IBJNews

Judge refuses to unseal Fair Finance search warrants

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A federal judge in Ohio on Tuesday rejected a motion filed by IBJ and other newspapers seeking to unseal search warrant documents related to the federal criminal investigation of Indianapolis businessman Tim Durham and Akron-based Fair Finance Co.

IBJ, The Wall Street Journal, The Akron Beacon Journal and The Indianapolis Star late last year launched the court battle to unseal the documents. They argued that making them public would provide “transparency” to Fair’s investors and was justified under the First Amendment and common law.

But in a nine-page opinion, Judge Sara Lioi of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio ruled the right of access to search warrant records connected with an ongoing investigation is “not absolute” and was not justified in this case.

“In view of the fact that the government’s investigation is ongoing, unsealing the relevant records, especially the detailed affidavit in support of the search warrant ... would reveal a virtual ‘road map’ of the government’s investigation, investigative techniques and the information derived therefrom, the identities of sources and potential targets of the investigation, and an impression (possibly mistaken) concerning who may or may not be cooperating with the government,” she wrote.

The probe has been public since Nov. 24, when FBI agents executed search warrants at Durham’s Indianapolis office and at Fair’s headquarters. Agents hauled away computer equipment and bankers boxes full of documents. Fair never reopened after the raid, and now is in bankruptcy liquidation.

Court papers filed by the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Indianapolis on Nov. 24 allege Fair operated as a Ponzi scheme, using money from new investors to pay what it owed prior investors, thereby “lulling the earlier victims into believing that their money was being [handled] responsibly.”

The raids occurred one month after IBJ published an investigative story that raised questions about whether Fair had the financial wherewithal to repay Ohio investors who had purchased more than $200 million in unsecured investment certificates.

The story reported that, since Durham bought the consumer-loan business in 2002, he had used it almost like a personal bank to fund a range of business interests, many of them unsuccessful. The story noted that he and related parties owe Fair more than $168 million.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

  • re
    I don't think this judge is covering up anything. I think she is right protecting the warrants so justice can be served.
  • Special Interests
    Wonder whose special interests this judge is covering up for?
  • Clues
    I heard Judge Sara was caught laughing in chambers. Among items found on the search list was:

    "Identify one man besides Tim Durham in the group of crooks who is taller than 5'7."

    Clouseau: Now, this time *I'm* going to stand on *your* shoulders!

    Carl: What good will that do?

    Clouseau: Because I'm taller than you are, you are, you fool!

    PS, None of this is funny, Carlito. Stealing from the elderly does not bode well for a future career in anything except cleaning toilets. Make sure you let your buddies know that the next time you saunter out to L.A. or use that secret phone you think no one knows about.

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
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
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. I'm a CPA who works with a wide range of companies (through my firm K.B.Parrish & Co.); however, we work with quite a few car dealerships, so I'm fairly interested in Fatwin (mentioned in the article). Does anyone have much information on that, or a link to such information? Thanks.

  2. Historically high long-term unemployment, unprecedented labor market slack and the loss of human capital should not be accepted as "the economy at work [and] what is supposed to happen" and is certainly not raising wages in Indiana. See Chicago Fed Reserve: goo.gl/IJ4JhQ Also, here's our research on Work Sharing and our support testimony at yesterday's hearing: goo.gl/NhC9W4

  3. I am always curious why teachers don't believe in accountability. It's the only profession in the world that things they are better than everyone else. It's really a shame.

  4. It's not often in Indiana that people from both major political parties and from both labor and business groups come together to endorse a proposal. I really think this is going to help create a more flexible labor force, which is what businesses claim to need, while also reducing outright layoffs, and mitigating the impact of salary/wage reductions, both of which have been highlighted as important issues affecting Hoosier workers. Like many other public policies, I'm sure that this one will, over time, be tweaked and changed as needed to meet Indiana's needs. But when you have such broad agreement, why not give this a try?

  5. I could not agree more with Ben's statement. Every time I look at my unemployment insurance rate, "irritated" hardly describes my sentiment. We are talking about a surplus of funds, and possibly refunding that, why, so we can say we did it and get a notch in our political belt? This is real money, to real companies, large and small. The impact is felt across the board; in the spending of the company, the hiring (or lack thereof due to higher insurance costs), as well as in the personal spending of the owners of a smaller company.

ADVERTISEMENT