The federal indictment was dismissed. Two grand juries declined to indict. The prosecutors who built the case were gone. By any measure, Letitia James had survived the worst of it.
On May 13, 2026, she signed her annual financial disclosure under oath and hand-delivered it to the state ethics commission. This is the same document her office told the public to trust in place of her tax returns — her communications director told reporters that tax returns would not be released and directed the public to her annual financial disclosure instead. The phantom mortgages were still there. The only real mortgage was still missing. A property with disclosed mortgage debt exceeding its disclosed value remained on the books. And tucked into the gifts section: $250,000 to $350,000 from a partisan political organization paying for her criminal defense.
I have spent fifteen months following these documents. What she filed on May 13, 2026 is the most forensically revealing document in this entire investigation — not because of what she corrected, but because of what she corrected and what she didn’t, and what that combination tells us about her knowledge of every prior false statement.
I am a forensic accountant, not a journalist. I do not comment on news. I examine documents.
When I began this investigation in February 2025, I predicted that Letitia James’s annual financial disclosures would eventually close the trap in one of two directions: if the figures stayed the same, the fraud was continuing under oath; if the figures changed, the changes would constitute implicit admissions that prior filings were false. The 2025 disclosure is more forensically significant than either outcome. She filed a hybrid — selectively correcting the things a prosecutor would use to prove intent, while continuing to swear to others that public records confirm are false. You do not make those choices by accident.
This article documents eight anomalies. Two of them — the investment property reclassification and the DAGA legal defense fund — are original findings not previously published. The other six continue patterns I have documented across five years of disclosures. I will go through each one.
What You Need to Know If You Are Reading This for the First Time
3121 Peronne Avenue, Norfolk, Virginia. Letitia James purchased this property on August 17, 2020 for $137,000, financing it with a $109,600 mortgage from OVM Financial structured as a second home loan. The Second Home Rider she signed required personal occupancy. Instead, she rented the property to a family of three and classified it as “Investment” on four consecutive New York State financial disclosures. Her federal tax returns simultaneously claimed rental deductions on Schedule E — treatment reserved for investment properties. She told the lender it was a second home, told the state it was an investment, and told the IRS it was a rental. All three positions cannot simultaneously be true.
In February 2025, I commissioned an independent title search on this property from ProTitle USA — Order #1223733, indexed through January 31, 2025. It confirmed a single mortgage in Norfolk County property records: OVM Financial, $109,600, recorded August 19, 2020. Two other mortgages she has disclosed since 2023 — Freedom Mortgage at $150,000–$250,000 and National Mortgage at $100,000–$150,000 — do not exist in the public property record. The only confirmed mortgage has never appeared on any financial disclosure in six years.
The federal indictment, filed October 2025, charged bank fraud and false statements based on the second home versus investment contradiction. It was dismissed without prejudice in November 2025 on Appointments Clause grounds — a procedural defect in who presented the case, not a ruling on the evidence or the merits. Two grand juries in December 2025 declined to indict on re-presentation. The case remains eligible for re-indictment with a properly appointed prosecutor.
604 Sterling Street, Norfolk, Virginia. James purchased a second Virginia property in August 2023 for approximately $219,780 with a documented mortgage. It has never appeared on any financial disclosure.
296 Lafayette Avenue, Brooklyn, New York. James purchased this property in 2001. A January 26, 2001 certificate of occupancy lists it as a five-unit building. Across two decades of mortgage documents, building permits, and financial disclosures, she has consistently described it as four units — the maximum threshold for conforming Fannie Mae loans. The FHFA criminal referral cited this misrepresentation explicitly. Independent journalist Joel Gilbert and I visited the property and documented five doorbells and six electric meters — one for each apartment plus one for common areas.
That is the prior record. Now here is what the 2025 disclosure shows — and what it means that she signed it knowing all of the above was public.
The Comparison: What Changed, What Didn’t, What’s New
TABLE 1 — Virginia Property (3121 Peronne Avenue, Norfolk): Prior Disclosures vs. 2025 Filing
| Item | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 NEW |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Classification | Investment | Investment | Investment | Investment | Real Property | Real Property |
| Value — Low | $100,000 | $100,000 | $100,000 | $100,000 | $100,000 | $150,000 |
| Value — High | $150,000 | $150,000 | $150,000 | $150,000 | $150,000 | $250,000 |
| OVM Financial ($109,600) | Not Disclosed | Not Disclosed | Not Disclosed | Not Disclosed | Not Disclosed | Not Disclosed |
| Freedom Mortgage | — | — | — | $150K–$250K | $150K–$250K | $150K–$250K |
| National / Rocket Mortgage | — | — | — | $100K–$150K | $100K–$150K | $75K–$100K |
| VA Rental Income | $1K–$5K | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | Not Listed |
Sources: New York State Financial Disclosure Statements 2020–2025. OVM Financial mortgage confirmed by independent title search commissioned February 2025. Freedom Mortgage and National Mortgage confirmed absent from Norfolk County property records by same title search. 2025 filing signed May 13, 2026; received May 14, 2026.
The table tells a story on its own. The only mortgage in the public property record has never appeared. Two mortgages with no public record have appeared for three consecutive years. The classification changed without explanation after scrutiny began. Each anomaly is documented below.
Anomaly One: The Silent Reclassification — Investment to Real Property
For four consecutive annual disclosures — 2020, 2021, 2022, and 2023 — Letitia James classified 3121 Peronne Avenue under Section 17 General Nature as “Investment.” The 2024 disclosure — filed May 13, 2025, covering calendar year 2024 — changed that classification to “Real Property.” The 2025 disclosure continues the new classification. No explanation appears in either filing. No prior disclosure has been amended.
The timing matters. The 2024 disclosure was filed after my February 2025 published investigation documenting the phantom mortgages, after my commissioned title search confirming OVM Financial as the only mortgage in the public record, and after the FHFA’s April 14, 2025 criminal referral to the DOJ — which cited the investment property misclassification explicitly as part of the fraud. This reclassification was not a voluntary correction made before scrutiny. It was made under direct, documented public scrutiny.
The classification is central to the federal case. The indictment alleged she signed a Second Home Rider swearing to personal occupancy while simultaneously classifying the property as Investment on state disclosures. By quietly dropping “Investment” in the 2024 filing — without saying so, without amending four prior years of sworn filings — she implicitly acknowledged that those four years were wrong. That acknowledgment was made silently, after the fact, and without explanation.
This reclassification was not documented in my prior published investigations, which focused on the phantom mortgages and the mortgage document contradictions. The change in the 2024 disclosure and its timing relative to my investigation and the FHFA criminal referral is an original finding published here for the first time.
Anomaly Two: Freedom Mortgage — A Phantom in Its Third Year Under Oath
Freedom Mortgage first appeared on James’s 2023 financial disclosure at $150,000–$250,000. It appeared again on the 2024 disclosure. It appears again on the 2025 disclosure, filed under oath on May 13, 2026.
My commissioned title search — ProTitle USA Order #1223733, completed February 13, 2025 — found no deed of trust, no mortgage instrument, no lien, and no assignment of mortgage attributable to Freedom Mortgage on 3121 Peronne Avenue. That finding has been publicly available for over a year. She signed the 2025 disclosure knowing it.
Three consecutive years of sworn disclosure of a mortgage with no corresponding instrument in public records. I am not saying the mortgage was fabricated. I am saying it cannot be verified from any public document, and she has provided no explanation for why it cannot be verified.
Anomaly Three: “National Mortgage” Is Not “Nationstar Mortgage” — And That Distinction Matters
In 2023 and 2024, James disclosed “National Mortgage” on the Virginia property at $100,000–$150,000. My title search confirmed no entity called “National Mortgage” exists in Norfolk County property records as of January 31, 2025. The 2025 disclosure replaces this entry with “Rocket Mortgage (acquired prior firm/holder in 2025)” at $75,000–$100,000 — the first time she has ever offered an explanation for a lender name change.
The parenthetical has a plausible corporate basis. Rocket Companies completed a $14.2 billion acquisition of Mr. Cooper Group — formerly known as Nationstar Mortgage — on October 1, 2025. That transaction is real and falls within the timeframe of the parenthetical.
But the corporate transaction creates a new problem rather than resolving the old one. Nationstar Mortgage is a publicly traded company with a specific legal name. It is not called “National Mortgage.” It has never been called “National Mortgage.” Describing “Nationstar Mortgage” — if that is the intended reference — as “National Mortgage” on two consecutive sworn filings is not a minor variation. It is an inaccurate identification of a publicly traded servicer on sworn legal documents, repeated for two consecutive years.
There is a second problem that goes deeper. The federal indictment states the OVM Financial loan “was acquired by or assigned to First Savings Bank by March 2021.” First Savings Bank is the documented holder of this specific loan. In 2025, First Savings Bank was acquired — but not by Rocket Companies. It was acquired by First Merchants Corporation, a community bank headquartered in Muncie, Indiana. That merger was announced September 25, 2025 and became effective February 1, 2026. First Merchants has no connection to Rocket Mortgage. These are two entirely different corporate transactions involving two entirely different entities — both documented in SEC filings.
The 2025 disclosure says “Rocket Mortgage (acquired prior firm/holder in 2025).” The documented acquirer of the loan’s documented holder is First Merchants Corporation, not Rocket Mortgage. The parenthetical does not match the documented corporate record.
What I can say with precision: “National Mortgage” does not match any entity in the Norfolk County property record on the dates those disclosures were signed. If the intended reference was Nationstar, the name was wrong. If the intended reference was the First Savings Bank chain, the documented acquirer was First Merchants, not Rocket. Either way, the lender identifications across 2023, 2024, and 2025 cannot be reconciled with any documented public record I have reviewed.
Anomaly Four: OVM Financial — The Only Real Mortgage, Still Not Disclosed
The OVM Financial mortgage of $109,600 — recorded August 19, 2020, Instrument #200019377, confirmed by independent title search — does not appear on the 2025 disclosure. It has not appeared on any of the six consecutive annual disclosures filed since the property was purchased. This is the mortgage that is the subject of the federal indictment. It is the only confirmed mortgage in the public property record for this address.
The FHFA criminal referral documented that the second home interest rate James obtained — 3.000% — was lower than the investment property rate she should have paid — 3.815% — generating an estimated $18,933 in ill-gotten gains over the life of the loan through the fraudulent second home classification. That mortgage. Never disclosed. Sixth consecutive year.
Anomaly Five: The Virginia Property Is Underwater on Its Own Math
Using only the figures James swore to on May 13, 2026:
| Item | Amount |
|---|---|
| Virginia Property Value (2025 Disclosure) | |
| Low end | $150,000 |
| High end | $250,000 |
| Disclosed Virginia Mortgage Debt (2025) | |
| Freedom Mortgage (max) | $250,000 |
| Rocket Mortgage (max) | $100,000 |
| Maximum Disclosed VA Debt | $350,000 |
| Maximum Possible Shortfall (Debt Minus Max Value) | $100,000 |
Note: This calculation uses only figures in the 2025 financial disclosure. The confirmed OVM Financial mortgage ($109,600) is not included because it does not appear in the disclosure. Adding it would increase total debt further.
A property potentially worth less than its own disclosed mortgage debt, using her own numbers on her own sworn filing. No legitimate lender extends financing that approaches or exceeds a property’s value. The only confirmed mortgage — OVM Financial — is not even included in this calculation.
Anomaly Six: Two Properties Still Missing
Sterling Street, Norfolk, Virginia: James purchased 604 Sterling Street in August 2023 for $219,780 with a documented mortgage recorded in Norfolk County. It does not appear on the 2023 disclosure. It does not appear on the 2024 disclosure. It does not appear on the 2025 disclosure. Three consecutive years of non-disclosure of a property whose mortgage is recorded in public records. I documented this property in my April 1, 2025 investigation. She signed this disclosure knowing that documentation was public.
Citibank HELOC: A Citibank HELOC recorded in August 2019 on the Brooklyn property was not disclosed in 2019, 2020, or 2021. It finally appeared in 2022 — misclassified as a traditional mortgage. It vanished entirely from the 2023 disclosure with no record of payoff or satisfaction in ACRIS. It remains absent from the 2025 disclosure. No payoff has been recorded in New York City property records.
Anomaly Seven: The Brooklyn Property Is Still Described as 4 Units
Section 17 of the 2025 disclosure describes the Brooklyn property at Lafayette Avenue as a “3 story / 4 unit property.” The January 26, 2001 certificate of occupancy — filed with the City of New York — lists it as five units. Joel Gilbert visited the property and documented six electric meters. The FHFA criminal referral cited this misrepresentation explicitly, noting that James “consistently misrepresented the same property as only having four units in both building permit applications and numerous mortgage documents and applications” — including a 2011 HAMP application and a 2019 mortgage refinancing.
Conforming loans — backed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — are available only on properties of four units or fewer. A five-unit property requires commercial financing at significantly higher rates. Every mortgage obtained under a four-unit classification received terms the property did not qualify for. She is continuing to describe a five-unit building as four units on a sworn New York State financial disclosure filed in 2026. This is not a new anomaly. It is a continuing one with a documented paper trail extending from 2001 through the FHFA criminal referral — and she has not corrected it in any public filing across decades.
Anomaly Eight: The DAGA Legal Defense Fund
Section 9 of the 2025 disclosure — Gifts — discloses that the Democratic Attorneys General Association provided $250,000–$350,000 described as a “legal defense fund,” accepted pursuant to COLEIG Advisory Opinion 25-03. This is a new finding not previously documented in my prior investigations.
Section 9 — Gifts — As Disclosed
Donor: Democratic Attorneys General Association (DAGA), P.O. Box 34445, Washington, DC 20005
Nature of Gift: Member provided legal defense fund. Accepted pursuant to approval COLEIG Adv. Opn. 25-03.
Value: $250,000 to under $350,000
DAGA is a partisan political organization whose explicit purpose is electing and supporting Democratic attorneys general. It paid $250,000–$350,000 for the personal criminal legal defense of a sitting Attorney General who faces potential re-indictment on federal charges dismissed without prejudice. She obtained an ethics opinion approving the acceptance. I am not in a position to second-guess the ethics opinion on its legal merits.
What the ethics opinion does not resolve are the forensic questions: What are the full terms of DAGA’s contribution? Is it unconditional, or does it carry any expectation — explicit or implicit — regarding her continued service as Attorney General? If she resigns before the legal proceedings conclude, does the funding continue? A political organization whose mission is retaining Democratic attorneys general in office has a structural interest in whether the sitting New York Attorney General remains in her position while facing federal charges. If that structural interest is connected in any way to $250,000–$350,000 in legal defense funding, the public has a right to know the terms. None of those terms appear in this disclosure or in any public document.
The same woman who obtained a $355 million judgment against Donald Trump for misrepresenting financial interests is disclosing $250,000–$350,000 in gifts from a partisan organization for her personal criminal defense, while she remains in the office that organization exists to protect, while facing potential re-indictment on charges dismissed without prejudice.
What This Disclosure Proves
Start with what her own office said about this document. When Letitia James refused to release her tax returns, her communications director Alexis Richards told the public: “All are welcome to review her annual financial disclosure when that is released.” Her office did not provide tax returns. It pointed here — to the annual New York State financial disclosure — as the transparency substitute. This is the document her office held up as the public record of her finances.
A signed financial disclosure filed by an attorney under oath is not a neutral document. Every decision about what to include, what to correct, and what to leave unchanged is a decision made with knowledge of the prior record. By May 13, 2026, that prior record included my published investigations, an independent title search confirming phantom mortgages, a federal indictment, an FHFA criminal referral, and two grand jury proceedings. She signed anyway.
The selective pattern is the finding. She corrected the investment property classification — the label that sat at the center of the federal indictment — in her 2024 disclosure, filed during active public scrutiny. She did not correct it in 2023 when no one was looking. She did not amend prior filings when she corrected it. She just quietly changed it and offered no explanation. That is not what innocent people do with their sworn filings.
At the same time, Freedom Mortgage — which my title search confirmed does not exist in the public property record — remains on this disclosure for the third consecutive year. OVM Financial — the only confirmed mortgage in the public record, the mortgage at the center of the federal indictment — remains absent for the sixth consecutive year. Sterling Street, purchased in August 2023 and documented in public records, remains absent for the third consecutive year. The Brooklyn property is still described as four units when a 2001 certificate of occupancy says five.
She corrected the things that proved intent. She kept the things that are demonstrably false. That combination, executed under oath after two years of documented public scrutiny, is itself forensic evidence.
Documents don’t lie. People lie about documents. What she chose to correct and what she chose to keep are equally forensic facts.
— S.E. Antar
Update in progress: I have commissioned current title searches on both Virginia properties — 3121 Peronne Avenue and 604 Sterling Street. The Peronne Avenue search will confirm whether any Rocket Mortgage, First Merchants, Nationstar, or other instrument has been recorded after the January 31, 2025 index date of my prior search. The Sterling Street search will confirm the current mortgage status of the property omitted from three consecutive disclosures. I will report the results here when received.
I will update this analysis as new documents become available. I have been wrong before. When I am wrong, I correct it publicly. That is the standard I hold myself to. It should be the standard applied to everyone in public life who signs documents under oath.
Written by Sam Antar | Forensic Accountant & Fraud Investigator
Follow @SamAntar on X
Disclosure: I am a former felon who committed securities fraud at Crazy Eddie before cooperating with federal authorities. I have spent over 30 years as a consultant and educator on fraud detection for the FBI, SEC, DOJ, and other law enforcement agencies. This analysis is based exclusively on public records and sourced reporting. Nothing in this report constitutes a legal conclusion. Where I characterize something as a documented fact, I have linked to its primary source. Where I draw an inference, I have said so explicitly. I am a registered Democrat. My investigations follow documents, not politics.
© 2026 Sam Antar. All rights reserved.