree, Class E felony, 1 count
General Business Law Section 352-c(6) - “Securities Fraud,” Class E felony, 10 counts

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 ...