>>164685, >>164686, >>164687, >>164689, >>164690, >>164692, >>164694, >>164695, >>164696, >>164698, >>164699, >>164700, >>164702, >>164705, >>164706, >>164708, >>164709, >>164710, >>164711, >>164712, >>164713, >>164714, >>164715, >>164716, >>164717, >>164718, >>164719, >>164720, >>164721, >>164722, >>164723, >>164724, >>164725, >>164726, >>164727, >>164728, >>164729, >>164730, >>164732, >>164734, >>164735, >>164736, >>164737, >>164738, >>164739, >>164740
Sam E. Antar @SamAntar - MAJOR: Independent forensic accountant Tracy Coenen (CPA, CFF) just published her analysis of how to prove intent in the Letitia James mortgage fraud case.
Her conclusion? "The record strongly points to 'yes'" - the evidence shows James intended to deceive.
Read Tracy Coenen's full analysis:
➡
https://www.sequenceinc.com/fraudfiles/proving-intent-in-the-letitia-james-mortgage-fraud-case/
Here's how forensic accountants prove criminal intent:
➡ Coenen:
+ "Usually, intent isn't shown through a single act. It is proven through a pattern of behavior."
+ "Patterns 'tell on' people. They reveal a state of mind."
Coenen identifies four key indicators forensic accountants look for:
1 REPETITION – Multiple instances show conscious acts and knowledge
2 TIMING – When you act matters as much as what you do
3 BENEFIT – Financial gains show motive
4 COVER-UP – Hiding truth after scrutiny signals intent
How does this framework apply to the James case?
Coenen identifies specific red flags that "could be analyzed relative to the Tish James case":