Donald Fair leads off government's case against financier Durham

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The man whose father founded Ohio-based Fair Finance during the Great Depression led off the federal government's case Monday against the Indianapolis men accused of looting the company and leaving its investors with $200 million in losses.

In testimony in U.S. District Court, Donald Fair said financier Tim Durham changed how Fair did business soon after he paid $20 million for the company in 2001.

Fair, 86, said he grew concerned when the new owners stopped using outside accountants, began making large investments in Durham-affiliated businesses, and started offering "higher rates of interest than I ever could imagine offering myself."

Under Durham's ownership, Fair ballooned in size from $50 million to $200 million before winding up in bankruptcy. Federal prosecutors allege Durham and co-defendants Jim Cochran and Rick Snow ran Fair as a Ponzi scheme that left about 5,000 mostly elderly Ohio investors with huge losses.

"It's been destroyed," said Fair, 86, of the company his father founded in 1934 to provide loans so workers could buy dump trucks and participate in Works Progress Administration projects. "If I may say, it seems to me they just screwed the company into the ground."

The testimony from Fair followed opening statements in which a prosecutor described Durham's stewardship of Fair as a "massive fraud scheme." But Durham defense attorney John Tompkins said what happened was "panic, fear, and bad decisions" following the onset of the 2008 financial crisis.

Tim Durham trial Day 1Testimony in Tim Durham's federal fraud trial began Monday. (Sketch / Tina Hansford)

"There is no massive scheme," Tompkins argued. "There is an attempt to make these businesses last through the financial catastrophe they were facing. Bad business judgment is not fraud, either."

Tompkins said the government intends to build its case around selective recordings from a wire tap that make Durham and his co-defendants look guilty.

Federal prosecutor Henry Van Dyck, who gave the government's opening statement, said Durham and his partners turned what had been a "straightforward" business involving consumer loans into a risky one lending money to floundering companies, all while diverting investor money to cover casino gambling tabs, mortgage payments and country club memberships.

When two sets of auditors in succession expressed concerns, Durham fired them. He also instructed Fair employees to lie to investors, Van Dyck said.

"During this trial, the government is going to take you inside a massive fraud scheme" perpetrated by defendants who told "lie after lie after lie," Van Dyck said. "You as members of the jury are going to hear the defendants' voices discussing a crime, when they didn't know anyone was listening."

Van Dyck said while Durham was hiding big losses and making loans to himself, his friends and family, the small investors in Ohio didn't know Fair's business had changed.

The scheme began to come apart when the state of Ohio didn't approve the company's request in late 2009 to sell another $250 million in investment certificates. Van Dyck also cited an IBJ story detailing the glut of insider loans at Fair Finance as a factor in the discovery of the fraud.

"When the music stopped and Fair Finance closed its doors, the defendants owed investors $200 million," he said.

Durham and his partners each face up to 20 years in prison for each wire fraud count, 20 years for the securities fraud count and five years for the conspiracy charge.

Durham has been under house arrest since his March 2011 indictment. The trial is expected to last three weeks.

For all of IBJ's coverage of Fair Finance and Durham, click here.


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. By Mr. Lee's own admission, he basically ran pro-bono ads on the billboard. Paying advertisers didn't want ads on a controversial, ugly billboard that turned off customers. At least one of Mr. Lee's free advertisers dropped out early because they found that Mr. Lee's advertising was having negative impact. So Mr. Lee is disingenous to say the city now owes him for lost revenue. Mr. Lee quickly realized his monstrosity had a dim future and is trying to get the city to bail him out. And that's why the billboard came down so quickly.

  2. Merchants Square is back. The small strip center to the south of 116th is 100% leased, McAlister’s is doing well in the outlot building. The former O’Charleys is leased but is going through permitting with the State and the town of Carmel. Mac Grill is closing all of their Indy locations (not just Merchants) and this will allow for a new restaurant concept to backfill both of their locations. As for the north side of 116th a new dinner movie theater and brewery is under construction to fill most of the vacancy left by Hobby Lobby and Old Navy.

  3. Yes it does have an ethics commission which enforce the law which prohibits 12 specific items. google it

  4. Thanks for reading and replying. If you want to see the differentiation for research, speaking and consulting, check out the spreadsheet I linked to at the bottom of the post; it is broken out exactly that way. I can only include so much detail in a blog post before it becomes something other than a blog post.

  5. 1. There is no allegation of corruption, Marty, to imply otherwise if false. 2. Is the "State Rule" a law? I suspect not. 3. Is Mr. Woodruff obligated via an employment agreement (contractual obligation) to not work with the engineering firm? 4. In many states a right to earn a living will trump non-competes and other contractual obligations, does Mr. Woodruff's personal right to earn a living trump any contractual obligations that might or might not be out there. 5. Lawyers in state government routinely go work for law firms they were formally working with in their regulatory actions. You can see a steady stream to firms like B&D from state government. It would be interesting for IBJ to do a review of current lawyers and find out how their past decisions affected the law firms clients. Since there is a buffer between regulated company and the regulator working for a law firm technically is not in violation of ethics but you have to wonder if decisions were made in favor of certain firms and quid pro quo jobs resulted. Start with the DOI in this review. Very interesting.