Case: Doc 5 Filed: 12/13/18 Page: 1 of 7 PAGEID 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO "!tf?2 WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON UNITED STATES OF AMERICAPlaintiff, I I 18 as 1341 THOMAS M. ROSE 18 U.S.C. 1343 BRIAN HIGGINS, 18 2 Defendant. The Grand Jury charges: COUNTS ONE THROUGH THREE [l8 U.S.C. 1341 and 2] I. INTRODUCTION At all times relevant to this Indictment: 1. Defendant BRIAN HIGGINS was a businessman in the greater Dayton, Ohio metropolitan area. Throughout that time, defendant BRIAN HIGGINS lived at, and was one of the titled owners of, 7240 Meeker Creek Drive, Dayton, Ohio (hereinafter ?Meeker Residence"), a private, one?story home with over 8,000 square feet of living space. Defendant BRIAN HIGGINS co?owned the Meeker Residence with an individual identified herein by the initials C.H. By at least summer 2014, however, C.H. did not live at the Meeker Residence. Page 1 of 7 Case: Doc 5 Filed: 12/13/18 Page: 2 of 7 PAGEID 13 2. Nationstar Mortgage, LLC, (hereinafter ?Nationstar") was a company headquartered in Texas that originated and serviced mortgages for customers throughout the United States. Nationstar held a legal interest in the Meeker Residence. 3. Assurant, through its related entity Standard Guaranty Insurance Company, (collectively, ?Assurant") was a specialized insurance business that operated in various states, including Ohio. Assurant provided homeowners insurance coverage on the Meeker Residence for Nationstar and C.H. II. THE SCHEME TO DEFRAUD AND ITS EXECUTION 4. Between a beginning date unknown, but at least by in or around August 2014, and continuing through in or around February 2015, in the Southern District of Ohio, defendant BRIAN HIGGINS knowingly and with the intent to defraud, devised, executed, and participated in a scheme to defraud Assurant and to obtain money and property owned by and under the custody and control of Assurant, by means of materially false and fraudulent pretenses, representations, and promises, and the non?disclosure and concealment of material facts through a fraudulent insurance scheme. 5. Defendant BRIAN HIGGINS devised this fraudulent insurance scheme to operate, and the fraudulent insurance scheme Page 2 of 7 Case: Doc 5 Filed: 12/13/18 Page: 3 of 7 PAGEID 14 did Operate, as follows: a. During July 2014, while defendant BRIAN HIGGINS resided at the Meeker Residence, the prOperty sustained significant water damage from a leak in an approximately 600 gallon fish tank. Around the time of this incident, various financial institutions, including Nationstar, had joined foreclosure proceedings against the Meeker Residence. Despite the pendency of this litigation, Morningstar obtained for its benefit and that of C.H. homeowners insurance on the Meeker Residence. b. In or around August 2014, defendant BRIAN HIGGINS submitted a claim in the name of C.H. to Assurant concerning the water damage. As part of the claim?s process, Assurant required that the claimant submit true and accurate information to it, concerning, among other things: the cost of repairs as well as bona fide invoices documenting actual repair work performed, or expected to be performed, on the residence. Based on the claimant?s tacit representation concerning the validity of this paperwork including, among other things, bona fide invoices and repair cost estimates Assurant issued funds ultimately destined for, among others, the vendor who performed the purported repair work on the property. Page 3 of 7 Case: Doc 5 Filed: 12/13/18 Page: 4 of 7 PAGEID 15 C. Rather than submitting bona fide, accurate invoices and other documentation concerning repairs performed on the Meeker Residence, defendant BRIAN HIGGINS created and caused to be created false, fraudulent, and fictitious paperwork that materially misrepresented the repair work performed on this property. Defendant BRIAN HIGGINS submitted and then caused to be submitted these false, fraudulent, and fictitious documents. Defendant BRIAN HIGGINS also engaged in conversations with Assurant in which he materially misrepresented and fraudulently omitted material facts concerning, among other things, the status of work at the Meeker Residence. In doing so, defendant BRIAN HIGGINS intended for Assurant to issue funds that he then planned to divert for his own personal benefit rather than repairing the Meeker Residence as represented. d. Based on defendant BRIAN false and fraudulent pretenses, representations, and promises, and the non?disclosure and concealment of material facts, Assurant issued funds, and sustained losses, totaling over one hundred thousand dollars. Page 4 of 7 Case: Doc 5 Filed: 12/13/18 Page: 5 of 7 PAGEID 16 THE MAILINGS 6. On or about the dates listed below, in the Southern District of Ohio, defendant BRIAN HIGGINS, for the purpose of carrying out the above?described scheme to defraud, caused the items described below to be deposited and to be sent and delivered by the United States Postal Service as well as private and commercial interstate carriers: COUNT DATE MAILING ONE 8/15/2014 Letter from Assurant addressed to C.H. at the Meeker Residence TWO 9/10/2014 Check totaling $14,666.89 to a company identified herein by the initials U.D. THREE 2/4/2015 Letter from Assurant addressed to defendant BRIAN HIGGINS at the Meeker Residence All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1341 and 2. Page 5 of 7 Case: Doc 5 Filed: 12/13/18 Page: 6 of 7 PAGEID 17 COUNT FOUR [18 U.S.C. 1343 and 2] I. INTRODUCTION 7. The allegations of paragraphs 1 through 3 of this Indictment are realleged and incorporated by reference as though set forth in full. II. THE SCHEME TO DEFRAUD AND ITS EXECUTION 8. Between a beginning date unknown, but at least by in or around August 2014, and continuing through in or around February 2015, in the Southern District of Ohio, defendant BRIAN HIGGINS knowingly and with the intent to defraud, devised, executed, and participated in a scheme to defraud Assurant and to obtain money and property owned by and under the custody and control of Assurant, by means of materially false and fraudulent pretenses, representations, and promises, and the non?disclosure and concealment of material facts through a fraudulent insurance scheme. 9. The scheme was designed to operate and did operate as described above in paragraphs 5(a) through 5(d) of this Indictment. Page 6 of 7 Case: Doc 5 Filed: 12/13/18 Page: 7 of 7 PAGEID 18 THE WIRINGS 10. On or about the dates listed below, in the Southern District of Ohio, and elsewhere, defendant BRIAN HIGGINS, for the purpose of carrying out the above?described scheme to defraud, caused the transmission of the following writings, signs, and signals, by means of wire communication in interstate commerce: COUNT DATE MAILING FOUR 8/28/2014 Interstate email from defendant BRIAN HIGGINS to Assurant In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1343 and 2. A TRUE BILL A Foreperson BENJAMIN C. GLASSMAN United States Attorney G. TABACCHI Assistant United States Attorney Page 7 of 7