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. Joseph Rodriguez

Date: 07-16-2025

Case Number: 2:98-cr-00547

Judge: John D. Early

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: Mark Berman, John McMahon

Description:
<font color="red"><b><h2><center> Newark, New Jersey criminal defense lawyer represented the Defendant charged with three counts of wire fraud </font/color="red"></b></center></i></i><b><center></i><br>
<b> </b> California Man Indicted for Scheme to Defraud New Jersey Company of Millions of Dollars</h2></center></b></b></center></><br>
</font/color="red"></b></center></i></i><b><center></i><br>
<br>
A California man has been indicted for fraudulently obtaining millions of dollars from a victim company based in New Jersey.<br>
<br>
Joseph Rodriguez, 70, of Irvine, California, is charged by indictment with three counts of wire fraud. Rodriguez was arrested yesterday and appeared before U.S. Magistrate Judge John D. Early in Santa Ana, California federal court.<br>
<br>
According to documents filed in this case and statements made in court:<br>
<br>
In January 2015, Rodriguez, through his company Old American Incorporated, entered into a factoring agreement with a New Jersey company (identified in the indictment as "Victim-1”) to obtain loans secured or collateralized by accounts receivable. Under the factoring agreement, in which a business sells its outstanding invoices to a third party for immediate cash, Old American retained control over customer relationships and debt collection and was required to pay back Victim-1 directly within 90 days.<br>
<br>
From February 2023 through July 2023, Rodriguez submitted to Victim-1 fraudulent invoices for future accounts receivable that Rodriguez represented were owed to Old American. In fact, the customers listed in the invoices Rodriguez provided to Victim-1 did not owe any money to Old American for any outstanding invoices, and there were no accounts payable to turn over. Based on the fraudulent invoices, Victim-1 made millions of dollars of advance payments to Rodriguez, which he did not return.<br>
<br>
Each of the wire fraud charges carries a maximum penalty of 20 years in prison and a maximum fine of up to $250,000, or twice the gross gain to the defendant or loss to the victim, whichever is greatest.<br>
<br>
U.S. Attorney Habba credited special agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, under the direction of Special Agent in Charge Stefanie Roddy in Newark, with the investigation leading to the charges.<br>
<br>
The government is represented by Assistant U.S. Attorneys Farhana C. Melo and Benjamin D. Bleiberg of the Economic Crimes Unit in Newark.<br>
<br>
<br>
###<br>
<br>
Outcome:
<font color="green"><b><h2><center> The charges and allegations contained in the indictment are merely accusations, and the defendant is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty. </font/color="green"></b></center></i></i><b><center></i><br>
<b> </b> </h2></center></b></b></center></><br>
</font/color="green"></b></center></i></i><b><center></i><br>
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments:

About This Case

What was the outcome of United States of America v. Joseph Rodriguez?

The outcome was: The charges and allegations contained in the indictment are merely accusations, and the defendant is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.

Which court heard United States of America v. Joseph Rodriguez?

This case was heard in The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (Essex County), NJ. The presiding judge was John D. Early.

Who were the attorneys in United States of America v. Joseph Rodriguez?

Plaintiff's attorney: The United States Attorney’s Office in Newark. Defendant's attorney: Mark Berman, John McMahon.

When was United States of America v. Joseph Rodriguez decided?

This case was decided on July 16, 2025.