Free Redacted Document - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

` Case 1 :08-cr—OOO69-UNA O4/22/2008 Page 1 of 3 __
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ·’ '''#. I
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE 5
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )
Plaintiff, g
v. i Case No. 08- C?
DAVID MATUSIEWICZ, i
Defendant. i
1 .t\
INDICTMENT ey IV
or (J sl
The Grand Jury for the District of Delaware charges that: L
Introduction
l . At all times relevant to this Indictment, Wilmington Savings Fund Society ("WSFS”) Bank was
a federally insured financial institution, the deposits of which were insured by the Federal Deposit
Insurance Corporation (or "FDIC").
COUNT ONE
Scheme and Artifice to Defraud
2. In or about August 2007, the defendant, David Matusiewiczrievised a scheme and artifice to
defraud WSFS Bank, a federally insured financial institution, and to obtain funds owned by or under
the custody or control of WSFS Bank, by means of false and fraudulent pretenses, representations, and
promises.
3. It was part of the scheme and artifice to defraud that the defendant applied to WSFS Bank
for a home equity loan in the principal amount of $249,000, secured by real property located at 1424
Norva Drive, Middletown, Delaware.
4. Ptusuant to WSFS Bank policy, a WSF S banking representative informed the defendant that

Case 1 :08-cr—OOO69-UNA Document 3 Filed O4/22/2008 Page 2 of 3 {
the bank would need to obtain the signatures of all persons whose names were on the deed to the Norva
Drive property, and that each of those persons would need to sign various closing documents regarding
the loan. At the time this loan process was taking place, the name ‘ of both the defendant and his ex-
wife, C.M., were on the deed to the Norva Drive property. Therefore, both the defendant and C.M. were
required to sign the closing documents in order for the loan to be granted by WSFS Bank.
5. It was further a part of the scheme that on August I5, 2007, the defendant arranged to meet
with a WSFS bank representative at the defendant’s office in order to sign the closing documents. The
defendant did not tell the bank representative, who believed that the defendant and his ex—wife were still
married, that the two were in fact divorced. Instead, the defendant signed the closing documents and
falsely and fraudulently indicated that C.M. was in another room at the office, when in fact C .l\/I. was
not present in the defendant’s office on August 15, 2007.
6. It was further part of the scheme that the defendant left the room where the bank
representative was seated and later returned, presenting the representative with the closing documents
that purported to be signed and initiated by C.M.
7. It was further part of the scheme that the defendant had, in fact, falsely and fraudulently
forged or caused to be forged C.M.’s signature and initials on these closing documents.
Charging Paragraph
8. In or about August 2007, in the State and District of Delaware, David Matusiewicz,
defendant herein, did knowingly execute, and attempt to execute, a scheme and artifice to defraud
WSF S Bank, a federally insured financial institution, as described more fully in paragraphs 2-7 above,
incorporated herein by reference, and in execution ofthe scheme, on or about August 15, 2007, forged
or caused to be forged the name and initials of C.M. on closing docurnents regarding a home equity loan
in the principal amount of $249,000, secured by real property located at 1424 Norva Drive, Middletown,
-2-

. Case 1 :03-cr-00069-UNA Document 3 Filed O4/22/2008 Page 3 of 3
Delaware, knowing that the forged documents were fraudulent, all in violation of Title 18, United States
Code, Section 1344.
COUNT TWO
9. On or about August 15, 2007, in the State and District o;” Delaware, David Matusiewicz,
defendant herein, knowingly made material false statements for the purpose of influencing the action
of WSF S Bank, an institution the accounts of which are insured by the FDIC, in connection with a home
equity loan in the principal amount of $249,000, secured by real property located at 1424 Norva Drive,
Middletown, Delaware, in that the defendant forged or caused to be forged the name and initials of CM.
onto various loan closing documents, when in truth and in fact, as the defendant well knew, CM. had
not signed or initialed those documents, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1014.
A TRUE BILL:
.»·"'_"•i
i S Foreperson _
COLM F. CONNOLLY
United States Attorney
BY: é
Christophe J. Bu ·
Assistant United States Attorney
Dated: April 22, 2008

Case 1:08-cr-00069-UNA

Document 3

Filed 04/22/2008

Page 1 of 3

Case 1:08-cr-00069-UNA

Document 3

Filed 04/22/2008

Page 2 of 3

Case 1:08-cr-00069-UNA

Document 3

Filed 04/22/2008

Page 3 of 3