Jona Rechnitz Owes COBA $12M
Judge Said after Inner City Press Filed to
Unseal Dubai OKd
By Matthew
Russell Lee, Patreon Thread Letter
BBC
- Guardian
UK - Honduras
- Podcast Vlog
SDNY COURTHOUSE,
Oct 13 – When government
cooperator Jona Rechnitz came
up for sentencing for
defrauding among others the
NYC Correction Officers'
annuity fund on December 19,
2019 before U.S. District
Court for the Southern
District of New York Judge
Alvin K. Hellerstein,
Assistant US Attorney Martin
Bell urged
leniency.
Bell said that so
that Rechnitz can continue to
pay restitution, he should
remain free in order to keep
selling jewelry to the
Kardashians.
In
February 2020 Rechnitz was
sued in California for fraud.
Inner City Press published the
complaint on Scribd here,
and for download on Patreon here.
On August
3, 2021 Judge Hellerstein held
another proceeding on
Rechnitz, expressed his
concern at having been
"conned" about Rechnitz'
resources, with a letter about
diamonds and a Bugatti cited
but not public, having been
submitted under seal - by the
prosecutors.
Inner City Press
filed to unseal, here.
On October 12,
2022, Rechnitz' counsel asked
Judge Hellerstein for
permission for Rechnitz to
travel to Dubai in the United
Arab Emirates (UAE), saying it
could help him pay back COBA.
On October 13, it
was OK-ed: "MEMO ENDORSEMENT
granting [178] CONSENT LETTER
MOTION filed by Jona Rechnitz
(1), addressed to Judge Alvin
K. Hellerstein from Attorneys
Michael Tremonte/Noam Biale
dated 10/12/22 re: Motion to
Travel.... We write on behalf
of our client, Jona Rechnitz,
to respectfully request that
the Court authorize Mr.
Rechnitz to travel to Dubai on
business between November 7
and November 17, 2022.
ENDORSEMENT: So Ordered.
(Signed by Judge Alvin K.
Hellerstein on 10/13/2022).
This at the same time Tom
Barrack is on trial in EDNY as
being an illegal agent of the
UAE. Watch this site.
Back on November
9, this: "OPINION & ORDER
GRANTING MOTION FOR
RESTITUTION as to Jona
Rechnitz. The New York City
Correction Officers'
Benevolent Association, Inc.
("COBA") moves for restitution
under the Crime Victims'
Rights Act ("CVRA"), 18 U.S.C.
§ 3771, seeking the immediate
payment of COBA's unpaid loss,
approximately $14 million.(See
Footnote 1 on this Opinion
& Order). See ECF No. 81.
Rechnitz's appeal from his
sentence was pending at the
time the motion was filed, and
I ruled that I had been
divested of jurisdiction to
rule on the motion. See ECF
No. 90. COBA petitioned the
Second Circuit to issue a writ
of mandamus to allow me to
consider its motion, and its
petition was granted. The
Second Circuit returned
jurisdiction to the district
court with a mandate to
"reconsider its assessment of
[Rechnitz]'s culpability and
financial conditions in light
of the new evidence presented
by [COBA] and any other
[relevant] factors." Mandate
(ECF No. 104) at 2. Rechnitz
then petitioned the Second
Circuit to order that COBA's
motion be heard by a different
judge and to reverse my ruling
refusing to give confidential
treatment to the details of
financial contributions to
Rechnitz by his family and
friends. See ECF No. 134. The
Second Circuit denied
Rechnitz's motion to transfer
the case to a different judge
but granted his motion for
confidential treatment. See
ECF No. 145. Pursuant to the
Mandate of the Second Circuit,
I have reconsidered my
assessment of Rechnitz's
culpability and financial
condition. I grant COBA's
motion for full restitution.
Since a reliable picture of
Rechnitz's financial condition
remains elusive and prevents
me from imposing a rational
payments schedule, judgment
may now be entered in favor of
COBA and against Rechnitz in
the full amount of COBA's
remaining loss, $12.01
million.... CONCLUSION: The
Court has reconsidered its
assessment of Rechnitz's
culpability and financial
conditions pursuant to the
Second Circuit's mandate. For
the foregoing reasons, COBA's
motion is granted, and it
shall have judgment against
Rechnitz in the amount of $12
million. SO ORDERED. (Signed
by Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein
on 11/9/2021)."
Back on August
11, the US Attorney's Office
doubled down in requesting
sealing for an unnamed
investigation: "Re: United
States v. Jona Rechnitz, 16
Cr. 389 (AKH) Dear Judge
Hellerstein: The Government
writes in response to the
August 3, 2021 letter
submitted to the Court
by email by Matthew
Russell Lee of Inner City
Press requesting that the
Court unseal a letter
submitted by the Government ex
parte and under seal to which
defense counsel referred
during the proceedings
on August 3, 2021. The
Government has submitted ex
parte and sealed
correspondence with the Court
concerning an ongoing
investigation by the Federal
Bureau of Investigation
in Los Angeles and the U.S.
Attorney’s Office for the
Central District of
California for conduct
unrelated to the defendant’s
prosecution or cooperation in
this District. Because the
Government understands that
the California
Investigation is
ongoing, the Government
respectfully submits that the
correspondence should remain
under seal. See United
States v. Smith, 985 F. Supp.
2d 506, 531 (S.D.N.Y. 2013)."
Now on the
morning of August 12 Inner
City Press has replied:
"the Smith
case then cited concerned
discovery, and stated that
'the Government has the burden
of demonstrating, and not just
alleging, that public
disclosure of the Rule 16
materials in this case could
jeopardize ongoing
investigations.'
In this case, the
government has merely alleged
the claimed
jeopardy.
While not conceding that a
judicial document in this
case, on which the government
is asking this Court to reply,
can be withheld, it is
impossible to believe that the
entirety of the letter would
have to be withheld, even if
one balances the government's
stated interest for another
Office with its duties in this
case / Court. See,
generally on segregability, this
And see Judge Furman's recent
decision that redactions after
his grant of Inner City Press
request to unseal in US v.
Avenatti, 19-cr-374 (JMF),
Docket No. 134 were too
extensive and the information
should be made available.
Docket 140: "The Court is
unpersuaded that privacy
interests justify redacting
the names and locations of the
corporate entities in
Paragraphs 14, 15, and 17 of
ECF No. 139-1."
Please confirm receipt of and
docket this application (the
undersigned cannot for now
file on ECF)." [So, reply on
DocumentCloud here.]
Inner City Press
may have more on all this -
for now, the August 3 thread
is
here: (and podcast here)
Briber/cooperator
Jonah Rechnitz had been
ordered to pay restitution to
COBA of $500,000 a year. But
then he whipped out $7 million
in diamond. So today,
@SDNYLIVE Judge is
moving toward ordering him to
pay $7 million, then $250,000
a quarter.
Judge
Hellerstein: Mr. Rechnitz pays
$17,000 a month in rent... How
does he have a Bugatti? It's
very dis-spiriting. He told me
he would be a different
person. But it seems he's the
same. He conned me.
Judge
Hellerstein: I've had to
rethink these criteria, and
come up with a solution that
gives a chunk of money to COBA
presently, has an adequate
installment period beyond
that, and perhaps gives
discovery rights to COBA.
[Lawyer tries to cut in]
Defense
lawyer Noam Biale: The US made
a sealed filing about the
diamonds & the Bugatti,
refer back to that.
[Inner City
Press: Why sealed? By the US?]
Judge
Hellerstein: If I give it to
you, I'll have to give to
[COBA].
Defense: Let me
take that up with AUSA.
Defense:
Let me take that up with AUSA
Pomerantz. Mr. Rechnitz cannot
afford the payment schedule
your Honor previously imposed.
We'll write to your honor.
[So now has
Inner City Press - see
DocumentCloud here.]
Back on
August 7, 2020 the Correction
Officers' Benevolent
Association COBA submitted a
motion for $14.01 million of
restitution from the Crime
Victims Rights Act.
On January
4, 2021 COBO has written to
Judge Hellerstein citing
information from a California
bankruptcy proceeding, quoting
the Trustee that Jadelle
Jewerly's Wells Fargo account
between 2018 and October 2020
"sent wire transfers of
$2,329,500 to accounts held a
Signature Bank in the names of
Jona Rechnitz and JSR Capital
LLC." COBO is asking for
subpoena power, or the $14.01
million. Watch this site.
The California
complaint recites: "On or
about January 24, 2019, the
Jadelle Entities, which are
owned by Jona and Rachel,
borrowed money from Plaintiff
pursuant to a written
agreement. The terms of the
written agreement were
memorialized in a Debt
Acknowledgment, Promissory
Note and Security Agreement
(“Debt Agreement”) dated March
2019. A true and correct copy
of the Debt Agreement is
attached hereto and
incorporated herein as Exhibit
“A”. 15. The original
principal amount in the Debt
Agreement is $2,850,000 at 9%
interest per month, however,
the total debt owed by
Defendants later increased to
$5,800,000. The maturity dates
are reflected in the Debt
Agreement. 16. Pursuant to the
Debt Agreement, the loans were
secured by jewelry delivered
to Franco and a 2012 Bugatti.
Jona delivered the Bugati and
the jewelry to Franco as
security/collateral for the
loan.
17. After a
series of further advance
transactions, the debt on the
loan grew to $5,800,000. 18.
The Bugati was liquidated and
the funds were credited
against principal for a total
credit of $400,000. 19. As
background on Jona Rechnitz, a
sealed information was filed
against him in the Southern
District of New York on June
6, 2016 for wire fraud. A copy
of the information is attached
hereto as Exhibit “B”. 20.
Jona entered a guilty plea on
June 6, 2016. 21. On March 15,
2017, the information against
Jona was unsealed. On March
15, 2017, Jona was released on
bond pursuant to release
conditions imposed by Judge
Alvin K. Hellerstein. 22. On
December 6, 2019, Jona was
sentenced to 10 months of
custody. He was granted
release pending appeal. 23.
The government in its
sentencing memorandum
indicated that “Rechnitz was
in a position to cooperate
regarding a broad range of
subject matters in part
because, for several years
beginning when he was 26 years
old in 2008, Rechnitz rode a
wave of unbridled ambition and
a seemingly limitless sense of
entitlement through a series
of misdeeds. Rechnitz had been
a brazen criminal, and the
seriousness of his crimes of
conviction cannot, and should
not, be minimized.” 24. Yet,
apparently misunderstanding
his role as a “one of the
single most important and
prolific white collar
cooperating witnesses in the
recent history of the Southern
District of New York”
according to the government,
Jona mistakenly believes that
this provides him immunity
from committing fraud in
California. 25. No sooner than
within weeks of being
sentenced in the Southern
District of New York, Jona
swindled Franco in a large
scale fraud totaling
$5,800,000. On information and
belief, Jona and Rachel have
defrauded other diamond
dealers in Southern California
and as those victims authorize
the release of their names,
the complaint will be amended
to recover their stolen goods
as well.
26. At the
time of the fraud, Jona
Rechnitz was and still is a
convicted felon from the
Southern District of New York.
He is presently out on bond
for a wire fraud conviction
where he was granted bail
pending appeal. He is married
to Rachel Rechnitz and they
have six children together.
27. They both now reside in a
rental home in the Beverlywood
area in the City of Los
Angeles. 28. Jona and Rachel
operate a jewelry business
through two similarly named
entities, defendants Jadelle
Inc. and Jadelle Jewelry and
Diamonds, LLC, herein the
Jadelle Entities, whose marque
client is the Kardashian
family. Each of their clients
will be added to this action
as the facts unfold showing
the stolen collateral was sold
to retail customers of Jona
and Rachel. 29. The Debt
Agreement between the parties
was simple. Jona tendered over
$7,000,000 worth of diamonds
to Plaintiff to be held as a
collateral against a loan
which totaled $5,800,000. 30.
In late December of 2019,
AFTER, Jona was sentenced,
Jona indicated to Franco that
he was going to get a credit
line and asked for the release
of the diamond collateral in
exchange for payment in full.
This representation by Jona
was false when made. Jona knew
the representation was false
when made. Jona made this
representation with the
intention of causing Franco to
rely on it. Franco relied on
this representation to his
detriment. 31. Jona persuaded
Franco and Franco’s brother to
deliver the collateral to Jona
and Rachel’s office at 9454
Wilshire Blvd. in Beverly
Hills. Jona exchanged two
checks payable to Franco in
exchange for the diamond
collateral dated January 14,
2020 and January 16, 2020 in
the amounts of $2,500,000 and
$1,300,000, respectively. True
and correct copies of said
checks are attached hereto as
Exhibit “C.” At the time Jona
issued the checks to Franco he
had no intention of honoring
the checks. Franco relied on
Jona issuing and intending to
honor the checks by releasing
the diamond collateral. 32.
Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s
brother complied by exchanging
the diamond collateral and
Jona tendered two checks
attached hereto as Exhibit
“C”. The checks, however, were
NSF at the time of tender.
Jona has repeatedly lied,
lulled, and attempted to
fabricate one excuse after
another to delay paying
Plaintiff.
33. Based
upon information and belief,
Prado, acting in concert with
Jona and Rachel, and to
further their scheme, had his
girlfriend or another
representative at Wells Fargo
Bank issue a stop payment on
the checks, attached hereto as
Exhibit “C”, that Franco was
going to deposit. 34. Jona
falsely enlisted attorneys to
pretend payment on the loan
was coming from family members
to buy himself more time. A
number of these family members
had written letters to the
Court for Jona’s sentencing.
35. In reality, Jona
liquidated Plaintiff’s diamond
collateral and spent
Plaintiff’s money, but refuses
to tell Plaintiff how he
liquidated the collateral or
how he spent the loan
proceeds. 36. It is apparent
that Jona is continuing his
criminal conduct in California
after being convicted in New
York. 37. Upon realizing he
had been swindled and
defrauded, Franco immediately
filed a police report with the
Beverly Hills Police. 38.
Repeated demands have been
made to Jona to return the
diamond collateral. Jona, who
wants to conceal his criminal
conduct from the sentencing
judge in New York and the
federal prosecutors who
vouched for him, as well as
U.S. Probation, took numerous
steps to lull the victim,
Franco, to buy more time. 39.
On January 16, 2020, with the
assistance of a local Beverly
Hills attorney, Jona drafted
more documents and an
additional check, attached
hereto as Exhibit “D” and
Exhibit “E”, to further stop
Franco from disclosing and
revealing that Jona’s
fraudulent conduct has only
grown in scope and size and
that he has learned nothing
from his life of crime which
spanned from 2011 to 2015,
which then halted while he was
cooperating from 2016 to 2018.
40. The fact that Jona only
received 10 months custody
time with 5 months house
arrest has only emboldened him
to commit more fraud, grand
theft, and to issue worthless
instruments." We'll have more
on this.
Back in
December 2019, Rechnitz
mentioned that he had raised
major funds for the Mayor of
New York City, but it went to
his head.
Rechnitz'
lawyer Alan Levine questioned
why older men like Norman
Seabrook and Murray Huberfeld
would have used the younger
Rechnitz as a "bag man."
Background from Inner City
Press previous stories on
Seabrook here, and Huberfeld
here.
Judge
Hellerstein took a ten minute
break. When he returned, as
live tweeted by Inner
City Press, he said "The
concept of the just punishment
is impossible to achieve.
Nonetheless. I have to punish.
I gave Mr. Seabrook 58 months.
I gave Mr. Huberfeld 30
months. I think the just
punishment here is ten
months."
But that
was not the end, rather a form
of new beginning. Rechnitz'
lawyer Levine first said his
client would only have to
spend five months incarcerated
- then tried to put the number
at one month. He asked for
Lompoc or Taft by Los Angeles,
if it it still open, he said.
More on
Patreon
here.
While AUSA Bell cited the time
service sentence for UN briber
Francis Lorenzo, also subject
to an over-the-top 5K1 letter
from the US Attorney, no one
mentioned for example
cooperated Daniel Hernandez
a/k/a Tekashi 6ix9ine, given
24 months by Judge Engelmayer
just the day before. Nor the
much harsher sentence given
out to other defendants in the
SDNY. We'll have more on this
case. This case is US v.
Rechnitz, 16-cr-389
(Hellerstein)
***
Your
support means a lot. As little as $5 a month
helps keep us going and grants you access to
exclusive bonus material on our Patreon
page. Click
here to become a patron.
Feedback:
Editorial [at] innercitypress.com
SDNY Press Room 480, front cubicle
500 Pearl Street, NY NY 10007 USA
Mail: Box 20047, Dag
Hammarskjold Station NY NY 10017
Reporter's mobile (and weekends):
718-716-3540
Other, earlier Inner City Press are
listed here,
and some are available in the ProQuest
service, and now on Lexis-Nexis.
Copyright 2006-2019 Inner City
Press, Inc. To request reprint or other
permission, e-contact Editorial [at]
innercitypress.com for
|