U.S. DISTRICT COURT, BENTON—Nearly every month the case file of former Bridgeport mayor Max Schauf is scrutinized by Disclosure, it reveals another interesting twist in the circumstances.
The month of July was no different.
In the case file as of July, documents show, first of all, that sentencing in Schauf’s money laundering scheme (during which he was charged with, and convicted of, stealing money from the city in order to enrich himself unjustly) has been changed from August 8 to September 26, 2013.
Schauf had originally been indicted by a federal grand jury in November of 2012, and had entered a plea of “not guilty” to all four counts against him, which showed that he was using city funds to pay personal credit cards, and advising those in his circle on how to lie to FBI agents who had been crawling over the area for about a year prior to the indictment in an effort to learn just what Schauf was doing with city funds and with his “front” business, the Red Hill Veterans Club.
He changed his plea to guilty on May 8, and sentencing was set for three months from that date, in Benton.
The July changes
However, on July 3 (the same date the sentencing change was entered into the record), another entry showed a motion for Entry of Order of Forfeiture with Respect to Max R. Schauf.
In this document, federal authorities, by and through U.S. attorneys Stephen R. Wigginton and J. Christopher Moore, ask for a forfeiture to be assessed against Schauf in the amount of $44,036.74.
It’s unclear exactly how the federal investigators came up with this amount, but in a theft case, generally speaking, an amount of “forfeiture” is usually assessed against someone based upon how much money they have been found to have stolen from the person or entity they were charged with in the first place.
If this is the case, this would mean that Schauf, between July 2008 to March of 2011 (the time frame the feds examined and investigated him), stole from the city of Bridgeport $44,036.74.
Considering that this is a less-than-two-year stretch, this is a phenomenal amount.
The feds, when charging a federal felony, can only charge back to three years from the time of complaint that results in an investigation being launched.
Schauf has been mayor of Bridgeport since May 2001.
Records prior to the July 2008 date, if they could be examined for the fraud scheme, would not be allowed to be used against Schauf.
What did he do with it?
The only indication of what Schauf could have done with such an amount during that time frame comes from the initial indictment from November 6, 2012.
There, it points out that Schauf had used city funds to pay a couple of different personal credit cards.
What Schauf could have run up the credit cards with over the two-year period that would have amounted to over forty thousand dollars is unknown.
However, such a matter might come before the court soon.
On the motion document, U.S. attorneys state that if Schauf doesn’t stipulate to (agree with) the feds on the amount, “the United States intends to offer evidence in support of this amount during the sentencing hearing or at any alternative time designated by the court.”
This forfeiture request might be why the feds still have in their possession numerous city files, in order to go over with a fine-toothed comb just what Schauf was doing with city funds while he was in the mayoral seat; the possession of which is causing serious problems for the city when it comes to budgeting for the 2013-14 fiscal year (see related story).
And it most likely is the reason for the sentencing postponement, as there still may be a volume of material to comb through to find out what exactly Schauf was doing all those years.
Forced sale of property?
Schauf has thus far been compliant in everything the feds have requested of him, all while he’s out on what amounts to a recognizance bond (a $50,000 “unsecured bond” that is neither a real recog [appearance] bond, nor a secured [property or cash] bond).
The presence of the unsecured bond might also play heavily into the requested amount, given that it’s very close to the $44,036.74.
Most likely, however, the amount represents what Schauf’s sticky fingers were able to lift while he was in office, terrorizing certain businesses in Bridgeport, propping up his violent son and grandbabydaddy, and creating businesses for his otherwise-shiftless offspring.
Interestingly, the U.S. “asserts that the monetary forfeiture judgment should be in addition to, and enforceable above and beyond, any judgment entered for restitution in this case,” according to court documents filed July 3.
That means that more than $44,036.74 can—and probably will—be assessed against Schauf. And, as proven in the case of former Gallatin County sheriff Raymond Martin in 2010, the feds can—and probably will—force foreclosure on properties Schauf owns, the sale of which will provide the proceeds they say he owes as restitution, fines, and fees associated with the prosecution of the case of the mayor with greed driving his very existence.