Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw
United States of America v. Allen Giltman
Date: 01-24-2025
Case Number: 22-cr-00002
Judge: Esther Salas
Court: The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (Essex County)
Plaintiff's Attorney: The United States Attorney’s Office in Newark
Defendant's Attorney: Click Here For The Best Newark, New Jersey Criminal Defense Lawyer Directory
Newark, New Jersey criminal defense lawyer represented the Defendant charged with $50 Million Wire And Securities Fraud Scheme
California Man Sentenced To 87 Months For Role In $50 Million Wire And Securities Fraud Scheme
Allen Giltman, 59, of Irvine, California, previously pleaded guilty in Newark federal court to a two-count Information charging him with conspiracy to commit wire fraud and conspiracy to commit securities fraud.
Between 2012 and October 2020, Giltman and others engaged in an internet-based financial fraud scheme, which generally involved the creation of fraudulent websites to solicit funds from investors. At times, the fraudulent websites were designed to closely resemble websites being operated by actual, well-known, and publicly reputable financial institutions; at other times, the fraudulent websites were designed to resemble legitimate-seeming financial institutions that did not exist.
Victims of the fraud scheme typically discovered the fraudulent websites via internet searches. The fraudulent websites advertised various types of investment opportunities, most prominently the purchase of certificates of deposit, or CDs. The fraudulent websites advertised higher than average rates of return on the CDs to lure potential victims.
The fraudulent websites used a variety of means to appear legitimate and to gain and maintain the trust of prospective investors, including by (a) displaying the actual names and logos of real financial institutions; (b) purporting that the institutions were members of and/or regulated by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), Financial Industry Regulatory Authority ("FINRAâ€), the Securities Investor Protection Corporation, or New York Stock Exchange; (c) claiming that deposits made to the institutions associated with the fraudulent websites were FDIC insured; and (d) using FINRA and/or FDIC member identification numbers issued to real financial institutions and real FINRA broker-dealers.
After discovering one of the fraudulent websites, victims would contact an individual via telephone or email as directed on the sites. As alleged in the Information, this individual was Giltman. During his communications with victims of the fraud scheme, Giltman impersonated real FINRA broker-dealers by using their names and FINRA CRD numbers. Giltman would then provide the victims with applications and wiring instructions for the purchase of a CD. The funds wired by the victims would then be moved to various domestic and international bank accounts, including accounts in Russia, the Republic of Georgia, Hong Kong, and Turkey. None of the victims received a CD after wiring the funds.
To date, law enforcement has identified at least 150 fraudulent websites created as part of the scheme. At least 70 victims of the fraud scheme nationwide, including in New Jersey, collectively transmitted funds that they believed to be investments in the aggregate amount of at least approximately $50 million.
* * *
About This Case
What was the outcome of United States of America v. Allen Giltman?
The outcome was:
Which court heard United States of America v. Allen Giltman?
This case was heard in The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (Essex County), NJ. The presiding judge was Esther Salas.
Who were the attorneys in United States of America v. Allen Giltman?
Plaintiff's attorney: The United States Attorney’s Office in Newark. Defendant's attorney: Click Here For The Best Newark, New Jersey Criminal Defense Lawyer Directory.
When was United States of America v. Allen Giltman decided?
This case was decided on January 24, 2025.