Former bank exec receives 22-month sentence

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A former executive of Old National Bancorp was sentenced in federal court Thursday to 22 months in prison after he pleaded guilty to charges of making fraudulent bank entries.

Greenwood resident Robert E. Tolle, 40, served as a loan officer and executive vice president at the Indianapolis office of the Evansville-based Old National.

He admitted to creating a fake project-inspection report in late 2007 in an attempt to prevent Old National from reviewing or downgrading a $2.8 million real estate loan.

By committing the fraud, Tolle enhanced his financial position and compensation potential at the bank, the U.S. Attorney’s office for the Southern District of Indiana said in a statement.

Bank officials in 2008 said they began scrutinizing Tolle’s portfolio early that year after several of his loans deteriorated. They said they initially found the forged inspection report and later unearthed other misconduct, such as faked signatures, that hindered Old National’s ability to seize collateral in the event loans soured.

The bank in the first half of 2008 charged off $13.9 million related to what it called “the fraud-related incident.”

Tolle submitted a plea agreement in federal court in Indianapolis in July admitting guilt to one felony count of creating a false bank entry. The charge carried a maximum sentence of 30 years in prison and a $1 million fine.

The agreement, which requires court approval, stipulated that Tolle receive credit under sentencing guidelines for accepting responsibility and that the government not bring additional charges related to his fraud.

Besides the prison sentence, Judge Tonya Walton Pratt also imposed restitution of $120,001 and three years court supervision following his release.


Post a comment to this story

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. John, unfortunately CTRWD wants to put the tank(s) right next to a nature preserve and at the southern entrance to Carmel off of Keystone. Not exactly the kind of message you want to send to residents and visitors (come see our tanks as you enter our city and we build stuff in nature preserves...

  2. 85 feet for an ambitious project? I could shoot ej*culate farther than that.

  3. I tried, can't take it anymore. Untill Katz is replaced I can't listen anymore.

  4. Perhaps, but they've had a very active program to reduce rainwater/sump pump inflows for a number of years. But you are correct that controlling these peak flows will require spending more money - surge tanks, lines or removing storm water inflow at the source.

  5. All sewage goes to the Carmel treatment plant on the White River at 96th St. Rainfall should not affect sewage flows, but somehow it does - and the increased rate is more than the plant can handle a few times each year. One big source is typically homeowners who have their sump pumps connect into the sanitary sewer line rather than to the storm sewer line or yard. So we (Carmel and Clay Twp) need someway to hold the excess flow for a few days until the plant can process this material. Carmel wants the surge tank located at the treatment plant but than means an expensive underground line has to be installed through residential areas while CTRWD wants the surge tank located further 'upstream' from the treatment plant which costs less. Either solution works from an environmental control perspective. The less expensive solution means some people would likely have an unsightly tank near them. Carmel wants the more expensive solution - surprise!