On August 17, 2023, New York Attorney General Letitia James committed federal mortgage fraud. The evidence is her own signature on a lie. No matter what argument Abbe Lowell, her defense lawyer offers, no matter how they try to complicate the technical details, the central fact remains undeniable: Letitia James knowingly submitted a false sworn statement—an act that constitutes perjury and forms the foundation of federal mortgage fraud liability under 18 U.S.C. § 1014.
Under penalty of perjury, witnessed by two employees from her own office, she declared under oath that she intended to make a Virginia property her “principal residence”—knowing it was false when she signed it. Fifteen days earlier, she had explicitly told her mortgage broker in writing: “This property WILL NOT be my primary residence” and “I WILL NEVER BE A VIRGINIA RESIDENT.”
This isn’t about complex mortgage technicalities or underwriting nuances. This is about a sitting Attorney General who lied under oath in a federal financial transaction. The crime was complete the moment she signed that false declaration—a federal crime that stands on its own. Everything else is just evidence of intent.
A Lie, Signed and Witnessed
Letitia James’s sworn Power of Attorney (POA), signed August 17, 2023, declared:
“I HEREBY DECLARE that I intend to occupy this property as my principal residence.”
But just 15 days earlier—on August 2—she told her mortgage broker in writing: “This property WILL NOT be my primary residence” and “I WILL NEVER BE A VIRGINIA RESIDENT.”
The next day, her broker confirmed James’s role was listed as a “non-occupying co-borrower” and the loan was locked as a “primary residence product.”
These aren’t small discrepancies. They are opposing sworn statements made inside the same federally connected mortgage transaction.
Her Own Employees Witnessed the Fraud
The false POA declaration wasn’t signed in some private setting where James might claim confusion or mistake. It was witnessed by two employees from her own Attorney General’s office:
- Jennifer Levy – James’s First Deputy Attorney General and lead attorney in the Trump civil fraud case.
- Sharona Parchment – Another staff member from the AG’s office.
Both women provided their New York home addresses on the document and signed under penalty of perjury that they witnessed James execute this Power of Attorney containing the false occupancy declaration.
Think about the implications: New York’s top prosecutors watched their boss sign a document declaring she would live in Virginia as her primary residence, just 15 days after she had explicitly stated in writing that she would never be a Virginia resident. They put their signatures and legal reputations on that document.
This wasn’t casual paperwork. This was a formal legal proceeding with senior government attorneys as witnesses. Any claim of “mistake” or “misunderstanding” becomes absurd when two fellow legal professionals witnessed the deliberate execution of contradictory sworn statements.
If called to testify, Levy and Parchment would have to explain their role in witnessing what federal prosecutors would characterize as mortgage fraud. Their presence as witnesses doesn’t just corroborate the false statement—it emphasizes the calculated, deliberate nature of James’s conduct.
The Irony of Timing: James’s Own Fraud Case
The timing of Ms. James’s false declaration adds a stunning layer of irony. Her signing of this fraudulent POA occurred just weeks before a massive legal event she herself orchestrated: the September 26, 2023, pretrial summary judgment ruling in the New York civil fraud case she brought against Donald Trump (which found Trump liable for fraud), and days before that high-profile trial formally began on October 2, 2023. While she was publicly crusading against alleged financial fraud and misrepresentations to lenders by others, she was simultaneously engaged in a similar alleged act concerning her own mortgage.
Investigative Evolution
As with any complex financial investigation, our analysis has evolved as new documents emerged and technical details were clarified. Early reporting examined this transaction under Fannie Mae loan frameworks, while subsequent document review confirmed this was an FHA-insured loan with its own specific requirements.
This progression from initial analysis to refined understanding is typical in financial fraud investigations—and importantly, each analytical framework has consistently reinforced the same core violation: James made contradictory sworn statements within a single mortgage transaction.
The technical details matter for understanding the full scope of potential misconduct, but the legal foundation remains unchanged: knowingly false statements in federal financial transactions are crimes regardless of the specific program involved.
Why the Declaration Was Material
Letitia James’s current defense is that the POA “was never used to determine eligibility.” But under 18 U.S.C. § 1014, that doesn’t matter. The law criminalizes knowingly false statements made for the purpose of influencing a financial institution connected to a federal program. It requires materiality, not actual reliance.
And this declaration—filed in the public record as part of the mortgage package—was clearly material.
Courts have repeatedly upheld convictions under § 1014 where the false statement was capable of influencing a decision, regardless of outcome. In United States v. Henderson (5th Cir. 2018), the court confirmed that even “unnecessary” lies satisfy the statute when knowingly submitted in a financial transaction.
The Technical Context (But It Doesn’t Matter)
Could Shamice Thompson have qualified without the lie? While AnnieMac’s internal underwriting overlays are not publicly available, industry practice suggests that at 91.8% LTV, the loan likely required automated underwriting system (AUS) approval rather than manual review. Thompson’s background as a Section 8 tenant, while not disqualifying, suggests a limited income and credit profile that could present challenges for AUS approval.
If the AUS system produced a “Refer” or “Caution” finding for Thompson alone, AnnieMac would typically require additional financial strength from another occupying borrower. James’s strong financial profile, if claiming occupancy, could provide that strength and help deliver the “Approve/Eligible” result needed to fund the loan.
But here’s the key point: even if none of that technical analysis is correct, the crime is still complete.
Why AnnieMac Had Every Reason to Care
Understanding why James’s false declaration mattered requires grasping the financial stakes for FHA lenders like AnnieMac. Unlike conventional loans, FHA lenders face potential recourse liability if borrowers violate occupancy requirements. This creates powerful incentives for strict occupancy verification, especially on high-risk loans.
At 91.8% loan-to-value with a Joint Tenancy structure, AnnieMac faced significant exposure if the loan defaulted. The FHA insurance provides protection, but lenders can still face recourse claims if they failed to properly verify occupancy requirements.
This explains why AnnieMac would have strong overlays requiring occupancy declarations from both borrowers in a Joint Tenancy situation. It wasn’t just paperwork—it was financial protection against potential recourse liability.
James’s false declaration didn’t just potentially influence the loan decision; it directly protected AnnieMac from future recourse claims by creating documented evidence of occupancy intent, even though that evidence was fraudulent.
DOJ Has Already Convicted Others for Identical Conduct
This isn’t uncharted legal territory. Federal prosecutors have a roadmap for exactly this type of case. In United States v. Muhammad (9th Cir. 2019), the Department of Justice successfully convicted a defendant under 18 U.S.C. § 1014 for submitting false occupancy declarations on FHA loans and never moving into the properties.
The DOJ’s position in Muhammad was crystal clear: voluntary submission of false occupancy statements constitutes criminal conduct regardless of whether the false statement was strictly necessary for loan approval. The defendant was convicted and the precedent was set.
James’s case is dramatically stronger than Muhammad in every respect:
- Written confession of intent: Muhammad relied on circumstantial evidence that the defendant never intended to occupy. James provided direct documentary proof with her August 2 email: “I WILL NEVER BE A VIRGINIA RESIDENT.”
- Government employee witnesses: Two New York Attorney General employees witnessed James’s false declaration, adding federal interest in prosecuting government misconduct.
- Higher office and trust: James holds the state’s highest law enforcement position, creating heightened public trust obligations.
- Multiple documented contradictions: James made opposing sworn statements within a documented 15-day period, showing deliberate rather than inadvertent conduct.
If the Department of Justice could successfully convict Muhammad on circumstantial evidence, James’s prosecution should be straightforward. The precedent is established, the legal framework is proven, and James’s evidence is substantially stronger.
Any prosecutor reviewing this case has a clear roadmap to conviction.
Pattern Evidence: This Wasn’t Her First Time
James has a documented 20+ year pattern of misrepresenting property details on mortgage documents. For over two decades, she has consistently described her 296 Lafayette Avenue property in Brooklyn as a “4-unit” building on mortgage documents, despite its official Certificate of Occupancy designating it as a 5-unit dwelling.
This pattern enabled her to:
- Qualify for a federal HAMP mortgage modification in 2011 (which excluded buildings with 5+ units).
- Obtain residential rather than commercial lending terms.
- Avoid stricter underwriting requirements.
Under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b), this pattern evidence would likely be admissible to prove “intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, or absence of mistake or accident.” The Virginia declaration appears to be part of a long-term approach to mortgage applications, not an isolated error.
Her Legal Background Matters
Letitia James is not a layperson. She is an attorney and the New York State Attorney General. She knows what “under penalty of perjury” means. She knows the difference between “residency” and “occupancy.” She said one thing to her broker, then filed the opposite statement in a sworn, recorded legal document.
Her attempt to characterize this as a “mistake” about state residency is contradicted by her own prior explicit statements and her professional background. The implications are obvious—and damning.
Federal Investigation Underway
Reports indicate that a federal grand jury has been convened to investigate James’s mortgage declarations. The Federal Housing Finance Agency has already referred the matter to the Department of Justice for criminal prosecution, citing evidence that James “falsified bank documents and property records to acquire government-backed assistance and loans and more favorable loan terms.”
This isn’t just about civil penalties or ethics violations—it’s about potential federal criminal charges carrying significant prison time.
The Takeaway: The Crime Is the Lie
Even if:
- AnnieMac imposed no special overlays.
- Shamice Thompson could have qualified on her own.
- The POA wasn’t necessary for AUS approval.
- Our technical analysis is completely wrong.
It doesn’t matter.
Letitia James knowingly signed and recorded a false statement in a mortgage transaction involving a federally insured loan. That is a standalone violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1014—and possibly § 1001 as well. Her later excuses do not erase the perjury. They simply confirm her intent to deflect and mislead.
Final Thought
Letitia James’s false POA was not some irrelevant clerical error—it was a calculated move made under oath by a trained attorney who understood the legal significance of her actions. Whether or not it was “used” in the narrowest technical sense, it was absolutely material, entirely false, and strategically timed.
The pattern evidence from her Brooklyn property shows this wasn’t a mistake—it was a method. A method she’s used for over two decades to obtain favorable mortgage terms through misrepresentation.
Her own office employees witnessed her make this false declaration. DOJ has already convicted others for identical conduct with weaker evidence. The contradictory statements were made just 15 days apart. The documentation is undeniable.
If this were any other borrower, DOJ wouldn’t hesitate. Let’s see if justice still applies when the perpetrator is the one who used to prosecute others for exactly this type of conduct.
Written by,
Sam Antar
© 2025 Sam Antar. All rights reserved.
This investigation continues our ongoing series examining mortgage fraud allegations against New York Attorney General Letitia James. Previous installments available at our investigation archive.