EXCLUSIVE: Federal Grand Jury Investigates Letitia James’ Virginia Mortgage Declaration — Attorney’s Defense Letter Backfires

Note: Our forensic investigation is conducted in real time as documents emerge. It involves “peeling the onion”—an iterative process of exposing hidden layers of fact through document analysis and public records. Overlap with prior articles is inevitable—and essential—to connect the facts. This report focuses specifically on the Sterling Street property and the Virginia grand jury now investigating it. Although this is a criminal inquiry, federal authorities are not precluded from bringing a separate civil suit against Letitia James under applicable statutes. And crucially, Abbe Lowell’s April 24 letter—rather than taking her off the hook—put her firmly on it, with signed, notarized, and recorded evidence now at the center of a federal grand jury investigation.

Executive Summary

Letitia James is now the subject of a federal criminal investigation, with a grand jury convened in Virginia to examine whether she knowingly falsified legal documents to secure favorable mortgage terms. This escalation, reported by The Guardian on May 8, 2025, raises the stakes beyond state-level ethics violations. But what truly cements James’ legal exposure is her own attorney’s April 24 defense letter in response to a criminal referral to the Department of Justice (DOJ) by William Pulte, the Director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA). Abbe Lowell, a high-profile attorney known for representing controversial political figures, unwittingly sealed his client’s fate by making factual admissions that directly contradict James’ recorded filings, sworn declarations, and financial disclosures.

This report lays out what a federal grand jury is likely to focus on—and how Lowell’s letter, far from exonerating James, may be one of the most damaging pieces of evidence against her.

Timeline: The Critical Sequence of Events

The precise chronology is essential to understanding the legal implications:

• August 2, 2023: Earliest record of the mortgage application documents referenced by Lowell in his defense letter, indicating the initial application was drafted two weeks before the Power of Attorney was signed. James emails her mortgage broker stating the property “WILL NOT be my primary residence” and completes a form marking “NO” to the primary residence question.

• August 17, 2023: She signs a Power of Attorney with a notarized declaration: “I HEREBY DECLARE that I intend to occupy this property as my principal residence.” This document was witnessed by Jennifer Levy (First Deputy Attorney General) and Sharona Parchment (staff member), both from James’ own office. Unlike most loan documentation, the POA is always processed and filed after the initial application and other paperwork is submitted.

• August 30, 2023: The mortgage closes with owner-occupancy terms, explicitly requiring both borrowers to establish residence within 60 days.
• October 2, 2023: James launches the Trump civil fraud trial in Manhattan—46 days after declaring Virginia would be her principal residence.
• By October 30, 2023: Under mortgage terms, James was required to be living in Virginia as her principal residence.
• October-December 2023: James appears regularly in New York for the Trump trial and continues official AG duties.
• May 15, 2024: James files her 2023 Financial Disclosure Statement with no mention of the Virginia property or mortgage, despite the New York FDS Guide explicitly requiring disclosure of all real property interests exceeding $1,000 and all debts exceeding $10,000.
• April 1, 2025: I publish the first investigative exposé on James’ Virginia property and principal residence declaration, revealing the Power of Attorney document and its potential legal implications.
• April 15, 2025: A formal criminal referral is submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice, citing evidence of potential violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1014 (False Statements to Financial Institutions) and related statutes.
• April 24, 2025: Abbe Lowell sends letter to U.S. Attorney General Pamela Bondi attempting to defend James. Lowell claims there was a “subsequent disclosure” to the lender but provides no documentation of such disclosure and refers to mortgage application documents from August 2, 2023—contradicting his own timeline defense.
• May 8, 2025: The Guardian reports a federal grand jury has been convened in Virginia to investigate the property transactions and sworn statements.

This sequence demonstrates that after first telling her broker the property would not be her primary residence, James nevertheless signed a contradictory declaration that was used to secure the mortgage—then failed to disclose the property on required ethics filings.

Key Evidence the Grand Jury Will Examine

• Letitia James co-purchased 604 Sterling Street, Norfolk, Virginia, on August 30, 2023, as joint tenant with right of survivorship alongside her niece, Shamice Thompson-Hairston.
• She executed a Specific Power of Attorney on August 17, 2023, stating: “I HEREBY DECLARE that I intend to occupy this property as my principal residence.” The document was notarized and witnessed by Jennifer Levy—James’ First Deputy Attorney General and lead attorney in the Trump civil fraud case—and Sharona Parchment, another AG’s Office staffer. Both listed New York addresses. The POA was recorded alongside the mortgage and used in underwriting to secure owner-occupant loan terms.
• The recorded Deed of Trust required both borrowers to occupy the property as their principal residence within 60 days and maintain it for at least one year.
• James never moved. She held press events in New York during the occupancy period and remained NYS Attorney General throughout. The POA was signed just 46 days before the start of her $250 million civil fraud trial against Donald Trump.
• James omitted the Virginia property and its $219,780 mortgage from her 2023 NYS Financial Disclosure Statement.
• On April 24, 2025, Abbe Lowell sent a letter to U.S. Attorney General Pamela Bondi defending James. That letter admitted critical facts that will likely serve as a roadmap for prosecution.

Lowell’s Statements—and Why They Backfire

1. The Political Framing Attempt

Lowell opens his letter by characterizing the investigation as politically motivated:

“I write to address the latest act of improper political retribution—this time directed at Ms. James—publicly instigated and endorsed by President Trump.”

Why This Fails: Federal prosecutors and grand juries focus on factual evidence and legal violations, not political motivations. The documented timeline and James’ own contradictory filings stand independent of any political context. U.S. Attorney General Pamela Bondi, a Trump appointee, would be recused from direct involvement in any case related to her former client, with career prosecutors handling the investigation. The documents and timeline create legal liability regardless of political context.

2. The “Mistake” Defense Collapses

Lowell’s central claim attempts to dismiss the Power of Attorney declaration:

“Director Pulte cherry-picked an August 17, 2023, power of attorney that mistakenly stated the property to be Ms. James’ principal residence…”

Why This Fails: This admission is devastating for multiple reasons:

1. It acknowledges the declaration exists and was signed by James
2. It doesn’t explain why the “mistake” was never corrected during or after closing
3. It contradicts the mortgage underwriting process, which relies on such declarations
4. It creates a timeline inconsistency by claiming a “subsequent disclosure” while referring to documents from August 2, 2023—which predates the August 17 Power of Attorney, illogically suggesting that earlier documents somehow supersede or correct a later notarized declaration
5. It ignores the normal sequencing of mortgage documents—the Power of Attorney is typically one of the last documents prepared in the mortgage process, not an early document that would be superseded by later filings

Most critically, if this was truly a “mistake,” James had both legal and ethical obligations to immediately correct it upon discovery—especially as the state’s chief law enforcement officer. Under mortgage lending protocols, a formal amendment or correction would be required to rectify such a fundamental misstatement in a notarized document used for underwriting. No correction was ever filed, and benefits from the favorable mortgage terms continued.

Furthermore, according to the New York State financial disclosure guide, James was obligated to disclose this property and its mortgage on her 2023 Financial Disclosure Statement regardless of residency status. The guide explicitly states that officials must disclose “all real property in which any vested or contingent interest in excess of $1,000 is held” and “all liabilities in excess of $10,000.” Her failure to report either the property or its $219,780 mortgage constitutes a separate violation unrelated to any residential status “mistake.”

3. The “Just Helping” Defense Creates New Problems

Lowell argues James was merely assisting her niece:

“Ms. James was not seeking to purchase the property for herself but was helping her niece.”

Why This Creates New Problems:

1. Co-borrowers are fully liable for mortgage terms, including occupancy requirements—the Deed of Trust explicitly requires both borrowers to establish residence
2. The deed structure contradicts the “helping” narrative—James took title as “joint tenant with right of survivorship,” giving her equal and immediate ownership rights, not as a co-signer or guarantor
3. This creates a significant ethics disclosure violation—the New York State ethics disclosure guide explicitly requires reporting of:
   • Financial assistance provided to family members exceeding $1,000 (Question 15)
   • All real property interests exceeding $1,000, regardless of occupancy (Question 17)
   • All liabilities exceeding $10,000, including those incurred to assist family members (Question 19)
4. The “helping” defense triggers multiple additional violations—if James was truly just helping her niece:
   • She violated Public Officers Law § 73-a by failing to disclose the substantial financial assistance
   • She violated mortgage terms by falsely declaring intent to occupy when allegedly only helping
   • She failed to disclose this major liability (the $219,780 mortgage) on her financial disclosure
   • She failed to report her ownership interest in this investment property, as required by the FDS guide

The 2023 FDS Guide states on page 37 that officials must report “all liabilities of the reporting individual and such individual’s spouse or domestic partner, in EXCESS of $10,000 as of the date of filing of this statement, other than liabilities to a relative.” While debts to relatives are exempt, debts incurred on behalf of relatives from financial institutions must be disclosed. The guide specifically notes that such reporting is required regardless of whether the debt benefits the official or someone else.

Each attempted explanation creates additional legal exposure—either admitting to mortgage fraud by falsely declaring occupancy intent, or ethics violations by failing to disclose substantial financial obligations and property interests. The “helping” narrative, rather than excusing the behavior, actually compounds the violations by introducing multiple new disclosure failures.

The Legal Framework: James is in a No-Win Position

Lowell’s letter places James in an impossible legal position:

Federal Criminal Exposure

• 18 U.S.C. § 1014 (False Statements to Financial Institutions): Making false statements to secure loans is punishable by up to 30 years in prison and $1 million in fines.
• 18 U.S.C. § 1001 (General False Statements): Knowingly falsifying material facts in matters within federal jurisdiction carries penalties up to 5 years.
• 18 U.S.C. § 1519 (Obstruction): Failure to correct false statements in federally regulated transactions to impede investigation carries up to 20 years.

State Ethics Violations

• Public Officers Law § 73-a: Requires disclosure of all real property interests and liabilities exceeding $10,000. James’ failure to disclose the Virginia property constitutes a violation.
• Public Officers Law § 74: Prohibits conduct creating an appearance of impropriety or conflict of interest.

The No-Win Legal Situation

Lowell’s letter creates an inescapable legal dilemma for James. No matter which explanation is accepted, she faces serious legal exposure:

• If she intended to reside there:
  • She failed to disclose this property and the $219,780 mortgage on her financial disclosure statement—violating NYS Public Officers Law § 73-a, which explicitly requires reporting of all real property interests exceeding $1,000 and all liabilities exceeding $10,000.
  • The sworn declaration of intent to make Virginia her principal residence raises serious questions about her future plans while serving as New York’s Attorney General. While merely declaring intent wouldn’t automatically vacate her office, actually establishing residency there would potentially trigger Public Officers Law § 30(1)(d).
  • The mortgage terms required her to establish residence by October 30, 2023. Had she complied with those terms while continuing to serve as NY Attorney General, she would have created significant legal conflicts regarding her eligibility to hold office.
  • This declaration of intent without corresponding action places her in violation of the mortgage terms, as she contractually agreed to establish residence within 60 days but apparently never did so.
  • Importantly, James has already precluded this defense through her lawyer’s letter and public statements. Abbe Lowell specifically stated that she never intended to live there, characterizing the POA declaration as a “mistake.” Having publicly rejected this explanation through counsel, she cannot credibly revert to claiming she actually did intend to establish Virginia residency—doing so would contradict her attorney’s representations to federal authorities and could constitute an admission of intent to vacate her New York office.
• If she did not intend to reside there:
  • She signed a false declaration to secure favorable loan terms—potential mortgage fraud under multiple federal statutes:
  • 18 U.S.C. § 1014 (False Statements to Financial Institutions) prohibits “knowingly making any false statement or report… for the purpose of influencing in any way the action” of a federally insured financial institution. Violations carry up to 30 years imprisonment and $1 million in fines.
  • 18 U.S.C. § 1343 (Wire Fraud) applies when electronic communications are used in furtherance of a scheme to defraud. The electronic processing of mortgage documents would trigger this statute.
  • 18 U.S.C. § 1344 (Bank Fraud) prohibits schemes to defraud financial institutions or to obtain money under false pretenses. Courts have specifically applied this to cases involving false owner-occupancy claims.
  • The Department of Justice has previously prosecuted similar cases where borrowers falsely claimed owner-occupancy status to secure better interest rates, lower down payments, and more favorable terms than would be available for investment properties.
  • Owner-occupied mortgages typically feature interest rates 0.5-0.75% lower than investment property loans, with down payment requirements often reduced by 10-15%. These benefits could constitute financial fraud exceeding $10,000 over the life of the loan.
• If it was truly a mistake:
  • She failed to correct the record for nearly two years—potential obstruction under 18 U.S.C. § 1519, which prohibits falsifying or making false entries in documents “with the intent to impede, obstruct, or influence” a federal investigation.
  • Federal mortgage regulations impose an affirmative duty to correct material errors in loan documents upon discovery. Lenders are required to file amended documentation when such errors are identified, particularly those affecting underwriting decisions like occupancy status.
  • As a licensed attorney and the state’s chief legal officer, James would be held to a higher standard of knowledge regarding the materiality of such a “mistake” and the obligation to correct it.
  • Even if initially a mistake, the continued receipt of financial benefits (lower interest rate, favorable terms) after discovering the error could transform it into intentional fraud under the “continuing offense” doctrine recognized by federal courts.
  • The mortgage continues to be serviced under owner-occupancy terms despite James’ admitted knowledge of the “mistake”—a situation that could constitute ongoing fraud.

This legal framework creates a “perfect trap” where each potential explanation leads to serious legal exposure. There simply is no innocent interpretation of the documented facts that would exonerate James from either mortgage fraud, ethics violations, or both. The evidence trail, much of it now acknowledged by her own attorney, presents fundamental challenges to any defense strategy.

Critical Context: This Follows a Pattern

This is not an isolated incident. Our previous investigations have documented a consistent pattern of financial disclosure irregularities stretching back decades:

1. Brooklyn Property Unit Count Misrepresentation: Since purchasing her Brooklyn property at 296 Lafayette Avenue in 2001, James has consistently represented it as a four-family dwelling on mortgage applications despite its official Certificate of Occupancy classifying it as a five-unit building. The Certificate of Occupancy issued January 26, 2001, clearly designates it as a “five-family dwelling,” yet her 2011 HAMP mortgage modification includes handwritten notations stating “4 fam” in one corner while another contradictory notation reads “not more than 6 residential units”—creating deliberate ambiguity that enabled her to secure federally subsidized mortgage relief from a program that explicitly excluded buildings with more than four units.
2. Phantom Mortgages and Hidden Debt: In her 2023 financial disclosure, James reported two substantial mortgages on her first Virginia property (3121 Peronne Avenue)—one from Freedom Mortgage ($150,000-$250,000) and another from National Mortgage ($100,000-$150,000)—yet a comprehensive title search revealed neither mortgage exists in any property records. Simultaneously, she completely failed to disclose the actual $109,600 OVM Financial mortgage that does appear in official records. If all three mortgages were legitimate, they would total $509,600 in debt against a property that she valued at $100,000-$150,000—a loan-to-value ratio of 272% that would be impossible to secure through legitimate lending channels. This pattern suggests a systematic approach to reporting phantom debts while concealing actual financial obligations.
3. Extensive History of Unreported Income: In May 2013, Crain’s New York Business reported that then-Councilwoman James had failed to disclose rental income from her Brooklyn brownstone for at least five years despite collecting “tens of thousands of dollars annually” from tenants. Public records showed renters registering to vote at her address as early as 2001, yet no rental income appeared on her financial disclosures from 2007-2011. When finally confronted, James claimed she was “previously unclear about whether owner-occupied rental income was subject to council disclosure”—a dubious assertion for an attorney. Even after being exposed, she filed an amended disclosure that understated her actual rental income of $44,400, reporting it instead in the “$5,000-$43,999.99” range. This pattern continued with her Virginia property at 3121 Peronne Avenue, where she initially reported rental income in 2020 but then reported $0 in subsequent years while still claiming ownership—a pattern consistent with years of incomplete financial reporting.
4. Taxpayer-Funded Luxury Travel Coinciding with Campaign Activities: Between 2020-2021, the New York Attorney General’s Office under James spent $41,807.80 in taxpayer funds on private jet travel through Venture Jets Inc., a luxury charter company used by no other New York state agency. A recent FOIL request revealed that the NY State Comptroller’s Office failed to produce any travel authorization forms, passenger manifests, or justification documentation despite legal requirements to maintain such records.
   The response included only a bare-bones spreadsheet with generic entries labeled “AIRLINE PAYMENT – OFFICIAL TRAVEL” without identifying passengers, destinations, or purposes. Several flights align precisely with James’ campaign activities—notably an August 10, 2021 flight ($7,015.45) occurring the same day her campaign paid $2,000 for a Martha’s Vineyard rental, and two November 8, 2021 payments totaling $13,246.15 coinciding with the SOMOS conference where City & State described James as “fully in campaign mode.”This pattern of missing documentation is particularly troubling given state regulations requiring detailed Travel Authorization Forms documenting business purpose, justification for premium transportation, and supervisory approval—none of which were provided. The AG’s office appears to have violated document retention laws, suggesting deliberate obfuscation. When taxpayer funding for these flights ceased in December 2021, James’ campaign immediately paid Venture Jets $12,049 in May 2022, indicating a coordinated strategy blurring official business and campaign activities.
5. Selective Enforcement of Building Codes: When a complaint was filed with the NYC Department of Buildings about the discrepancy between James’ property’s five-unit Certificate of Occupancy and her four-unit permit applications, authorities dismissively labeled it a “MINOR ERROR.” This stands in stark contrast to how ordinary New Yorkers are treated for similar violations, which typically trigger stop-work orders, substantial penalties, and even forced vacancy until compliance is achieved. In one documented case, when tenants discovered their building contained more units than listed on its Certificate of Occupancy, the DOB required “the presence of 24/7 fire guards as a condition of continued occupancy,” and courts supported tenants who organized a rent strike. That James received special treatment for the same type of violation suggests a troubling pattern of preferential enforcement that benefits the politically connected.

This established pattern undermines the “mistake” narrative and suggests a systematic approach to financial reporting that consistently benefits James while evading transparency requirements.

The Road Ahead

With a federal grand jury now convened in Virginia, the investigation enters a new phase. Here’s what comes next:

• Grand Jury Proceedings: Witness testimony and document examination will continue for potentially several months. Key witnesses likely include James’ niece Shamice Thompson-Hairston, the mortgage broker who received the August 2 email, and potentially James’ own staff members who witnessed the Power of Attorney.
• Parallel Ethics Investigation: New York’s Commission on Ethics and Lobbying in Government may conduct its own review of the financial disclosure omissions, independent of the federal criminal probe.
• Potential Legal Outcomes: Three possible paths emerge:
  • Criminal indictment if the grand jury finds sufficient evidence
  • Civil enforcement action for violations of mortgage regulations
  • Ethics sanctions for disclosure failures

Conclusion

Abbe Lowell’s letter was meant to end the controversy. Instead, it fortified the case against Letitia James by acknowledging key facts that undermine her defense. The letter confirms James signed a principal-residency declaration, failed to correct it, omitted it from her financial disclosure, and remained in New York while enjoying the benefits of a Virginia owner-occupant mortgage.

The federal grand jury investigation now proceeds with James’ own attorney having provided a roadmap of admissions that prosecutors will likely follow. Whether this results in criminal charges, civil enforcement, or ethics penalties, the evidence trail—much of it created by her own defense—presents significant legal challenges for New York’s chief law enforcement officer.

Written by,

Sam Antar

© 2025 Sam Antar. All rights reserved.

This article continues our investigative series examining New York Attorney General Letitia James’ property transactions and financial disclosures.