Former Newspaper Publisher and Associates Indicted for $10 Million Florida Wire Fraud Scheme

Share This Post:

On January 5, 2017, the U.S. Attorney’s Office (USAO) announced that wire fraud charges were levied in Florida federal court against four individuals for their alleged participation in a $10 million mortgage fraud scam against Washington Mutual Bank.

Marco Laureti, owner of Laureti Publishing Co. and also part-time mortgage broker, was charged with defrauding Washington Mutual by using straw buyers and fake loan documents to illegally acquire loans for the purchase of high-end condos that he subsequently diverted for personal use. In addition to Laureti, charges have also been filed against his associate Felix Mostelac, title business owner Michelle Cabrera, and a Florida-based investment group CEO, Pedro Melian.

The Defendants executed the scheme by selecting several Broward and Miami-Dade residential properties to buy, utilizing straw buyers on the loan applications, and then fabricating those applications and HUD-1 settlement forms to mislead Washington Mutual into providing mortgages on the properties.

The USAO said that after the loans had been approved, Laureti ordered Cabrera to divert a portion of the funds to pay the closing costs, and to divert additional capital from the funded loans to multiple businesses owned by Laureti and Mostelac.

The USAO alleges that Laureti and Mostelac used an identical scheme to finance the purchase of their multimillion-dollar residences in Miami Beach. Authorities stated that the alleged fraudulent activity took place between June 2007 and January 2009. Washington Mutual Bank collapsed during the economic crisis and was seized by the Office of Thrift Supervision and placed into receivership. After being stripped of its banking license by the FDIC, the banking subsidiary was eventually sold off to JP Morgan Chase in 2009.

The criminal complaint filed by the USAO indicates that Cabrera is the manager and registered broker of Florida Elite Title & Escrow LLC, and operated as the title agent who disbursed the illegally-acquired funds for residential developments in South Florida. The documents further reveal that Melian acted as a straw buyer responsible for applying for and acquiring fraudulent mortgage funds from Washington Mutual Bank.

The USAO stated that Laureti, a former newspaper publisher as well as a licensed real estate sales associate and mortgage broker, and Mostelac, the head of several companies, were long-time business associates.

The criminal charges against Laureti and Mostelac were filed separately from the complaint implicating Cabrera and Melian. All four individuals have been charged with one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud affecting a financial institution. However, Laureti and Mostelac also received multiple counts of wire fraud affecting a financial institution, which could significantly enhance their sentencing.

The USAO stated that Defendants, if convicted, could receive up to thirty years in federal prison for each count.

Questions about this article? Reach out to our team below.
RELATED

Offshore Capital Concerns: A Tactical Guide for U.S. Lenders and Fund Sponsors

Raising capital from offshore investors can unlock valuable funding opportunities for U.S. lenders and real estate funds, but it comes with added layers of tax, compliance, and regulatory complexity. From ECI exposure and withholding tax risks to strict AML/KYC requirements, sponsors must navigate challenges that go far beyond basic securities law. This article outlines key risks and practical structuring strategies, including the portfolio interest exemption and feeder-blocker models, to help sponsors attract international capital while minimizing tax burdens and compliance pitfalls.

Converting Rule 506(b) Offerings to Rule 506(c): Considerations for Fund Managers

The SEC’s 2025 clarification on Regulation D Rule 506(c) is prompting many issuers to reconsider their reliance on Rule 506(b). While the shift offers greater flexibility in solicitation, it also introduces new complexities, particularly around accredited investor verification and transitioning existing offerings. Understanding these requirements is key to maintaining compliance and avoiding operational challenges.

California’s Anti-Deficiency Rules: What Lenders Can Recover — and Where Guaranties Fit

California’s anti-deficiency statutes can significantly limit what lenders recover after a real estate loan defaults. While the rules appear straightforward, recovery rights often depend on factors such as the foreclosure method, the nature of the loan, and the structure of any guaranties. Understanding how statutes like the “one-action rule,” purchase-money protections, and trustee’s sale restrictions interact is essential for lenders evaluating their options. This article explains the framework of California’s anti-deficiency laws and examines when guaranties remain an effective path for recovery and when courts may view them as an impermissible attempt to bypass borrower protections.