Introduction
This article presents the case for why New York Attorney General Letitia James should face potential federal charges, based on months of rigorous research into public records and sworn documents. It is modeled on the structure of a federal grand jury indictment and focuses solely on conduct supported by clear, verifiable documentation that would meet prosecutorial standards.
Disclaimer: This document is a work of investigative analysis presented for illustrative and public interest purposes. It is not an official legal filing and does not represent a grand jury action or federal prosecution. All factual assertions are based on publicly available records and documentary evidence.
Every individual is entitled to the presumption of innocence, including New York Attorney General Letitia James. This document respects due process and invites official inquiry—not prejudice.
Count 1: Knowingly Making a False Statement to a Financial Institution
(18 U.S.C. § 1014; see also Fannie Mae Form 3047)
On or about August 17, 2023, Letitia James signed a sworn Specific Power of Attorney stating her intent to occupy 604 Sterling Street, Norfolk, Virginia, as her principal residence. This declaration was submitted in connection with a federally related mortgage loan and was material to the underwriting of that loan. This representation contradicted her earlier written statements dated August 3, 2023, in which she stated the property would not be her primary residence. The mortgage closed under primary-residence terms. No subsequent correction was filed. (Full investigation)
Count 2: Mortgage Fraud – Occupancy Misrepresentation
(18 U.S.C. § 1341 and § 1343)
Letitia James’ sworn declaration of principal residency for the Virginia property enabled her to receive favorable loan terms reserved for owner-occupants. At the time of closing, she did not intend to relocate, and she continued full-time work in New York. The mortgage closed with occupancy-based underwriting benefits, including a reduced interest rate and down payment threshold. This conduct constitutes a scheme to defraud the lender using materially false representations via mail and electronic communications. (View mortgage document)
Count 3: Submission of False Statements to Obtain Federally Backed Mortgage Assistance
(18 U.S.C. § 1001; see also Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac Form 3033 and HAMP Servicing Guidelines)
In 2011, Letitia James obtained a Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP) agreement on her 296 Lafayette Avenue, Brooklyn, New York property by certifying that the building contained no more than four residential units. The property was legally classified as a five-family dwelling. The loan modification contained handwritten alterations falsely describing the building as a “4 fam.” These false statements were made to a federally regulated financial institution and used to obtain financial relief otherwise unavailable for properties exceeding four units. (View analysis)
Count 4: Filing False Financial Disclosure Statements
(18 U.S.C. § 1001 as applied to official government filings)
James failed to disclose a 2020 mortgage from OVM Financial for her 3121 Peronne Avenue, Norfolk, Virginia property on any of her NYS financial disclosure forms from 2020 through 2023. This mortgage is clearly documented in Norfolk property records. Her submissions were made under penalty of perjury and contained material omissions regarding significant financial liabilities. (View financial disclosure analysis)
Count 5: Wire Fraud Related to Mortgage Applications
(18 U.S.C. § 1343)
Between 2001 and 2023, Letitia James engaged in a scheme to defraud financial institutions by consistently misrepresenting the legal classification of her Brooklyn property at 296 Lafayette Avenue as having four or fewer residential units when official records confirmed five units. These misrepresentations were transmitted via interstate wire communications as part of mortgage applications and significantly affected loan eligibility, terms, and conditions to her financial benefit. Physical inspection of the property in April 2025 confirmed five separate doorbells serving distinct residential units—four labeled “1 Floor,” “2 Floor,” “3A,” and “3B” at the main entrance, plus a fifth doorbell at the separate basement apartment entrance. (View property classification evidence)
Count 6: Bank Fraud
(18 U.S.C. § 1344)
Letitia James knowingly executed a scheme to defraud financial institutions by falsely representing her Brooklyn property at 296 Lafayette Avenue as containing four residential units in multiple loan applications between 2001 and 2021. This significant misrepresentation materially affected underwriting decisions and loan terms. Official electric meter documentation confirms the existence of services for five separate residential units, validating the property’s legal Certificate of Occupancy classification as a five-family dwelling. On-site inspection verified the property contains a basement apartment with its own entrance and doorbell, and two apartments (3A and 3B) on the third floor, exactly matching the Certificate of Occupancy’s five-unit designation. (View utility documentation)
Count 7: False Statements in Official Filing
(18 U.S.C. § 1001)
On multiple occasions between 2020 and 2023, Letitia James submitted official documents to government agencies containing material misrepresentations regarding property classifications, residential occupancy intentions, and financial liabilities. Each filing contained specific falsifications that triggered preferential regulatory treatment, advantageous financial terms, or reduced oversight to her personal benefit. (View evidence of misclassified filings)
Count 8: Pattern of Conduct Demonstrating Intent to Defraud
(Cumulative under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b))
Spanning from 1983 to 2025, Letitia James has participated in a pattern of inconsistent, incomplete, or false representations involving property classifications, mortgage documentation, financial disclosures, and public expense reporting. This pattern is not incidental. It reflects a strategic approach to regulatory evasion, preferential treatment, and personal financial advantage. (See 40-year pattern documentation)
Potential Counts for Superseding Indictment
As with many complex financial investigations, additional charges may be warranted as more evidence becomes available. The following matters are currently under active investigation and could form the basis for a superseding indictment, should sufficient documentation be obtained:
1. Phantom Mortgage Fraud and Financial Disclosure Violations
(18 U.S.C. § 1001 and § 1014)
In her 2023 financial disclosure statement, Letitia James reported two mortgages on her 3121 Peronne Avenue, Norfolk, Virginia property—one from Freedom Mortgage ($150,000-$250,000) and another from National Mortgage ($100,000-$150,000). A comprehensive title search commissioned in February 2025 found no record of either loan in Norfolk property records. If these mortgages do not exist yet were included in sworn financial disclosures, this would constitute false statements in official government filings. Alternatively, if these mortgages exist but were deliberately kept off public land records, this could represent an attempt to shield assets or liabilities from public view. The investigation continues to determine whether these reported mortgages exist in any form and whether their inclusion in official disclosures constitutes intentional misrepresentation. (View financial discrepancies report)
2. Misuse of Public Funds and Records Concealment
(18 U.S.C. § 666; NY State Finance Law § 163)
Between November 2020 and December 2021, the Office of the New York Attorney General under Letitia James authorized $41,807.80 in taxpayer funds for private jet charter services through Venture Jets, Inc. A recent Freedom of Information Law request to the New York State Comptroller’s Office revealed these payments were processed through the state’s financial system but the office stated they had “no further responsive records” regarding legally required documentation such as passenger manifests, travel authorizations, business purpose justifications, or procurement records.
This systematic absence of documentation for all six charter flights violates New York State Finance Law §163, which requires agencies to maintain records detailing procurement history. Several flight dates coincide with documented campaign activities, raising serious questions about the public purpose of these expenditures. The matter remains under investigation pending additional FOIL responses and potential testimony from witnesses with direct knowledge of these flights. (View FOIL response analysis)
Matters for State Referral
While this document follows the structure of a federal indictment, the evidence uncovered also points to several possible violations of New York State law. The following matters, drawn from public records and sworn filings, fall under state—not federal—jurisdiction. They are not included as formal counts in this hypothetical indictment but may merit separate scrutiny by New York’s ethics and enforcement bodies:
- Filing False Financial Disclosure Statements (NY Public Officers Law § 73-a) (Evidence)
- Misuse of Public Funds (NY State Finance Law § 123) (Private jet documentation)
- Misclassification of Campaign Funds (NY Election Law § 14-130) (Campaign spending analysis)
- Offering a False Instrument for Filing (NY Penal Law § 175.35) (Building permit discrepancies)
Each of these issues, if substantiated, may violate state-level ethics, election, or criminal statutes and should be referred to the appropriate authorities for further investigation.
Conclusion
The evidence does not merely suggest errors or oversights—it demonstrates intent. Letitia James exploited inconsistencies in mortgage law, real estate regulations, and financial disclosure rules for personal advantage. She acted with legal knowledge and prosecutorial experience. The declarations she made were not accidental. They were deliberate.
This investigative indictment lays out conduct that, if substantiated by further evidence and tested in court, may meet the statutory thresholds for criminal liability under both federal and New York State law. This conduct has already triggered a formal criminal referral by the U.S. Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) to the Department of Justice, citing possible violations of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1014, 1341, 1343, and 1344.
If the law is to mean anything, it must apply equally. That principle begins right here—with transparency, accountability, and public scrutiny.
For a comprehensive overview of all evidence, see our complete report: The Case Against NY Attorney General Letitia James To Date
Filed for public review.
Written by,
Sam Antar
© 2025 Sam Antar. All rights reserved.