Arson Scheme Finally Stopped
Elbert Walker, Jr., and his relatives, Shirley and Darryl Burk, were convicted of one count of conspiracy to commit multiple objects, including arson, bank fraud, mail fraud, wire fraud, bankruptcy fraud, possession of a forged security, and making false declarations in court. Defendant was also charged separately with two counts of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon and one count of possession of a firearm with an obliterated serial. .
In United States Of America v. Elbert Walker, Jr., No. 16-13642, United States Court Of Appeals For The Eleventh Circuit (February 1, 2019) Walker was convicted after a jury found him guilty of:
- conspiracy to commit arson,
- bank fraud,
- mail fraud,
- wire fraud,
- bankruptcy fraud,
- possession of a forged security,
- making false declarations in court,
- two counts of being a felon in possession of a firearm, and
- possession of a firearm with an obliterated serial number.
Conspiracy to Commit Arson
During its case-in-chief, the Government presented evidence of a scheme spanning more than a decade in which Defendant, the Burks, and others conspired to acquire various properties and transfer them among each other, to obtain insurance coverage on the properties, to set fire to the properties, and then to fraudulently make insurance claims and collect money for the fire losses. The evidence indicated that the conspiracy involved five properties, nearly all of which Defendant owned or managed, in Georgia.
Verdict and Post-Trial Motions
Following the Government’s case-in-chief, Defendant moved for a judgment of acquittal on all counts, arguing that insufficient evidence showed that the alleged co-conspirators entered into an agreement, that he was the same individual who was convicted in New Jersey, and that the gun with an obliterated serial number belonged to him.
After the guilty verdict Defendant renewed his motion for a judgment of acquittal. The district court denied the motion in a written order, concluding that the Government’s evidence was sufficient to support the jury’s finding that there was a common purpose among Defendant and the Burks to set fires and fraudulently collect insurance money. The court noted that all of the fires alleged in the indictment followed the same pattern: the owner or tenant obtained insurance; shortly thereafter a fire occurred; and then an insurance loss claim was filed, usually with the same form used in previous fire incidents. The court also found the evidence sufficient to support Defendant’s convictions on the firearms charges.
At sentencing, the court imposed concurrent prison terms of 121 months for the conspiracy charge, 120 months for each of the firearm charges, and 60 months for possession of a firearm with an obliterated serial number.
Under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 29, a district court “must enter a judgment of acquittal of any offense for which the evidence is insufficient to sustain a conviction.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 29(a).
To support a conviction for conspiracy to commit arson, the Government must prove that the defendant conspired to
- maliciously damage or destroy
- by means of a fire or explosive
- a building, vehicle, or other real or personal property, and
- that the property was used in interstate commerce or in an activity affecting interstate commerce.
A conspiracy occurs when two or more individuals agree to commit a crime and the defendant knowingly and voluntarily joins the agreement. The Government may establish a conspiracy through circumstantial evidence.
Specifically, the evidence showed a pattern of conduct between 1996 and 2006, where Defendant, the Burks, or a third party would acquire insurance coverage on a property owned, or recently sold, by Defendant. Shortly thereafter, the property would experience a fire, and Defendant, the Burks, or an insured third party would submit an insurance claim for alleged losses. Expert testimony established that several of these fires were intentionally set, and at least one insurance company denied a claim after reaching the same conclusion.
Given that Defendant and his associates repeatedly employed the same method of defrauding insurance companies the jury reasonably could infer Defendant’s knowing and voluntary participation in an agreement to commit arson.
Because sufficient evidence supported the jury’s finding that Defendant conspired to commit arson, the judgment and sentence were affirmed.
It takes a certain amount of unmitigated gall to appeal a conviction after the state proved multiple acts of arson for profit and insurance fraud and claim that it never happened. What should be amazing to anyone reading about this crime is why it took so long to catch Walker and his co-conspirators who were not even smart enough to try a different method to defraud insurers. They concluded if it worked once it would work again. They were right for at least five different acts of arson for profit and only got caught on the last try because they were greedy. Mrs. Gump was proved right again: “stupid is as stupid does.”
© 2019 – Barry Zalma
This article, and all of the blog posts on this site, digest and summarize cases published by courts of the various states and the United States. The court decisions have been modified from the actual language of the court decisions, were condensed for ease of reading, and convey the opinions of the author regarding each case.
Barry Zalma, Esq., CFE, now limits his practice to service as an insurance consultant specializing in insurance coverage, insurance claims handling, insurance bad faith and insurance fraud almost equally for insurers and policyholders. He also serves as an arbitrator or mediator for insurance related disputes. He practiced law in California for more than 44 years as an insurance coverage and claims handling lawyer and more than 50 years in the insurance business. He is available at http://www.zalma.com and email@example.com.
Mr. Zalma is the first recipient of the first annual Claims Magazine/ACE Legend Award.
Books from Full Court Press
Zalma on Property and Casualty Insurance
The earnings of almost every civil lawyer in the United States are funded by the insurance industry. Insurance can best be described as the mother’s milk of the law profession. The civil defense lawyer is paid by an insurer for each hour he or she works. The civil plaintiffs’ lawyer is usually paid by taking a percentage of any judgment entered in favor of the plaintiff, which judgment is usually paid by the defendant’s insurer.
In almost every situation in which a civil lawyer practices law the funds for that work come, either directly or indirectly, from insurance. Consequently, lawyers must use their wits and energies to avoid or to pursue litigation to the benefit of the client. Both sides understand that an insurer will eventually pay one or both sides in the dispute. Insurance is important to every civil dispute and even some that fall within the criminal courts.
Every lawyer retained to prosecute or defend a civil suit should begin the representation with a serious effort to find insurance coverage for the benefit of the client or the defendant the client is suing. Without that knowledge, the lawyer will find he or she is litigating with duct tape firmly self-placed across his or her mouth.
Insurance Law Deskbook: Learn the insurance basics that are essential to every civil practitioner. The Insurance Law Deskbook is intended to help law students, practitioners, insurance lawyers, professional claims personnel, insured persons, and anyone else involved in insurance. The book, published for the first time under Full Court Press, includes the full texts or digests of insurance-related decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court, the U.S. District Courts of Appeal, state appellate courts, and foreign courts that have molded the American insurance law, as well as vital explanatory chapters, historical context, form letters, and more.
California Insurance Law Deskbook: California has long led the way when it comes to insurance jurisprudence in the United States, and few know more about California insurance law than Barry Zalma. The California Insurance Law Deskbook is intended to help law students, practitioners, insurance lawyers, professional claims personnel, insured persons, and anyone else involved in insurance. Similar to Barry Zalma’s general Insurance Law Deskbook, this title focuses on the state where the author has long resided and practiced as an expert in California law. The book, published for the first time under Full Court Press, includes the full texts or digests of insurance-related decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court, the U.S. District Courts of Appeal, and California appellate courts, as well as vital explanatory chapters and historical context.
Insurance Bad Faith and Punitive Damages Deskbook: Understand the relationship between insurance, the tort of bad faith, and why punitive damages are awarded to punish insurers. Previously, a person suing an insurance company in the United States could only recover contract damages, but when the tort of bad faith was created by the courts contract law was enormously affected, allowing insureds to sue insurers for both contract and tort damages, including punitive damages. Read a thoughtful analysis of how punitive damages apply in the United States to insurance bad faith suits, and why some states allow judges and juries to award punitive damages against insurers in civil litigation.