United States of America v.v Seku N. Shabazz, fka Jason Brooks

Cleveland, Ohio, criminal defense lawyers represented the Defendant charged with Embezzlement from an Employee Benefit Plan, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 664, Engaging in Monetary Transactions in Criminally Derived Property, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 195, and Aggravated Identity Theft, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1957.

Seku N. Shabazz, fka Jason Brooks, age 54, of Cleveland, ohio, carried out a series of interrelated frauds to obtain funds from various individuals and entities. He then used the money to fund his lifestyle and maintain the illusion of success.

Shabazz was a licensed investment advisor who was the president and chief executive officer of a wealth management and financial advisory firm. Although he withheld employee retirement savings contributions, he did not remit them into the company’s plan and failed to pay the required employer matching contributions. He instead used the money to make other business and personal expenditures, including to pay for his memberships to a yacht club and a private business and social club.

Once he exhausted his employees’ retirement funds, Shabazz allegedly began operating an investment fraud Ponzi scheme. He solicited individuals to loan him money so he could raise capital to make mortgage loans to real estate companies, developers, and other entities. Shabazz misled and lied to investors to obtain more than $1.2 million and used the money to fund his lifestyle and at times make some payments to earlier investors and other creditors.

In yet another financial scheme, Shabazz used the identity of two individuals to give the false appearance that he controlled their company, and therefore, owned their residence. Through this misrepresentation and identity theft, he obtained a mortgage loan for over $220,000 secured by their residence and then used a portion of those funds to repay approximately $97,000 owed to the 401(k) plan participants. The owners only learned of the mortgage when they received a notice of foreclosure.

An indictment is only a charge and is not evidence of guilt. Defendants are entitled to a fair trial in which it will be the government’s burden to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.