Home > Giudices Sentenced to Federal Prison for Money Fraud, Guidices Plead Guilty to Money Fraud, Money Fraud Charges, Teresa Wants a Cooking Show > Joe Giudice Sentenced to 41 Months in Federal Prison, Teresa Sentenced to 15 Months; Where Does Teresa Giudice See Herself in Five Years? (Updated January 6, 2015)

Joe Giudice Sentenced to 41 Months in Federal Prison, Teresa Sentenced to 15 Months; Where Does Teresa Giudice See Herself in Five Years? (Updated January 6, 2015)

January 30, 2014

Teresa Giudice Tells Her Story by Glamography: “Where Do I See Myself in Five Years?”

In the video above by Haute Hostess, uploaded by Glam Channel on January 6, 2015, Teresa Giudice answers the question, “Where do I see myself in five years?” Since people tell her she’s “made for TV,” Teresa says she “just wants to keep it going” and adds that she wants to “keep branding myself.” Teresa says she would consider “my own cooking show,” “being a judge on a cooking show,” or “something like that.” She explains: “I definitely want to continue doing something in TV.”

UPDATE November 11, 2014: RadarOnline reported on November 11, 2014, that the judge in the Joe and Teresa Giudice’s fraud case signed a new order of forfeiture for Teresa and Joe. According to the document obtained by Radar, the Giudices still owe restitution of $214,588.90 “pursuant to the plea agreements,” even though they paid $200,000.00 at their sentencing hearing on October 2, 2014. In addition to the total $414,588.90 in restitution that they were ordered to pay toward their Wells Fargo mortgage debt (the original debt was with Wachovia, which completed a merger with Wells Fargo in January 2009) as part of their plea deal, the couple still owes $13 million to many other creditors.

Should they fail to pay, the government can go after their assets, “until the forfeiture money judgment is paid in full,” the document states. They can either establish a payment plan or surrender their assets. The U.S. Attorneys Office “is authorized to conduct any discovery needed to identify, locate, or dispose of forfeitable property,” the document notes.

indictment 2

At Joe and Teresa Giudice’s sentencing hearing for bankruptcy, wire and mail fraud, Joe was sentenced to 41 months in federal prison by U.S. district court judge Esther Salas. Judge Salas sentenced Teresa to 15 months for her part in a bankruptcy and mortgage fraud scheme. The judge ruled Teresa will serve her sentence before husband Joe, and that she must surrender on January 5th, allowing her to spend the holidays with her family. In addition to the prison terms, the judge fined Joe $10,000 and fined Teresa $8,000, sentenced them each to two years of supervised release, and ordered the couple to forfeit $414,588.90. Joe was advised by the court that he faces deportation after serving his sentence; that decision will be made by U.S. Immigrations and Customs Enforcement following completion of his prison term.

“I will say on the outset, I’m going to focus on what I didn’t say to your husband, that all of the false declarations, wire fraud, and bank fraud is still your fault,” Judge Salas told Teresa in her closing statement. “For a moment, I thought about probation until I read the government’s report. What you did in the financial disclosure really sticks in my craw. It’s what the court has a problem with. It shows blatant disrespect for the court,” she explained. “I’ve seen a lot, but I’ve never seen the confusion and work that went into these financial documents… I need a full picture of who you are, I need a full disclosure of your financial assets; it’s not because I want to be nosy,” Salas continued. “Because of that, I don’t think you respect the laws of this country. You are not as bad as your husband; you do not have the criminal record that he has had, but you are complicit in it,” Salas added. “Getting this financial information that I need to judge this case was like pulling teeth — it was the most difficult in all my years as a judge and as a lawyer,” she argued. “Mr. Giudice was the captain and he will have to live with the sentence I gave him. The first mate deserves a little bit of a break.” – Us Weekly, October 3, 2014

In July 2013 Joe and Teresa were charged with 41 counts of bank, bankruptcy, wire and mail fraud; and Joe also faced five counts of failing to file tax returns. The fraud charges together carried a maximum penalty of 35 years in prison and $1 million in fines, but under federal sentencing guidelines for their plea agreements, Joe’s recommended sentence was 37 to 46 months; Teresa’s was 27 months.

Joe pled guilty to 5 charges, Teresa pled guilty to 4. If you read the plea agreements, you’ll see they’re virtually the same, save the extra charge for Joe — failure to file tax returns. Joe’s offense level is 21, Teresa’s is 16 — that’s why Joe is facing more time. You’ll also notice in the plea agreement that all parties agreed to these offense numbers (which the judge uses to determine sentencing). The ONLY difference is this: Teresa reserved the right to argue for a downward departure (of 2 points) under a ‘Family Responsibility’ provision. This is why Teresa and her lawyer publicly stated that they were going to ask for house arrest or probation only. But this is a a long shot. First off, the government reserved the right to challenge it. Secondly, Teresa and Joe have a huge extended family, so she can’t argue that she, and she alone, is desperately needed. The qualifications to meet this provision are very strict and very difficult, and she won’t be able to meet it. Lastly, there won’t be any talk of “Joe was the mastermind” or “I only signed what was put in front of me.” If Teresa tries this, she undermines the whole plea deal, one that includes many stipulations, including admitting her guilt and accepting responsibility for the charges to which she pled guilty. She not only had to agree to this in the signed plea deal, but to then do so in front of the judge at sentencing. Again, denying or diminishing her role in the crimes is contrary to what she agreed to and would work against her, not in her favor. [LotusFlower, September 12, 2014, PreviouslyTVForum]

Though they maintained their innocence and claimed prosecutors targeted them because they’re famous (“We’re good people. I don’t understand why this is happening to us,” Teresa said in her first post-indictment interview with Bravo’s Andy Cohen), they eventually pleaded guilty in the case. In March 2014 each pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud and three counts of bankruptcy fraud — by concealing assets, falsifying court filings and falsely testifying (they admitted to hiding assets from a bankruptcy trustee). And Joe pleaded guilty to failing to file one year’s tax returns.

At the Giudices’ sentencing hearing on October 2nd, Judge Salas lambasted the couple for failing to disclose assets on financial forms that were tied to their sentencing, calling it “a direct affront to the court.” The Giudices hiding assets even until the bitter end cost Teresa her freedom. The judge explained that she was inclined to grant probation until Teresa submitted false information about her assets to the probation department, which was preparing the pre-sentence report for the court.

Teresa appeared dumbfounded when Salas said that she had first considered probation or home confinement instead of prison time for Teresa but changed her mind when she noticed discrepancies between what the prosecutors had listed as the couple’s assets and what the couple had reported to the probation department. “If [Teresa] had put something down, anything, I think [probation] would have been fine with that,” Salas said of Teresa’s reports to probation officers. “She put nothing down, nothing.” Salas repeatedly challenged Teresa’s attorney to explain the problem-riddled documents. “I’ve been a judge for seven years and I have yet to ever see the amount of confusion and work that went into these financial disclosures… It feels as if things have been hidden or concealed.” Salas noted that the couple received documents for financial disclosures that should have been turned in by March 4th but were not turned in to the court until August 19th. “I had to put the sentencing off because the financial disclosure wasn’t in,” she said. – NorthJersey.com, August 3, 2014

Teresa’s plea agreement specifically addressed what could happen if she failed to disclose all her assets to the probation department (excerpt below).

Teresa's plea agreement - forfeiture

In Teresa’s plea agreement she consented to the forfeiture of her interests in any assets that she failed to disclose on the Financial Disclosure Statement.

Why RHNJ’s Teresa Giuduce Was Sentenced to Prison
October 3, 2014

Real Housewives of New Jersey co-star Teresa Giudiuce was sentenced to 15 months in prison yesterday, while her husband Joe received a 41 month sentence, in a federal fraud case. The Indictment included 41 counts of bank fraud, loan application fraud, bankruptcy fraud, and mail and wire fraud. Joe was also charged with tax offenses. Teresa pleaded guilty to four counts and Joe to five.

Teresa’s sentencing guidelines were 21 to 27 months. Joe’s guidelines were about double that. (The guidelines are not mandatory, and unless there is a mandatory minimum, which there was not in this case, the judge can impose a sentence below them.)

Teresa was hoping for probation. What went wrong? The judge said yesterday she had been inclined to grant probation, until Teresa submitted false information about her assets to the probation department, which was preparing the pre-sentence report for the court.

Backing up for a minute, here’s how the Government described the fraud scheme in a pretrial pleading:

In sum, the Indictment charges Defendants in Count I with engaging in a mail and wire fraud conspiracy involving the submission of fraudulent mortgage and other loan applications and supporting documents to financial institutions and other lenders in order to obtain mortgage and other loans. The Defendants falsely represented on these loan applications and supporting documents that they were employed and/or receiving substantial salaries when, in fact, they were either not employed or not receiving such salaries.

The Defendants also created fake documents such as tax returns, Forms W-2, and paystubs, which they then submitted to the lenders in support of these fraudulent loan applications.

Counts 2 through 13 further charge Defendants with specific instances of bank and loan application fraud resulting from this unlawful agreement.

The Indictment charges in Counts 14 through 36 that, after accruing a large amount of mortgage and other debt in this fashion, Defendants engaged in bankruptcy fraud in connection with the Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition that they filed on October 29. 2009 in U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Newark. The Indictment alleges that during the course of the bankruptcy proceedings, the Defendants repeatedly concealed assets, made false oaths. and made false declarations.

Among other acts of concealment and false statements, Defendants intentionally failed to
disclose their ownership of certain income-producing properties as well as the income they were receiving from those properties. In many instances, these properties were the same properties that they had earlier acquired with the proceeds of false and fraudulent loans.

Finally, the Indictment also charges Giuseppe Giudice with the willful failure to file tax
returns on the basis of his failure to tile a federal income tax return for the years 2004 through 2008.

Now back to the sentencing. After a defendant pleads guilty in federal court, they have to meet with the Probation Department. The Probation Department is tasked with writing a presentence report to the Judge, with a description of the offense, the history of the offender, the applicable guidelines, and a recommended sentence.

To prepare the report, the Probation Department requires the defendant fill out financial disclosure forms, listing his or her assets and liabilities and monthly expenses. Among other things, this helps the court determine whether the defendant has the ability to pay a fine. These documents are very important to the process. Submitting false information to the probation department can result in a separate charge of making a false statement to a federal official or obstruction of justice. (In Teresa’s case, according to the Plea Agreement, she had to fill out disclosure forms that were drafted by prosecutors, rather than Probation’s usual forms.)

The Judge believes Teresa lied on her financial disclosure forms. That is an affront to the court. And the judge made no bones about the impact. Until the discrepancy of Teresa’s disclosures came to light, the Judge had been considering probation.

During Teresa Giudice’s sentencing, [Judge] Salas said she had even considered giving her probation combined with home confinement and community service but changed her mind because of the omissions.

“You are a savvy businesswoman. You know how to brand yourself,” she said. “You tell me you didn’t understand you had to cooperate? It defies logic.”

Instead, Teresa got 15 months in prison. According to the New Jersey Record,

The judge noted the total value of the discrepancies at more than $75,000, and cited seven assets that were not listed on any document provided to the court.

What did she leave out?

[A] pool table, jewelry, all-terrain vehicles, closets full of pricey handbags and expensive shoes when reporting their assets.

According to the Judge:

“If [Teresa] had put something down, anything, I think [probation] would have been fine with that,” Salas said of Teresa’s reports to probation officers. “She put nothing down, nothing.”

She repeatedly challenged Teresa’s attorney, Klingeman, to explain the problem-riddled documents.

“I’ve been a judge for seven years and I have yet to ever see the mount of confusion and work that went into these financial disclosures,” Salas said.

The Judge didn’t buy the attorney’s explanation, that Teresa had hired an accountant to prepare the documents and assumed he’d do it correctly. She put the blame squarely on Teresa, telling her:

“I’m not sure you respect this court. I’m not sure you respect our laws. And I’m not sure you understand what you’ve done,” Salas said.

Teresa’s plea agreement (Doc. 24, available on PACER) specifically addressed what could happen if she failed to disclose all her assets to probation:

Teresa Giudice agrees to disclose all of her assets to the United States on a Financial Disclosure Statement to be provided by this Office and agrees to provide the Financial Disclosure Statement by the date that a draft presentence report is circulated in this matter. Teresa Giudice agrees that if the government determines that she has intentionally failed to disclose assets on that Financial Disclosure Statement, that failure constitutes a material breach of this agreement.

In addition, Teresa Giudice consents to the administrative, civil, and/or criminal forfeiture of her interests in any assets that she failed to disclose on the Financial Disclosure Statement.

Should undisclosed assets that the defendant owns or in which the defendant has an interest be discovered, Teresa Giudice knowingly and voluntarily waives her right to any required notice concerning the forfeiture of said assets. Teresa Giudice further agrees to execute any document necessary to effectuate the forfeiture of said assets.

It remains to be seen whether the Government will now seek to forfeit Teresa’s handbags and shoes or her pool table.

Despite the judge’s belief that Teresa lied on her disclosure forms, she still imposed a sentence below the guidelines. Her reasons: The couple has four daughters, Teresa has aging parents, and she was less culpable than her husband. She also gave the couple another break: They can serve their sentences sequentially. Teresa will begin her sentence in January. When she gets out, Joe will start his sentence.

Joe, however, may not make it home. Apparently, he’s not a U.S. citizen, having been brought here as a baby by his parents. He says he didn’t learn he wasn’t a citizen until he was an adult. Bankruptcy fraud is an aggravated felony, requiring deportation at the end of his sentence.

The Guiduces must also pay almost $400k in restitution. Their bankruptcy discharge was denied so they still owe $13 million to creditors. Yet it doesn’t seem to have had much of an impact on their lifestyle — or else, as the judge said, they just don’t get it:

When it was over, the couple left the federal courthouse in Newark holding hands. They were surrounded by security as they made their way to a white Mercedes-Benz SUV.


UPDATE October 2, 2014: The following was compiled from reports by NJ.com and NorthJersey.com on October 2, 2014 (read their final reports published on October 3, 2014 in the last comment to this blog post).

At the sentencing hearing on October 2, 2014, Judge Salas said neither is eligible for probation unless they are granted a downward departure or variance in the sentencing.

Joe’s sentencing was imposed first. After reading a pre-sentencing report in which the couple said they felt pressure to keep up with their wealthier friends, Salas said, “They’re not your friends.”

Early in the hearing, Salas grew visibly angry with the couple over what she called their “glaring” omissions and inconsistences in their required pre-sentencing financial disclosure statement. She said they have assets that weren’t declared, and she criticized the “inconsistencies and omissions,” saying this made it hard for her to be lenient. The judge said forms which should have been turned into the court by March 4, 2014 were not turned in until August 19th.

“It’s the same pattern of … dishonesty and manipulation … that they showed in the bankruptcy case,” said Assistant U.S. Attorney Jonathan Romankow, about the financial disclosure forms.

The judge questioned why the couple declared only $25,000 worth of items in their home, even though their insurance policy is worth $1 million. In 2009 bankruptcy filings, the couple showed $60,000 in assets in their home, the judge said.

“They had an obligation to be transparent and candid and open with the court and I don’t think I got that,” Salas said. “I want to understand the disconnect.”

Concerning the $224,000 Joe owes in back taxes, his attorney, Miles Feinstein, couldn’t confirm whether his client had actually paid them. Salas responded, “This is not a trick question.”

Joe’s lawyer delivered a long tribute on his client’s behalf, asking Salas to consider leniency because Joe took responsibility for the crimes in an attempt to exonerate his wife. “That is the mark of a real man,” he said.

Feinstein talked at length about the recent death of Joe’s father Frank, who died in June from a massive heart attack, and how devastated his client has been since then. He said Joe found his father on the ground near the chicken coop, and that Joe did everything he could, but Frank died in his arms.

Though mostly stoic throughout the hearing, at this point Joe took a tissue offered by his wife and wiped away tears.

Joe’s lawyer added that Joe has been deeply affected by the death. “He hasn’t been the same person,” Feinstein said. “That was his best friend.”

“Nobody can say Joe Giudice is not a good and considerate son,” Feinstein said. “He’s a low-key and loving individual. This is the real Joe. Not the ‘Housewives’ Joe.”

Feinstein said he’s witnessed Joe crying about “how he ruined everything, how he had (Teresa) sign documents, how he had destroyed” his family and their pursuit of the American dream.

Feinstein also read a letter from Joe’s mother Filomena, who could not be in court due to health problems. “My son needs a slap on the wrist, not to be taken away from his family.”

Salas later responded: “It’s not a slap on your wrist you need, Mr. Giudice. Uh-uh. You need to understand the laws of this country and that they need to be respected.”

“I stand here humiliated before the court and my family and society,” Joe said nervously before Salas delivered her sentence. “I disgraced many people, including my wife and four daughters. I take full responsibility for my actions. I promise to be a better person.”

Just before delivering the sentence, which includes 12 months to run concurrently for failing to file his tax returns in 2004, Salas told Joe: “I am not sure you respect the court. I am not sure you respect our laws. And I am not sure you understand yet what you did.”

But Salas also said that in not giving him the full recommended sentence of 46 months, she took into account the dozens of letters written on his behalf which described him as a loving and devoted husband and father.

“A sentence under the top end of the range would be appropriate,” she said. “Mr. Giudice, you’re a great dad. You love those girls. You would probably take a bullet for them. You should be proud of that, and every day you should hold that close to you … I have to give you credit for the life you have lived, at least to the people you have loved.”

She told Joe that she wished him luck and said, “What you did in this case doesn’t define you as a man … You have a lot to live for.”

Joe, who was born in Italy, never obtained citizenship and faces the prospect of deportation. Salas said the U.S. Immigrations and Customs Enforcement told the court that if they seek to deport him, they would wait until after he has served his sentence. Joe’s lawyer said that Filomena Giudice, Joe’s mother, blames herself for never having Joe, whom she bought to America when he was one year old, naturalized as a U.S. citizen. He also said that Joe didn’t know he wasn’t an American citizen until legal proceedings — but he didn’t say which proceedings.

Before recessing, the judge indicated that Teresa should receive prison time, but the sentence would be staggered so one parent could be at home with the couple’s four young children. A report prepared by Teresa’s legal team claimed that the four children would have to be split up among friends and family or possibly go into foster care if the couple were sentenced to concurrent prison terms. Salas mentioned that it appears to be Teresa, and not her brother Joe Gorga, who shoulders the most responsibility for their ailing parents.

After the recess, the court resumed with Teresa’s sentencing.

Salas lectured the couple about “glaring omissions” in both of their financial disclosure forms. Salas read off recreational vehicles, home furnishings, cars, construction equipment — all not reported to the probation office by the couple but listed on federal prosecutor’s documents.

Romankow said the couple never disclosed the $1,250 a month in rent they received from their Lincoln Park rental home, and that Teresa denied in bankruptcy proceedings that they had any rental properties. He said that Teresa endorsed checks from her tenants and deposited them in her TG Fabulicious bank account, with the memo line on the checks written out for “rent.”

The judge questioned why Teresa said on the forms that she has no jewelry; her attorney defended the statement, saying her costume jewelry is worth very little. The couple listed $25,000 in furnishings for their $3 million Montville home, an assertion that her attorney said was accurate. He explained that most of the furnishings seen on TV are brought in by the production company.

The judge then went on to list seven other items not listed on any court documents that were later discovered by government investigators.

“How is it that at this point the court is having to go over this?” Salas asked the Giudices’ attorneys.

“She’s not sophisticated when it comes to these matters,” said Teresa’s attorney, Henry Klingeman, on Teresa’s omissions from the financial disclosure statement. He characterized their finances as “complex and chaotic.”

Romankow said that the failure to disclose “was not transparent in the least; this concealment is intentional.” He argued that the “pattern of omissions does not make the couple worthy of leniency.”

The Giudices offered little explanation except to say that the couple had hired an accountant and provided that person with their financial information.

The judge told Teresa: “You need to stop relying on PR. You need to stop relying on CPAs. You need to start listening and making decisions.”

Teresa’s lawyer asked Salas to reduce possible penalties so her sentence could be flexible enough to let her stay at home with her children. He said that Teresa’s future was dismal, with her husband possibly deported and her living with her four girls in “God knows what house” with “no career to rely upon, no skills to rely upon, no income, no savings.” Salas replied, “This is not an extraordinary circumstance,” and ruled against Teresa’s motion to depart from the recommended sentencing guidelines because of her husband’s possible deportation and their four children at home.

Romankow requested for the judge to reject home confinement for Teresa “in the very house she built on fraudulent loans.”

Salas turned down a request for “downward departure,” which would lower Teresa’s possible sentencing range to allow probation and possibly home confinement.

Salas told Teresa: “For a moment, I thought about probation. For a moment. I considered probation with confinement. But the behavior you engaged in greatly offended the court. A period of confinement is absolutely necessary in this case. I don’t honestly believe that you understand or respect the law.”

Reading from a letter she had written, Teresa addressed the court late in the afternoon as the judge weighed what punishment she deserves for her part in the bankruptcy and mortgage fraud scheme.

Her voice faltering, Teresa told the judge: “I wrote this last night because I knew I was going to be nervous… I’m scared, I’m not going to deny it, I’m really scared.”

Two minutes into the four-minute reading, Teresa’s voice cracked.

“I have heard you. I need to live to do things for myself,” she read. “It’s time for me to wake up… I’m a woman of faith. This was not how I was raised. I am more sorry than anyone will ever know. I will make this right, no matter what it takes.”

“I fully take responsibility for my actions,”  Teresa said. “I deeply love my family… My four daughters are my life. I don’t care about the TV show.”

The judge agreed to stagger the sentences so at least one parent would be home with the couple’s four children.

After giving her 15 months in prison, Salas said to Teresa: “You, quite frankly, display genuine remorse. At the end of the day, I think you finally got it. You finally woke up.”

Click here to read the press release issued by the U.S. Attorney’s office on the sentencing of the Giudices. Click here for NJ.com’s timeline of the Giudice’s activities. Click here for an eye-witness account of the court proceedings on October 2, 2014.

bankruptcy guilt 5

Joe and Teresa Giudice Plead Guilty to Mortgage and Bankruptcy Fraud; Bankruptcy Court Says They Are Stuck Paying Off Their $13.4 Million Debt

UPDATE SEPTEMBER 5, 2014: The Giudice’s sentencing hearing has been postponed until October 2, 2014. In August 2014, the bankruptcy trustee filed forms of administration, closing the bookkeeping aspect of the Giudice’s 2009 bankruptcy filing; and in September 2014, the judge officially closed the case file.

UPDATE JUNE 19, 2014: The Giudice’s legal problems have been put on hold amid family tragedy. Following news of the death of Joe’s father, Frank, the couple’s July 8th sentencing date has been postponed, Teresa’s lawyer, Henry Klingeman, told Us Weekly.

UPDATE APRIL 10, 2014: According to a final report issued on April 8th by the court-appointed U.S. bankruptcy trustee handling the Giudice’s case, while the couple has satisfied $7,500 in debt for attorney fees tied to the trustee, Teresa and Joe still owe creditors $13.4 million.

The bankruptcy court determined that the Giudice’s concealed assets when they filed their original petitions and subsequent amendments in 2009, so the trustee denied the discharge of their debts. The Giudices and the bankruptcy court agreed in 2011 to consent decrees which stated that they would not be able to ever,  at any time in the future, be able to discharge their debts through Chapter 7.

The Giudices were charged with bankruptcy fraud (among other things) in 2013, to which they pleaded guilty.

With their guilty pleas, the bankruptcy case is officially closed, which means that creditors can pursue the money owed to them, said Ronald LeVine, a bankruptcy attorney in Hackensack not affiliated with the case. “So they’re in the same boat as before,” he said. “Whatever they owed, they owe now.”

“Oh, isn’t it great that the Giudices, living their life of excess off other peoples’ backs, are not inconvenienced by silly little things like restitution or punishment. SMH” – grandma cracker, RadarOnline, May 19, 2014

“Anyone who had remorse toward their victims and a conscience would tone it down and turn from the over-indulgent lifestyle they cannot afford, nor have earned on their own.” – Sami713, RadarOnline, May 19, 2014

“One thing is clear…their showy, gleeful comfort level in this gaudy display speaks volumes. Any convicted thief on their way to prison with any conscience would be embarrassed and uncomfortable with this. I hope the feds are taking notes.” – Birdie11, RadarOnline, May 19, 2014

“She should be ashamed of herself. She used other people’s money all these years, screwed over everyone, and lives high on the hog, rubbing it in everyone’s faces. She’s disgraceful!” – Lissa, RadarOnline, May 19, 2014

Teresa and her fans have been claiming for years that she is working hard to pay off their debt, but that is not the case. She has not made any attempt to pay off their debt using the millions she has earned from her Bravolebrity—she had paid a paltry $7,500 toward attorney fees and nothing to her creditors. Her debt has grown from $11 million to more than $13 million. The Giudices have no intention of paying anyone back. Most of the millions that Teresa’s made since filing for bankruptcy in October 2009 has been spent frivolously on superficial things.

The following is a report from NorthJersey.com on April 9, 2014:

The report comes one month after the couple pleaded guilty to bankruptcy fraud and conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud — criminal charges that could land them both in jail. Teresa and Giuseppe “Joe” Giudice jointly filed for personal bankruptcy in October, 2009, listing nearly $11 million in debt on their Chapter 7 petition.

In a blog item addressing the bankruptcy, Teresa Giudice cited reasons for the filing as real estate deals that had gone bad in a bad economy. We didn’t spend millions of dollars on gold toilets or private planes,” she wrote in the blog. “We bought buildings, fixed them up, and tried to help other people start their own businesses or be able to afford an apartment.”

Among the creditors listed in the report are Wachovia Bank (now Wells Fargo) for $5.3 million; the Community Bank of Bergen for $1.7 million; and the Internal Revenue Service which is owed $327,556.

The couple’s listed assets include their five-bedroom home in the Towaco section of Montville, a 2007 Cadillac Escalade SUV, household furnishings, commercial real estate, and interest in several companies; though valued at nearly $2.3 million, these assets in reality amount to a net value of just $165,000, because of liens and other costs.

The trustee did secure $15,000 in assets – from the Giudices – who paid for some of their furniture and other items, said LeVine.

While dealing with the bankruptcy, the Giudices were entangled in a second major issue tied to it: the criminal case in which they admitted concealing assets from the trustee. Both also admitted that they conspired to defraud banks and other lenders by submitting fraudulent applications and supporting documents in connection with nearly $5 million in mortgages, construction loans and lines of credit between 2001 and 2008.

Along with possible prison time, Joe Giudice is in jeopardy of being deported. The couple has not yet been sentenced for those crimes.

The Giudices are stuck paying back the $13.4 million they still owe to the IRS, the state of New Jersey, and various creditors, who are free to pursue them for repayment now that they have pleaded guilty to federal fraud charges (of course, the creditors will never get their money back because the Giudices will never make $13.4 million in their lifetimes). Basically, since their bankruptcy discharge was denied in 2011 (the court denied their petitions, which they both withdrew due to allegations of fraud), the Giudices have made no real attempt to pay back creditors (having only paid $7,500 toward their total debt over the past three years), and their debt has since increased by more than $2 million, for a total of $13.4 million (the bankruptcy trustee was able to secure $15,000 from the Giudices, which was used to stop the auction of their furniture and went mostly toward administrative costs).

The following is a report from the NJ Star Ledger on April 9, 2014:

The bankruptcy trustee overseeing Joe and Teresa Giudice’s finances has submitted his final report, which says the couple only satisfied $7,500 of their debts and still owe $13.4 million to their creditors, who can once again pursue the couple for repayment – that was on hold while the case wended its way through the bankruptcy system and while the Giudices fought a massive federal indictment alleging, among other things, bankruptcy fraud. (They pleaded guilty in March to several counts of financial fraud.)

The “Real Housewives of New Jersey” couple filed for bankruptcy on October 29, 2009, blaming the recession’s impact on Joe Giudice’s construction business. But when John Sywilok, their court-appointed trustee, alleged that the couple had hid assets and income, Joe Giudice in 2011 invoked the Fifth Amendment against self-incrimination and agreed to a settlement in which the court denied discharge of his debts. His wife later followed suit.

Since then, Sywilok has sought to satisfy creditors via the Giudices’ homes and possessions, but they were mostly financed to the hilt.

According to the final report, Sywilok had been able to secure $15,000 from the couple instead of seizing and selling off their own household goods and furnishings, but most of that went toward bankruptcy administrative fees.

The couple’s outstanding debts include $5.4 million to Wachovia, $1.7 million to the Community Bank of Bergen County, $1.3 million to Dime Savings Bank, more than $500,000 to the New Jersey Division of Taxation, and more than $386,000 to the Internal Revenue Service, according to the report.

“They are going to owe whatever they owed, as if they had not fought bankruptcy,” says Ronald LeVine, a Hackensack bankruptcy attorney unconnected with the case. “They’re completely stuck with their debt.”

The couple’s financial fraud case appeared to be triggered by the 2009 bankruptcy filing, although in addition to bankruptcy fraud, federal prosecutors alleged the couple also defrauded banks in order to obtain mortgages.

They will be sentenced July 8. Joe Giudice faces a recommended sentence of 37 to 46 months, while Teresa Giudice faces up to 27 months.

“It was a terrible decision to file for bankruptcy,” LeVine says. “They might have gotten away under the radar otherwise.”

According to TMZ , the bankruptcy trustee’s final report revealed that the Giudice’s have just $140,000 in equity in their $1.7 million house and no equity in two other properties; and the report further revealed that their extensive collection, including a Maserati, an Escalade, and two go-carts, had no equity whatsoever (however, they valued their dogs at $600).

UPDATE MARCH 4, 2014: On March 4, 2014, Joe and Teresa Giudice pleaded guilty to federal charges of mortgage and bankruptcy fraud. Joe pleaded to five counts, which included a failure to file income taxes (he was accused of skipping out on his tax returns for five years, 2004-2008, with income totaling $996,459); Teresa entered a guilty plea to four counts.

Both admitted to one count of conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud (connected to the 13 counts of fraudulent mortgage and other loan applications), plus one count each of bankruptcy fraud by concealment of assets, bankruptcy fraud by false oaths, and bankruptcy fraud by false declarations (they were charged with 22 counts of bankruptcy fraud: the couple filed bankruptcy in October 2009, but after several amendments and hearings, they withdrew their petitions two years later, in late 2011, because a federal bankruptcy court trustee filed a lawsuit claiming they both intentionally concealed assets and earnings to avoid paying back creditors).

The pair was scheduled to face trial on the federal charges beginning on April 14, 2014, with a sentencing hearing scheduled for July 8, 2014.

After the plea hearing, U.S. Attorney Paul Fishman said in a statement:

“Teresa and Giuseppe Giudice used deception and fraud to cheat banks, bankruptcy court and the IRS. With their guilty pleas, they admitted the schemes with which they were charged. Having now confessed their wrongdoing, the Giudices face the real cost of their criminal conduct.”

Joe’s attorney said it is realistic to expect that Joe will be given prison time at the couple’s July 8th sentencing, even though he said he may ask for probation. Teresa’s lawyer made it clear after the hearing that he will push hard for a sentence of only probation for Teresa, saying that she bears less responsibility than Joe for their decade of fraud and noting that the couple has four daughters who need to be cared for.

Under federal sentencing guidelines, which are not binding on the judge, Teresa faces 21 to 27 months in federal prison while Joe faces 37 to 46 months and could likely be deported.

Said Federal Judge Esther Salas in accepting the pleas, after Italian citizen Joe finishes his time behind bars, he will face another hearing that will “likely result in … your being removed from the United States.”

The couple had previously requested separate trials [see story below]; however, since they were charged as co-conspirators in defrauding banks, other creditors and the bankruptcy court, the plea deal was contingent on both of them pleading guilty.

The conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud to which the Giudices each pleaded guilty carries a maximum potential penalty of 20 years in prison and a $250,000 fine. Each of the three counts of bankruptcy fraud carries a maximum potential penalty of five years in prison and a $250,000 fine. Teresa’s plea agreement requires her to pay $200,000 toward restitution at the time of her sentencing hearing.

After the hearing, Teresa’s attorney, standing before a bank of microphones and dozens of reporters on the federal courthouse’s plaza, read aloud her statement (obviously written by her legal team as part of their strategy for dealing with the judge and the sentencing):

“Today, I took responsibility for a series of mistakes I made several years ago. I have said throughout that I respect the legal process and thus I intend to address the Court directly at sentencing. I will describe the choices I made, continue to take responsibility for my decisions, and express my remorse to Judge Salas and the public. I am heartbroken that this is affecting my family—especially my four young daughters, who mean more to me than anything in the world. Beyond this, I do not intend to speak specifically about the case outside of court, at the recommendation of my attorney and out of deference to the Government and our legal system.”

Teresa and Joe Giudice.

Federal prosecutors filed papers on January 29, 2014 (click here to read the 46-page document at RadarOnline), opposing a bid by Teresa and Joe Giudice to be granted separate trials on money fraud charges.

Earlier in January 2014, the Giudices asked a U.S. district judge to grant them separate trials, arguing Joe has evidence of his wife’s innocence, but he would not take the witness stand if they are forced to stand trial together. Teresa, likewise, expressed a desire to testify on her own behalf at a separate trial and to not testify against her husband.

From the report at NorthJersey.com:

The Giudices maintain they are entitled to separate trials to avoid forcing Teresa Giudice to choose between her right to testify in her own defense and her marital privilege to refrain from testifying against her husband, and to allow her husband to provide evidence of his wife’s innocence while preserving his Fifth Amendment right not to incriminate himself.

Prosecutors countered that the couple provided no details about what their testimony might be or how it might exculpate or incriminate either of them. They also said the spousal privilege is not a fundamental right that warrants severance.

In his motion filed earlier in January, Joe Giudice maintains that his wife “had no knowledge of any misrepresentation” made in loan and mortgage applications or lines of credit, and that she was not aware that various properties and businesses were acquired or owned in her name. Prosecutors argued that was an inadmissible opinion regarding her state of mind and therefore not exculpatory at all.

Joe Giudice also said that he, his attorney, and his business partner signed her name on numerous occasions without her knowledge or authorization, and that others, including bank representatives, knew that she had not signed various documents.

That testimony is “only minimally exculpatory, if at all,” the prosecutors said, noting it is unclear if any of those documents are related to the alleged fraud. More importantly, prosecutors said that the Giudices “obtained many other fraudulent mortgage loans with Teresa’s direct participation, including instances in which Teresa signed the fraudulent loan documents herself, and it is on the basis of those loans that she is charged with conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud and loan application fraud in the indictment.”

Prosecutors also argued Joe Giudice has provided false testimony under oath on multiple occasions and, as a result, his testimony in this case could be easily impeached, especially if he were to be tried first and convicted.”

The Giudices are scheduled to stand trial on April 14. If convicted, they could face lengthy prison terms, and Joe Giudice, who is an Italian citizen, could face deportation.

Concerning Joe’s claim in the motion filed earlier in January 2014 that Teresa “was not aware that various properties and businesses were acquired or owned in her name,” prosecutors certainly have obtained footage (click here for the video, “The Real Housewives of New Jersey: Joe’s New Venture”) from season 2 episode 11, taped around the time the Giudices filed bankruptcy, where Teresa says in an interview segment (TH):  “I own a lot of properties in my name.”

In the court filing, federal prosecutors wrote that Joe “has provided false testimony under oath on multiple occasions,” and that “his marriage to Teresa and status as the father of her four children provides grounds for impeachment in the severance context because these relationships alone suggest bias as a motive to fabricate.”

Prosecutors cited a written finding by U.S. bankruptcy Judge Morris Stern regarding Joe’s testimony in a case filed by his former business partner that was tried in November/December 2009:

“Giuseppe’s testimony was ‘thoroughly unconvincing’ and he was ‘unbounded as a prevaricator in spinning a tale’ with a ‘say-anything, do-anything’ attitude on the stand (Judge Stern went on to hold that the ‘extraordinary web of lies and misrepresentations woven by Giudice to implement and cover his misconduct reflects on his approach to business matters and suggests his disregard for legal restraints which would bind others’).”

Federal prosecutors also wrote that Teresa was directly involved in many of the fraudulent mortgage loans, including instances in which she signed the fraudulent loan documents herself or she authorized Joe to sign her name:

It has been long known to both the government and the defense that, in some instances, the Giudices obtained fraudulent mortgage loans in Teresa’s name by having someone else sign for Teresa at closing – either Giuseppe, with Teresa’s authorization, or his business partner or attorney, with Giuseppe’s authorization.

However, it is also true that the Giudices obtained many other fraudulent mortgage loans with Teresa’s direct participation, including instances in which Teresa signed the fraudulent loan documents herself, and it is on the basis of those loans that she is charged with conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud and loan application fraud in the Indictment.”

Also regarding the severance of their trials, federal prosecutors wrote that because Joe and Teresa were participants in the same conspiracy, the loan fraud and bankruptcy fraud counts were properly joined since “the defendants, through the use of false statements and false tax returns, induced [the victim] to loan them money and then filed a fraudulent bankruptcy petition in an effort to avoid having to pay it back”:

“Teresa and Joe appear to share the hope that each might have ‘a better chance of acquittal in a separate trial.’ This, however, is not a sufficient basis to sever two defendants who are both charged as participants in the same conspiracy and fraudulent scheme. Under this standard, the mortgage fraud and bankruptcy fraud counts are properly joined. ”

“Counts 1 through 13 allege that Defendants fraudulently incurred large amounts of loan debt by making false statements on loan applications and supporting documents.

“Counts 14 through 36 allege that Defendants then attempted to fraudulently discharge that debt by making additional false statements during the bankruptcy process.

“Furthermore, in many cases, the properties the Defendants acquired with fraudulent loans were the same properties that Defendants either failed to disclose their ownership of or concealed income from during the bankruptcy process.

“Because the conduct charged in counts 1 through 13 provided the impetus for the conduct charged in counts 14 through 36, and because there is factual overlap among the counts, therefore, the counts are properly joined. See United States v. White… finding loan fraud and bankruptcy fraud counts to be properly joined because ‘the defendants, through the use of false statements and false tax returns, induced [the victim] to loan them money and then filed a fraudulent bankruptcy petition in an effort to avoid having to pay it back’.”

In season 4 episode 14, Teresa and Joe taped a scene with their bankruptcy attorney, James Kridel, regarding the fraud case filed against them by Joe’s former business partner, Joe Mastropole. During an interview segment (TH), Teresa addressed the fact that Joe had forged Mastropole’s name on mortgage documents. Believing Joe’s admission to forgery was the reason for the judgment in favor of Mastropole (Joe Giudice was ordered to pay $260,000 still owed as part of their business divorce agreement), Teresa said: “See! You gotta lie!” (click here for the clip). Apparently, Teresa lied when she testified in the case, which cleared her of any responsibility for paying off Mastropole even though she also signed the business divorce agreement.

The following is a synopsis of Mastropole v. Giudice (bankruptcy Judge Morris Stern concluded that the money owed to Mastropole should be excepted from the Guidice’s bankruptcy discharge).

Teresa also was named in the fraud case filed by Joe Mastropole and was called to testify because she had signed the business divorce agreement which obligated the Giudices to pay Mastropole a total of $586,000 — $300,000 immediately with an ultimate payoff by December 1, 2007. The Giudices breached the agreement by failing to pay off the balance owed of $286,000; instead, they included it in their bankruptcy petition filed on October 29, 2009 as debt to be discharged.

Mastropole filed a lawsuit to prevent the debt from being discharged. During testimony at the proceeding in Mastropole v. Giudice on November 19, December 14 and December 15, 2010, Teresa was not implicated in any of the actual business affairs between Mastropole and J. Giudice, other than she had been a titleholder to certain property and had signed the business divorce agreement.

Attorney John Testa took the witness stand and said he represented the Giudices in the business divorce litigation with Mastropole, which was to have culminated with the June 13, 2007 settlement agreement. Testa identified the personal guarantee in the settlement agreement appeared to have been signed by Teresa and Joe Giudice and witnessed by himself. As to his witnessing the Giudices’ signatures, Testa said that J. Giudice signed in his presence, but Teresa’s signature was already on the guarantee when her husband brought it to him. Testa said he “would not accept that that way,” and said he telephoned Teresa to question her about the document. Testa said he went through it with her “and made sure that was, in fact, her signature.”

Teresa confirmed that she did not work in her husband’s real estate business or with Mastropole-J. Giudice business ventures. “I was not involved in their business,” as she put it. She said she recently became aware that her name was “on” certain real estate. She testified that she never met Testa and that she did not recall the guarantee nor any telephone conversation with Testa about the guarantee.

Wrote Judge Morris Stern: “Teresa was vague throughout most of her testimony, and particularly so in this regard. The singular area of Teresa’s testimony which was firm and emphatic was as to her purported signature on the personal guarantee. She said she did not sign the document.”

On cross-examination regarding Teresa’s signature on the guarantee, J. Giudice said: “I might have signed that . . . I don’t know.” He also said he did not know if Testa had called Teresa about the guarantee. J. Giudice also confirmed that he didn’t tell Testa about the Mastropole discharge of mortgage.

When the plaintiff’s case ended and the defense moved for dismissal, the court denied the motion as to J. Giudice; however, the court dismissed the case against Teresa in its entirely based upon the total absence of evidence connecting her (other than as a spouse) to her husband’s real estate business affairs, not because they believed her testimony.

UPDATE MAY 5, 2014: NJ.com reported on May 5, 2014, that a Bergen County Superior Court judge dismissed a lawsuit against Teresa, saying she played no role in a fraud perpetrated by her husband against his former business partner Joseph Mastropole:

Judge Robert Polifroni also dismissed much of Mastropole’s case against Joe Giudice, although he left the door open for Mastropole to seek punitive damages against his former partner for forging his name on documents related to the discharge of a mortgage on an East Orange apartment building, part of their so-called “business divorce” in 2007.

Mastropole’s name was taken off the mortgage, and Joe Giudice refinanced the property without paying him the $260,000 Mastropole was due.

The case predates the Morris County couple’s rise to fame on “Real Housewives,” but it became part of the show’s drama as Mastropole filed suit to have the debt excluded from the couple’s 2009 bankruptcy filing.

In 2011, U.S. Bankruptcy Court Judge Morris Stern sided with Mastropole, saying the debt should be excluded from the bankruptcy due to the forgery and calling Joe Giudice “unbounded as a prevaricator in spinning a tale,” and that “the extraordinary web of lies and misrepresentations woven by Giudice to implement and cover his misconduct reflects on his approach to business matters, and suggests his disregard for legal restraints which would bind others.”

The Giudices later withdrew their bankruptcy application amid accusations that the couple hid assets and income, and were indicted in 2013 for bankruptcy and bank fraud. They reached a plea deal earlier this year in which Joe Giudice faces up to nearly four years in prison and Teresa Giudice as much as 27 months.

The couple still owes $13.4 million to various creditors.

In his ruling, Polifroni reasoned the debt was eventually paid to Mastropole via a foreclosure on the property, and ruled against Mastropole’s request for attorney’s fees, which exceed the actual amount of the original debt. Polifroni also sided with Teresa Giudice, saying Stern had made a detailed a review of her involvement and found an absence of evidence connecting her to her husband’s real estate affairs.

Michael DeMarco, who represents the Giudices, says he is “extremely pleased” with Polifroni’s ruling, but Mastropole’s attorney William Michelson says he will likely appeal Polifroni’s ruling and seek punitive damages against Giudice for the mortgage fraud.

UPDATE MARCH 7, 2014: Joe Mastropole told RadarOnline in January 2011 that when Teresa took the stand in Mastropole v. Giudice she acted as if she was clueless about their financial affairs, even stating that she did not sign their bankruptcy petition. And under cross examination, when asked about her beach house, she acted befuddled, saying, “Is that in my name?”

However, according to Mastropole, Teresa was at every real estate closing. Mastropole told ibuysss.com:

“She knew every mortgage and attended every closing on all properties in her name and paid by way of her American Express card. Who is she kidding?” [Mastropole named Fred Roughgarden as the closing attorney.]

In season 3 episode 8, Teresa and Joe’s bankruptcy attorney, James Kridel, said both Teresa and Joe signed the bankruptcy petition, and although they filed it jointly, the court had chosen to handle the resolution for each of them separately (clip here for a recap; click here for the clip).

The following is a December 16, 2010 report by the New York Post on Teresa’s testimony in the fraud case filed by Mastropole against the Giudices.

Befuddled and broke “Real Housewives of New Jersey” star Teresa Giudice told a federal judge yesterday she had no clue she declared bankruptcy until well after papers were filed — and her shady husband admitted he forged her name on everything from their mortgage to his business documents.

“I’ll sign my name right now; it’s not my signature,” said Giudice after being questioned on a slew of documents — including the mortgage to the family’s New Jersey mansion and a handful of investment properties — purporting to bear her loopy John Hancock.

At one point, she was asked during cross-examination if she signed the mortgage to the couple’s Jersey Shore beach house.

She gulped, “Is that under my name?”

She said she left all matters up to her husband, Joe, who later claimed that he and others stuck her name on all kinds of documents that she knew nothing about.

He also copped to forging his business partner’s signature, in addition to that of a notary and an employee.

“My husband, if he had to tell me something, I’m sure he would,” Giudice said.

The couple — who are almost $11 million in debt — declared bankruptcy last spring.

The clueless cable-TV star — who once declared she was “too pretty to work” — even had to turn to her husband for help when the lawyer asked her what year they got married. “1999?” she said, looking at her husband.

“I’m drawing a blank.”

Giudice was in court for a hearing on a lawsuit filed by her husband’s former business partner. During a break from testifying, Giudice’s famous temper erupted at the wife of the ex-business partner’s lawyer. She accused Monica Ciccone [who later changed the spelling of her last name to Chacon] of spreading rumors about her.

“You’re violating ethnics!” screamed Giudice, who’s famous for her malapropisms.

Her husband’s former partner, Joe Mastropole, has sued the Giudices and accused them of forging his name on mortgage documents in order to pocket $1 million.

Yesterday’s hearing stemmed from a related case, in which Mastropole is trying to get back $260,000 he says that Joe Giudice owed him before he went bankrupt.

Mastropole testified that he didn’t believe Teresa Giudice was ignorant of her husband’s machinations. He called her a “good actor.”

A defiant Joe Giudice took the stand and blatantly admitted to a slew of forgeries. “Everybody does it,” he said, adding he “didn’t think it was a big deal.

Joe Mastropole also told RadarOnline in January 2011 that he’ll never recover any debt because Teresa’s the one with the money (Teresa herself has proclaimed that “I do work hard and make my own money” and that “my money is mine and Joe’s money is mine,” which must mean that Joe can’t use “her” money to pay off the debt):

“I’m disappointed because she’s [Teresa] the one making income and his money is fraudulent, untraceable and untaxed. She’s the only one bringing money in right now… You can’t really go after him. Even though I’m an exception to his discharge, I think his money is untraceable so it will be hard for me to recover any debt.”

During the reunion special for season 3, Andy Cohen asked about the case and whether they paid off Mastropole. Teresa said he’s paid in full and declined to comment further. However, in the wake of the Giudices’ federal indictment on money fraud, Mastropole told RadarOnline in August 2013 that the Giudices still have not paid him the balance due:

“I never received a penny from them.”

Public records show that the $255,000 owed to Joe Mastropole (the initial judgment of $260,000 was reduced to $255,000 by the court) is still an open judgment against Joe Giudice.

According to reports at ibuysss.com, the Giudices were never well off — the true source of their income was flipping mortgages. They would refinance or get second and third mortgages well over the values of their properties and basically use money from the new loans to make payments on the old ones loans. Then, on some of the properties, they would stop making payments and let them go into foreclosure (the apartment buildings, in particular). It was essentially a mortgage Ponzi scheme where they committed mortgage fraud over and over again.

When the Giudices filed bankruptcy in October 2009, they had 11 mortgages on six properties. Mastropole told ibuysss.com that together he and Joe owned 134 apartment units:

Joe’s job was to collect rents, but instead of paying fees and bills and making repairs, he spent it on their mansion and funded Teresa’s extravagant spending habits.

Mastropole told People magazine in June 2010 that Joe “raked in $150,000 a month without paying the bills, utilities or taxes on the buildings”:

They got money from me that was supposed to go to one of his apartment buildings, but I found out they spent it on their house. He wanted to collect rent and not pay the bills. He raked in $150,000 a month without paying the bills, utilities or taxes on the buildings.

In fact, the stairs in one of their apartment buildings in East Orange, NJ, were in such disrepair that a tenant fell and was injured. The tenant, Ruby Persha, won a $129,826 settlement by default when Joe Giudice didn’t show up to court; the balance remained unpaid at the time of the Giudices’ bankruptcy filing:

“I haven’t seen a cent,” she told People magazine in June 2010, adding that Joe often let the city cut off water and even heating oil at times for lack of payment. “He did everyone here extremely dirty,” she added.

The Giudices tried to have the $129,826 judgment in Persha’s favor discharged when they filed bankruptcy.

bankruptcy 18

On his October 2009 bankruptcy petition, Joe listed mortgages totaling $5,123,103 mortgages on three apartment buildings: the mortgages were qualified as unsecured because they were all in foreclosure.

In his December 2009 testimony in Mastropole v. Giudice, Joe Giudice confirmed that two of his apartment buildings, Webster Place and Glenwood Avenue, were in foreclosure (see images above and below) — one of those apartment buildings, Webster Place, was the property Joe had refinanced two years earlier, in December 27, 2007, whereby a preexisting $994,565 mortgage was replaced with $1,675,000 mortgages, netting him $680,435 cash at settlement, which was supposed to be used to renovate the building.

In Mastropole v. Giudice, Joe Giudice testified that Webster Place was in need of a full renovation, requiring substantial funding; he said he considered the refinancing of Webster Place to be necessary to fund its renovation; he also testified that without the refinancing deal, “nobody would have got anything, the building would have just sat there.”

The money Joe netted in the refinance of Webster Place must not have been used to renovate the building since the property went into foreclosure. Coincidentally, in May 2008, five months after receiving the $680,435 in cash resulting from the refinance of Webster Place, Joe paid $575,000 cash for 1576 Maple Avenue in Hillside, NJ, the pizza parlor with the apartments above, which was featured on the show in season 3 — this is one of the assets that the Giudices intentionally did not disclose in their original bankruptcy filing.

bankruptcy apartment buildings

The following is an excerpt from the June 28, 2010 issue of People magazine.

Critics — and creditors — are coming forward to blame the Giudice’s over-the-top spending habits and risky business decisions for their predicament.

“He did have money at one time,” says Jon Fellgraff, an architect who, according to bankruptcy documents, is owed $7,000 for his services. “But their spending got out of control, and they thought they could keep replenishing it. That didn’t happen, so they just stopped paying their bills. They blew all their money.”

Adds Bob Kaslander, owner of Excelsior Lumber, who is owed $91,000: “These are not innocent people who got caught in circumstances beyond their control. They charged everything. Then they file for bankruptcy so they don’t have to pay.

An attorney for the couple, Jim Kridel, admits those who are owed are in for a wait.

“The whole point is that bankruptcy forces you not to treat creditors preferentially,” says Kridel, meaning that the Giudices can’t pay one creditor at a time. (Instead, assets surrendered to a trustee are liquidated and proceeds are divided equally.)

Note: They failed to disclose all their assets to the bankruptcy trustee so that they wouldn’t have to turn over those assets or liquidate them to pay off creditors.

Fans of the show may be shocked that Teresa, who earned a reputation as a big spender on Housewives, no longer had the cash to back up her flash. During the first season, the mom of four — daughters Gia, 9, Gabriella, 5, Milania, 4, and Audriana, 9 months — boasted that her husband “is very successful and lets me spend money.”

And plenty of it. Joe ponied up more than $8,000 on a breast augmentation for his wife, and she showed her credit cards no mercy.

Meital Benaroya, owner of the high-end Englewood, N.J., boutique Reve, where Teresa continues to shop, says her friend’s love of luxury is undeniable. “Teresa is a woman of good taste,” she explains. “And good taste doesn’t come cheap.”

Joe was well-aware of his wife’s burning urge to shop but says the expenses were manageable during cash-flush times.

“For the nine years we’ve been married, she had a credit-card bill, and I would pay it. She might spend $10,000 on stupid things, but I didn’t question it — and it always got paid.”

Teresa also ploughed considerable funds into daughter Gia’s modeling and acting career — hiring photographers and acting and dialect coaches.

“Parents can spend a few thousand dollars on acting classes alone,” says Gia’s manager Maria DeSantis of Xist Model and Talent in Caldwell, N.J.

Nevertheless, Teresa still insists, “we were living within our means.”

While Teresa’s personal shopping habit ($695 Christian Louboutins, $1,400 cocktail dresses) helped pile up more than $80,000 of credit-card debt, building and furnishing the family’s mansion was the most intense drain on the family finances.

“She couldn’t make up her mind about the plans,” says their former architect Fellgraff. “She went on flights of fancy that were totally impossible to execute. A huge kitchen, fancy stairways. She wanted all the most luxurious features. It was unrealistic. I don’t think she had any concept of the finances.”

As they sank money into building the house, Teresa shopped for luxurious furnishings. In one Housewives episode, she dropped $120,360-cash-on furniture for a single room.

“That was just for the show, and I would never do that again,” Teresa insists. (Both the Giudices and the store, Unique Furniture and Design, were subsequently audited by the IRS. A store source says Teresa normally wrote checks and had opened lines of credit in her parents’ names to pay for her purchases.)

Teresa began showing signs of financial strain last year when she stopped decorating the home with four rooms complete.

“She still hadn’t even done the dining room,” says the source.

By then Joe was busy fighting off debt associated with his real estate ventures; Teresa didn’t realize the extent of their money problems.

“She knows nothing about the finances. She hates it all,” says Joe.

A successful businessman with multiple small companies — including pizzerias, laundromats and a stucco and stone distribution service — Joe had invested in several inner-city apartment buildings, becoming vulnerable to the volatile downturn in the market.

But sources tell PEOPLE the market alone wasn’t to blame for their increasingly dire money problems.

“They got money from me that was supposed to go to one of his apartment buildings, but I found out they spent it on their house,” says Joe’s former partner Joe Mastropole, who is embroiled in a separate lawsuit with Joe Giudice; bankruptcy documents show the Giudices owe him $586,000. “He wanted to collect rent and not pay the bills. He raked in $150,000 a month, without paying the bills, utilities or taxes on the buildings.”

Joe Giudice’s attorney Jim Kridel explains that while it became impossible to afford the mortgage payments as tenants left the building en masse, “whatever money he did collect in rent, he was putting back into fixing the buildings.”

That’s one claim that has been disputed. Tenant Ruby Persha sued Joe after falling down stairs that she said had been left in disrepair; she won a $129,826 settlement by default when Joe didn’t show up to court. The balance remained unpaid at the time of the bankruptcy filing.

“I haven’t seen a cent,” she says, adding that Joe often let the city cut off water and even heating oil at times for lack of payment. “He did everyone here extremely dirty.”

Joe says he never heard of the incident until court papers were filed, and that his buildings all had active superintendents — in fact, he even spruced up the buildings himself.

“These were crack houses. They were disgusting!” Teresa says, adding that once her husband fixed them up, “they were absolutely gorgeous.”

As for utilities being out of commission, Joe acknowledges that “maybe that would happen, but they never went a whole night without heat or anything. They’re exaggerating.”

When they filed for bankruptcy last fall, Teresa and Joe surrendered two properties, two cars and other personal property in order to pay back creditors as required, but their main residence remains safe for now.

“If they can’t afford it, they’ll surrender it at a later date,” says attorney Kridel. (The home was briefly listed for $3.99 million before Joe pulled it from the market on June 11, 2010.)

As for their lifestyle today, the bankruptcy only affects the assets they held prior to filing, so the couple are free to spend any newly earned cash as they please. Teresa’s cookbook Skinny Italian is on the bestseller list (a second book is in the works), and Joe has started a new business.

“You gotta spend money. You gotta buy things,” says Joe.

But Teresa insists they’re being careful. “I don’t spend money that I don’t have,” she says heatedly. “Believe me, going forward, I’ll show that.”

Joe and Teresa Giudice

The following is a recap by the Daily Mail of Joe and Teresa’s interview with Andy Cohen on WWHL shortly after they were indicted on July 29, 2013.

‘We’ve never lived beyond our means’: Joe and Teresa Giudice discuss fraud charges… but say reality in-laws will NOT care for their children if sent to jail.

They are each facing 50 years in jail if found guilty of 39 separate counts of financial fraud — charges they both deny.

But should anything happen to Real Housewives Of New Jersey stars Joe and Teresa Giudice, their four children will not be sent to live with their aunt and uncle Melissa and Joe Gorga.

‘They wouldn’t want to go there,’ Joe told Andy Cohen on Sunday’s special edition of his Bravo talk show Watch What Happens Live. ‘Because of all the things they say on television about their mom.’

‘It wouldn’t be Melissa and Joe. It would be my sister and brother,’ he said, adding that the Teresa’s brother and his wife had ‘not really’ been supportive.

However, Teresa said she hadn’t even considered the possibility of losing the case when it goes to trial in February.

‘I’m not really thinking about that now,’ she said. ‘I’m just focusing on my family.’

Having agreed to refrain from discussing specifics about the allegations against them on their lawyers’ advice, Joe was adamant that neither of them have ever lived beyond their means.

‘Whatever I could afford to buy I would buy,’ said Joe. ‘We work hard, so what, we are allowed to make money. It’s part of that’s what we do. I’m a business man and I make money.’

He told Cohen that the couple’s accountants as well as himself were in charge of the couple’s money affairs, and admitted he had made mistakes relating to his finances.

‘Nobody’s perfect,’ he claimed. ‘Everybody makes mistakes. I make mistakes every day.’

Meanwhile, Teresa said she had suffered from sleepless nights since they were charged in June.

‘It’s devastating,’ she said. ‘I have anxiety and sleepless nights. I used to sleep like a baby, now I get up. It feels like a dream. I have to be strong, for my husband, for my children. I’m trying to do the best I can. I can’t fall apart, Andy. I have my daughters. They mean the world to me. Maybe out of all this… I don’t know. You go through things in life, I don’t know why. I’m asking like, why is this happening to me?’ she adds. ‘So maybe something my daughters can learn from this is, my mom was really strong through all this, she was there for us, and I hope they always have that there with them.’

The 41-year-old star then wiped away a tear, while clasping the hand of her husband Joe, 43. They were adamant they would remain in the public eye — they will both appear on the Housewives reunion show on October 6.

‘I’m not crawling under a rock and hiding,’ said Teresa. ‘That’s not me. I am still going to be the person who I am and the day I go to court, when we resolve this, everyone will see who Joe and I really are. I am not just running away.’

However, they went some way into blaming the show for their current predicament.

‘Absolutely. Because if I wasn’t on the show, nobody would care,’ said Joe when asked if being on Real Housewives ‘brought the charges on.’

Teresa was reluctant to even consider the possibility of a jail sentence, telling Andy: ‘I don’t even think about that. Because I haven’t done anything.’

The couple, who have four daughters, also revealed their oldest Gia, 12, ‘knows there’s something going on but I don’t know if she knows exactly what the charges are.’

Back in July, a federal grand jury released an indictment which details charges of conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud, bank fraud, making false statements on loan applications, and bankruptcy fraud.

Teresa’s attorney says she will plead not guilty and that ‘we look forward to vindicating her.’

The charges all stem from between 2001 and 2008 — prior to their TV fame — when the couple allegedly defrauded the IRS as well as several banks. The US Attorney claims the Giudices conspired to illegally obtain mortgages and other loans from multiple banks by intentionally overestimating their incomes in order to get more money.

When Teresa filed for a mortgage loan of $121,000 in 2001, she falsely claimed she worked as an executive assistant, submitting fake W-2 forms and fake paystubs as part of the ruse, the indictment said.

‘The indictment returned today alleges the Giudices lied to the bankruptcy court, to the IRS and to a number of banks,’ U.S. Attorney Paul Fishman said. ‘Everyone has an obligation to tell the truth when dealing with the courts, paying their taxes and applying for loans or mortgages. That’s reality.’

Teresa has previously stated: ‘I am committed to my family and intend to maintain our lives in the best way possible, which includes continuing my career. As a result, I am hopeful that we will resolve this matter with the Government as quickly as possible.’

Joe, 43, is further accused of failing to file income tax returns for the years 2004-2008, during which he allegedly earned $1 million.

Then when the couple declared bankruptcy, they are alleged to have underestimated their net worth. The couple, who have four children, first filed for bankruptcy in 2009, claiming more than $10 million in debts. In their petition for bankruptcy protection, initiated in October 2009, the couple concealed businesses they owned, rental income they received, and Teresa’s true income from the Real Housewives, website sales and personal appearances, the indictment said.

Prosecutors said they also hid their anticipated increase in income from the then-upcoming second year of the show, which is now in its fifth season.

Fabellini commercial 
Teresa’s New Fabellini Commercial (click here to compare to the SNL skit, “Swarovski Crystal”)

UPDATE MARCH 12, 2014: On March 12, 2014, insiders told In Touch that Teresa has already found a silver lining in her crisis:

“Teresa thinks that if she goes to jail, it’ll only make her more famous,” an insider close to the couple tells In Touch. “She thinks she’ll be redeemed — and then become even more popular and be able to make a fortune.”

Teresa already uses her legal woes to her advantage. Sources confirm that RHONJ cameras have been following her family’s every move in the days leading up to her court date. A production insider tells In Touch, “She knows she has to let them film in order to be the star and central story line of the show. This is her moment.”

Four months after she and husband Joe were indicted on 41 counts of fraud, the couple pleaded guilty to nine felony charges, admitting that they were engaged in a nearly decade-long scheme to defraud banks, the IRS and bankruptcy court of millions.

  1. GPM
    January 30, 2014 at 10:02 AM

    Fame, I was just wondering how the fact that Teresa had filed a motion for severance got by me. When Juicy filed his motion it was big news, but I don’t recall seeing anything anywhere referencing a similar motion (on an apparently somewhat different basis) by Teresa.

    I continue to worry about fair trial issues and what almost seems to be a deliberate attempt to prejudice the jury pool.

    I was surprised, for example, to see that RadarOnline had posted the fed’s entire memorandum but, while ROL reported on Juicy’s motion, they didn’t post the memorandum that was apparently filed by him in support of it. Both sides would have likely presented a strong and confident stance on the law but by only showing one side ROL can characterize the fed’s memorandum as “scathing” without showing the offsetting position.

    • Autumn
      January 30, 2014 at 11:40 AM

      Well one thing we know for sure is that ROL certainly isn’t biased against the Guidices; ::: laughs ::: and ROL usually sets the bar very high when it comes to producing their own documentation, rather than relying on hearsay from partisan informants. ::: laughs :::

  2. Jeannie5233
    January 30, 2014 at 11:10 AM

    RadarOnLine has posted the court documents filed by the federal prosecutors in full. Here is the link:

    Click to access teresabb.pdf

    I only have had a chance to skim it and I am about to run out the door but it definitely makes for interesting reading!

    • Anonymous
      February 1, 2014 at 8:36 AM

      I almost laughed with the one reason listed for denial of seperate trials, being that it would save the government money.

      • February 5, 2014 at 1:05 PM

        I agree. It is laughable that it would “save” the govt. money. The amount of man hours, investigative costs, the media blitz made by the prosecutor’s office on behalf of their case, the insane amount of charges, many repetitive and/or beyond the statute of limitations) is mind-boggling. They are not trying to save any money. In contrast to what they say, they are spending as much money as possible to scare the public, the Guidice family, and as GPM stated, there seems to be a “deliberate attempt to bias the jury pool.” The scope of the laws have been ‘stretched’ beyond logic and legality and any responsible journalistic should present not only the public records presented by the prosecutors, along with the legal responses of Tre and Juicy. What I find most disturbing is that when both were charged, the court REQUIRED that EACH party, Tre and Juicy has to post TWO separate bonds and both parties have retained separate counsel. Even if this was a strategic move by Tre and Juicy, it is still very much legal for them to do so. If each had to post bond, I don’t know why they aren’t allowed to legally have separate trials. The decision to deny the request of both Juicy and Tre seems inflammatory and bias. I think that Tre and/or Juicy should bring the Judge before the ethics committee to attempt to have him recused from the case.

  3. January 30, 2014 at 3:12 PM

    I read the government’s reply to the Giudice’s motion for separate trials, which RO has online. Joe is trying his best to take the fall so that Teresa does not have to go to prison, but the feds are determined to hold both of them accountable. It looks like both of them will be doing time if convicted. I think when the Giudices realize that the feds are not going to let Teresa off the hook, they will take a plea deal (probably admitting guilt to mail and wire fraud) just before their trial is to begin on April 14. The best case scenario for Teresa will be a two-year sentence; Joe will get more time, IMO. Some are speculating that the feds will allow one to serve first, and then the other, so that the children will have at least one parent with them – that is what was done for Jesse Jackson Jr. and his wife.

    • Grand-Beth
      January 31, 2014 at 1:08 AM

      Fame family….

      I just read that something like 41 out of 47 of the Obamacare Navigators that are helping people sign up for healthcare have been convicted of tax fraud, identity theft or some kind of felony. That means they have access to our SS#, bank account# and all of our personal info.
      That is so scary that I can`t even wrap my head around this. AND it says that background checks were not even done on these people 😦 AND some were convicted several times for the same thing…
      This is just crazy…….

      • littlewitch
        January 31, 2014 at 11:05 AM

        This is in the state of California. Some of the offenses are decades old and only 1 percent of the 3,729 enrollment counselors in the State of California are included in the “possible” number of counselors in question. People who may have made a mistake 20 years ago are still entitled to a job. Thanks so much for distorting the facts and trying to scare people. Absurd!

        • punkinseed
          January 31, 2014 at 4:53 PM

          Grand Beth, please cite your source on this information.
          littlewitch, thank you for the follow up/rebuttal. Blanket judgments and zero redemption for someone’s past is cold and heartless.

        • Grand-Beth
          February 1, 2014 at 5:10 AM

          Dear little,

          I was not trying to “distort” the truth. I said this is what I read. And it does scare me……..

  4. January 30, 2014 at 3:53 PM

    Thanks Fame for all your research. I have been looking into the new girl Amber Marchese, her husband is the real deal in white collar crime (in my opinion). He got away with the whistle blower case, then went into the mortgage (fraud) business. Sounds like a real scoundrel. Then we have Apollo from RHOA.These two have hurt other people in their get rich schemes, the only people Joe and Teresa have hurt are themselves.What is Bravo thinking when they don’t do background checks, or maybe they do and it is all part of Andy’s master plan.

    • February 2, 2014 at 11:29 AM

      Happy someone brought this up.  I’ve read a little into the rumored reports about Amber not wanting to be on the show with potential criminals but yet her husband has done some shady stuff as well.  Fishy!   If you have such ill about being on a popular reality show with criminals why did you sign up… unless you have some skeletons of your own.  And I do also agree Andy and Bravo not giving people background checks only hightens the drama once everyone’s dirty past becomes revealed to the cameras.  They know exactly what they are doing.

  5. January 30, 2014 at 6:12 PM

    try to explain it all away. This is all too delicious. On the very few occasions when I have found myself starting to feel sorry for Teresa, I have reflected back to this particular scene and the way that she behaved. This is the real Teresa. The one who thinks that doing something like working in a restaurant to make pizza would be too pedestrian for the budding “cookbook author”. The one who wasn’t willing to do anything necessary to help pull her family out of the financial mess she had helped get them into.

    I have always felt certain that Teresa and Joe would take a plea deal once they saw the discovery. Let’s face it, at this point no one knows exactly what evidence the Feds have of their crimes. Clearly, what they have must be big, since they have spent years of time and lots of money to put this high profile case together. They don’t want to look like fools on such a big stage. I am sure they have had the best handwriting analysts available look at the documents, and more than likely they have much sworn testimony from various loan officials who were with them at the signings. What they might also have is video evidence. Banks have had video surveillance for years, but there are different standards that each bank uses with regard to how long they keep the footage. Some might only keep it for a month or so, some for years, and some keep it forever. Video of Teresa pulling a mocked up W-2 out of her LV bag at a loan closing she swears she wasn’t even at will be more than a little bit damning to her case.

    In the end, Teresa will put on a brave face and tell the world that she just cannot fight “the man” and that the conspiracy to bring her down is just too big. She will say she is doing it for her girls, and she will take some type of a plea deal with some jail time. Her overall goal will be to continue on the farce that she began and act like she is innocent and she will want for whatever fans she has to believe it. If they were to see the evidence the government has against her, it would be harder for them to believe her. She won’t ever want for the handful of supporters she still has to see any of this evidence. It is probably the right thing for her to do, but I will go on record as saying I hate it. I want nothing more than to see all the evidence they have against her, and watch her

  6. January 30, 2014 at 8:37 PM

    I just finished reading about half of this document. This is clearly the prosecution throwing dirty water on the wall to see what will stick. Clearly, the person pulling the strings behind this indictment (and most Grand Juries indict, it is in an abundance of caution, as they know all evidence will be presented later, viewed and actually given to the trial jury to make a judgment) clearly wants Teresa, and not Joe.

    It is NEVER a good idea to have a husband and wife stand trial together, that marital privilege thing … I could go on and on about this. This leaves an open door for an appeal and a new trial.

    A Bill of Particulars is common practice, since the prosecution does not want to provide one, leads me to believe, they, themselves, do not know exactly how they will prosecute this case at this time.

    Then the List of Witnesses. Not only is this provided almost immediately in most cases, but key witnesses are deposed, in the event they would not be able to testify at the time of the trial.

    Also, the fact that Teresa and Joe’s attorneys have not moved for a change of venue, leads me to believe that the evidence against them is weak.

    I will read the rest of this document tomorrow.

    • Deb G
      February 1, 2014 at 7:43 PM

      Momajackie, great post can’t wait till you read the rest of the document! Please repost, everything you said makes a lot of sense

  7. teramusique
    January 30, 2014 at 10:25 PM

    That’s an unfortunate picture of T’s hairline lol

    • January 30, 2014 at 10:58 PM

      Teresa will do a couple of years IMO. Joe will do at least seven to ten. I really like Joe and Teresa but, that video does show how she thinks she is above the working guy. I always felt Joe and Joey were both crooks along with Chris. I cant believe what people feel their entitled to or think they will get away with. I would NEVER even try to cheat on my taxes let alone sign false documents or false employment documents. If they are found guilty of these charges then they need to do the time. You and I would.

  8. January 31, 2014 at 11:06 AM

    Hi Fame, Question – Joe requests separation, prosecutor objects (that’s their job), When does the judge decide on the separation? At their next court date????

    • February 5, 2014 at 2:05 AM

      just this once, I don’t know when the judge will decide, but I don’t think it will be in the Giudice’s favor.

      • Anonymous
        February 5, 2014 at 9:09 AM

        Thanks Fame!

  9. Miami53
    February 3, 2014 at 12:11 PM
  10. NCGal
    February 3, 2014 at 4:19 PM

    Heads Up!!!!!

    Good Morning America just tweeted

    Good Morning America ‏@GMA 21m

    Tomorrow: #RHONJ Teresa and Joe Giudice speak out about their legal troubles and where their family stands now in an exclusive interview

    (I’m assuming tomorrow – no date indicated)

    • NCGal
      February 3, 2014 at 4:20 PM

      Replying to myself because it is clearly is tomorrow – It even says “tomorrow”. (Sigh)

    • February 4, 2014 at 10:50 AM

      For some reason I feel uncomfortable watching Teresa be interviewed about her legal problems. I guess it’s because I do like Teresa and wanted to see her show up her S1-S5 cast mates. Which, even with legal problems, Teresa has proved that she really is the star of RHONJ. Look at her now, two of her cast mates aren’t returning next season and the other two are probably kissing her butt big time to keep getting a Bravo paycheck! Things seemed to be changing positively for Tre on the scripted show. THEN, bam, the indictments hit her hard.

      Now when you read about her legal issues on news websites the comments are scathing! I’m sure some comments are from her enemies, like Kim G., but a lot are from people who don’t watch the show. These are people who are just reading the news and comment on the article written about the Giudice’s. Some have never heard about her until the indictments hit. Other’s have heard about her and laugh about her being a Bravo HW. I have defended her but my arguments are weak compared to the news articles evidence they elaborate on! A person having 41 federal charges against them speaks volumes about their character. Even if that person is a loving mother and a loyal wife.

      I wish the Giudice’s weren’t in this mess but they are. I couldn’t stand Teresa during season two but I did see a change in Teresa during season three and especially during season four. Teresa seemed more humbled after noticing she was being ganged up on and not just by the lady cast mates, her cousins gross husband and her maniac brother got in on the action, too. I just hope Tre doesn’t hurt her case by giving interviews. The federal government seems like they already have her prison picked out for her. One comment on a news website said that Tre has more incriminating evidence against her than Juicy does! I really doubt that but that’s just how some people view Tre.

      • elemcee
        February 5, 2014 at 1:31 PM

        This is exactly how I feel Ceesee! Even not liking Teresa in the first two seasons. Well said.

        • February 5, 2014 at 9:48 PM

          Thank-you, Elemcee! I wasn’t sure if I made sense. When Tre gives an interview she opens herself up to criticism, not just from Bravo HW viewer’s, but from the whole world! I didn’t see very many news websites that did an article about her GMA interview. That’s good, in my book. BTW, how did your son like his first semester of college?

  11. jackhole2014
    February 3, 2014 at 8:52 PM

    Bwaaahahaa NCGal!!! Tooo funny ha ha ha lololol

  12. Sackem
    February 4, 2014 at 7:42 AM

    Well, our little girl is officially 1! We made it! Now to wean…

    • Jeannie5233
      February 4, 2014 at 8:04 AM

      Happy Birthday Miss Ava!!!!! Hope your day is special just like you – and your Mummy!!!! Enjoy your bite of your very first birthday cake!! Lots of love, hugs, and kisses!!!!

    • Debbie J
      February 4, 2014 at 9:11 AM

      Happy Birthday Ava! Wow it’s hard to believe it has been a year already.

    • luvfamewhorgas
      February 4, 2014 at 6:11 PM

      happy birthday little Ava!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    • February 5, 2014 at 2:02 AM

      Sackem, please give a big hug to Ava from all of us at FW for sweet Ava’s first birthday!

    • Miami53
      February 5, 2014 at 7:21 AM

      Happy, Happy Birthday Ava….the most famous little girl on this blog!!!

    • February 5, 2014 at 1:13 PM

      How time goes by. Give her a big birthday kiss and a hug for me.

      • elemcee
        February 5, 2014 at 1:26 PM

        How wonderful! Happy birthday, Princess Ava! Take of yourself too, Sackem. Birthdays can be exhausting!

    • February 5, 2014 at 4:58 PM

      Happy Birthday sweet little Ava!

  13. NCGal
    February 4, 2014 at 10:34 AM

    For those that missed it, GMA video of Guidice interview is up here


    • February 4, 2014 at 11:01 AM

      Thanks for posting the link NCGal!

      An interesting tidbit revealed in this interview – It cannot be denied that the Giudices’ upcoming trial is pretty much a huge priority in the Giudices’ lives right now but Teresa and Joe’s legal woes will NOT be shown this upcoming season on RHONJ. More proof of what we already know – the “reality” of these characters’ lives – and that is what they are – characters playing a role given them by producers – is not real.

      It said Amy’s full interview will be on tonight on ABC’s NightLine.

  14. February 5, 2014 at 1:56 AM

    Jacqueline Laurita ‏@JacLaurita

    I knew this day was coming. To get involved or not to get involved. Hmmm. Decisions…decisions…

    7:37 PM – 4 Feb 2014

    Chris Laurita ‏@chris_laurita

    “Just when I thought I was out… They pull me back in!” Ugh!

    8:30 PM – 4 Feb 2014

    • Miami53
      February 5, 2014 at 7:23 AM

      it probably has to do with Dina….can’t believe it would have to do with Tre.

    • elemcee
      February 5, 2014 at 1:23 PM

      They want us to think Bravo is asking them to film? Pathetic attention seeking.

    • February 5, 2014 at 9:58 PM

      I hope she doesn’t get involved! The Laurita’s are out and if they just say “NO” they won’t be pulled back in!

  15. February 5, 2014 at 5:00 PM

    They are such a-holes. Last week she tweeted about a huge announcement coming this week about stupid BLK. She always does that, I guess it makes her feel relevant.

  16. February 6, 2014 at 2:42 PM

    I cannot for the life of me fathom why, why, why Teresa is allowing this. This is crazy, in my humble opinion:

    Andy Cohen: Teresa Giudice legal drama will play out in upcoming season
    By Vicki Hyman/The Star-Ledger
    on February 06, 2014 at 8:30 AM, updated February 06, 2014 at 8:32 AM

    The “Real Housewives” franchises are the brainchild of Andy Cohen — and no, the Hague has not yet brought charges. Cohen, who left his job as Bravo’s executive vice-president of development to start his own production company this year, will remain an executive producer of the series, and despite the divorces, the lawsuits and even a suicide, he tells TVGuide.com that he doesn’t foresee any end to the “Housewives” anytime soon.

    “I believe that this franchise can go and go and go if we treat it delicately and properly,” he says — two adverbs we rarely associate with the series.

    And that includes “Real Housewives of New Jersey,” currently taping its sixth season while star Teresa Giudice and her husband Joe face 41 counts of bank, bankruptcy and mail fraud.

    Though any allusion to her legal woes from her fellow housewives makes Teresa explode — think Krakatoa — and that taping will likely wrap before the case goes to trial (it’s set for April), Cohen says that the legal drama will play out in the upcoming season.

    “With Teresa, we’re shooting New Jersey now and that’s very much the reality of what she’s going through,” he says. “It will very much be a part of the show next season. We cover it in the way that we can.”


    • February 6, 2014 at 5:45 PM

      I think Andy is hoping the HW franchise will last for years and years because it seems like his only job that’s paying right now! To me it sounds like he was demoted at Bravo. If he wasn’t the creator of the HW franchise he would be unemployed. I watched “Vanderpump Rules” and they showed previews of their reunion. Andy wasn’t dressed in his expensive suit and he wasn’t clean shaven, he looked like crap!

      Didn’t Tre just say that her federal court case wasn’t going to be played out on S6? Now Andy says that it will? Tre better watch out because Andy only cares about ratings. He doesn’t care if the producers manipulate footage to make Tre look guilty as sin. I don’t like Andy and I surely wouldn’t trust him. The only reason I can come with for Tre doing another season is for the money.

  17. February 6, 2014 at 2:47 PM

    And, a further update to the ongoing legal trials and tribulations of the Giudices:

    “What fraud? Teresa Giudice’s lawyers demand details of allegations in federal case
    By Janelle Griffith/The Star-Ledger
    on February 06, 2014 at 11:42 AM, updated February 06, 2014 at 1:33 PM

    Teresa Giudice wasn’t kidding when she told Andy Cohen on “Watch What Happens Live” that she didn’t fully understand some of the allegations brought against she and husband Joe in the then 39 and now 41-count indictment. And her legal team apparently doesn’t understand the allegations either.

    Teresa Giudice’s defense team have filed a pre-trial motion demanding the government outline the basis of the allegations in the 41-count indictment, which they call “woefully deficient.”

    “The indictment repeatedly uses vague and amorphous words and phrases, but fails to provide additional detail to allow Teresa to defend herself against these allegations,” her lawyer states in court documents obtained by The Star-Ledger.

    “In fact, the Defense has accessed and reviewed the Government’s discovery in the U.S. Attorney’s Office on many occasions, and still cannot determine what the basis is for many of the allegations set forth in the Indictment,” the documents state.

    Another section reads: “the indictment states that other co-conspirators were involved in the wrongful conduct, but does not state which other co-conspirators. It provides that the wrongful conduct took place in other states, but does not enumerate which other states.”

    Giudice’s lawyers also address the prosecution’s reluctance to allow she and Joe to be tried separately, as was requested last month. “The defendant moved to sever the trial from her husband, asserting that she wished to testify on her own behalf at trial, but that her testimony would inculpate her husband.”

    Last month, Joe Giudice’s lawyer, Miles Feinstein, told The Star-Ledger his client “feels he has evidence that could exonerate her.”

    Giudice, 41, and Joe, 43, were charged in July with exaggerating their income while applying for loans before the 2009 debut of their Bravo TV show, while hiding significant assets and income during a two-year bankruptcy proceeding.

    Joe Giudice was also accused of failing to file federal tax returns from 2004 to 2008, according to federal prosecutors, who say he earned roughly $1 million during that time frame.

    A hearing date has been scheduled for April 9.”


    • GPM
      February 7, 2014 at 3:00 AM

      Great catch, Jeannie!

      I’ve been super busy the last couple of days and only had time to stop in quickly and scan the comments at the bottom here, but I’m glad to see that at least one publication is giving Teresa’s defense some print!

      Look for the U.S. Attorney to fight back hard but Teresa’s lawyer, a former Assistant U.S. Attorney himself, is a legitimate counterbalancing force to be reckoned with. This could presage a rare battle of the titans, but it’s risky and I do worry for Tre since there is a great deal at stake.

      There are still so many variables up in the air I think it’s still far too soon to make any predictions. Certainly there are some significant decisions pending before the judge and we have no sense yet of how she may rule. A titan in her own right, she is the daughter of (Hispanic) immigrants, the mother of a young son who is possessed of a lifetime appointment to the federal bench and, perhaps most significantly, she is a former criminal defense attorney herself and the wife of a practicing criminal defense attorney. That a background that could either work for or against Teresa, however.

      Trials are tactically very sophisticated and, in addition to the matter of specificity, this motion could be Tre’s defense offering the judge an opportunity to split the baby when it comes to the pending motion to sever and/or an opportunity for the defense to really hammer home the merits underlying the motion to sever.

      The only thing I think we can be sure of at this point is that this trial has the rare potential to be well-tried, well-defended and well-adjudicated!

      Intriguingly, BTW, is the fact that Tre could conceivably benefit from being tried with Joe since his attorney is a master in the courtroom with some legendary wins under his belt, and neither Tre’s attorney or the attorneys in the U.S. Attorney’s office are likely to have anything close to his particular depth of trial experience or success. Offsetting that is the fact that his experience has generally been in state court — which would probably have only a minor impact — and the much more significant fact that, between the two defendants, he drew the short end of the stick! I think there are pros and cons for Teresa to being tried with Joe, if that is the ultimate ruling — a jury could find her guilty simply by virtue of her association with Joe or they could find her a sympathetic victim of his machinations and be inclined to compromise their verdict by convicting him and setting her free.

      There’s a definite sense of the significance of courtroom experience present in Tre’s attorney’s motion. When you actually go to trial (which, as you will recall, the feds rarely do) the burden of proof is on the prosecution to actually prove what it’s alleging. It’s one thing to make allegations, but it’s a whole different ballgame when you have to specifically prove each and every single element necessary to convict someone (particularly in a case as complex as this one) and to persuade a responsible jury of the defendant’s peers that you have done so beyond any reasonable doubt. It’s much harder than most people, including attorneys, realize until they actually have to do it and this is where the defense has an advantage. The defense is sorely disadvantaged, however, by the fact that the stakes for the defendant are HUGE. Combined with the indirect impact of Teresa’s villainess storyline on a so-called “reality” TV show and the unrelenting hammering of an elitist WASP press corps that oftentimes doesn’t even manage to get the facts right, there is a very real possibility that a “lynch mob” mentality could result in a conviction that’s unsustainable on appeal.

      And yet another interesting twist is the fact that the best attorneys in the U.S. Attorney’s Office are almost certainly now angling to be involved in the Chris Christie investigation!

      I noticed the reference to co-conspirators in the government’s well-publicized response to Joe’s motion to sever but could barely read it due to ROL’s watermark. I wondered at the time, though, if the U.S. Attorney might have given Joe Mastropole immunity from prosecution in exchange for testimony or perhaps extended immunity to the the loan officer(s) who made the loans. Definitely some things to stay tuned for there!

      But whatever lays ahead of Teresa is breathtakingly serious and the new castmate who brought this up with her during filming is pure evil — which is exactly what I would consider Jac to be if it didn’t appear that she were mentally ill.

    • GPM
      February 7, 2014 at 2:50 PM

      I had a few minutes this morning and found the documents online. This is not a new motion by Teresa’s counsel; it’s a brief written in support of the motion to sever and was written in response to the U.S. Attorney’s memorandum objecting to severance.

      I actually found this on ROL — with a much less obscuring watermark! — and I notice that it didn’t get put on the ROL front page and has had no comments so far. (Wouldn’t want to get Teresa’s side out there now, would we?)

      Anyone who is interested can read the documents for themselves at http://amradaronline.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/teresa-giudice-reply-brief.pdf

      I haven’t read the entire document but in skimming I see that her attorney is saying that the mortgage fraud counts must be severed from the bankruptcy counts because the mortgages where fraud is alleged were paid off long before the bankruptcy occurred and the only loans included in the bankruptcy were two Wachovia lines of credit — about which Teresa apparently knew nothing — and their home mortgage, which her attorney says is being paid monthly. So much for the oft-repeated allegations of the theft of millions of dollars and the suggestion that she’s not making regular mortgage payments on their home. It also blows a big hole in the government’s statement that “Defendants fraudulently incurred large amounts of loan debt by making false statements on loan applications ad supporting documents then attemted to fraudulently discharge that debt by making additional false statements during the bankruptcy process.”

      The request for specificity goes back to the governments refusal to file a bill of particulars, which was one of the things Joe’s attorney (and maybe Tre’s) had requested in the motion to sever. I remember reading the government’s response to that — said it wasn’t necessary, should be clear from the indictment — and wondering why the government was pushing back on that. Federal rules haven’t permitted the Perry Mason-esq “trial by ambush” in this country for decades; why not just do it? In a move somewhat reminiscent of the movie Class Action with Gene Hackman and Mary Elizabeth Mastranton — and consistent with the old “dirty pool in law school” adage — Tre’s attorney says the government gave the defense “access” — his quote — to “”voluminous documentary discovery” that consisted of an entire room full of bankers boxes and redweels. I’m still wondering a bit about that and why, if the government feels it has such a slam dunk of a case, it doesn’t just lay it out there.

      One of the most interesting things in the brief to me is the reference on Page 16 of the pdf to loan officer Lisa Peloso. Apparently the loan application says Ms. Peloso spoke with Tre in person but Ms. Peloso had apparently told the government this wasn’t true and that she didn’t meet with Tre. This is the type of “Brady material” the defense is requesting, i.e., information the government is aware f that would tend to show Tre’s innocence (which in this case is, interestingly enough, consistent with her “I knew no-thing” defense). The defense points out that, despite having been ordered by the court on August 14, 2013 to provide this type of information, the government waited over five months — until January 28, 2014 — to do so and only then because the defense demanded it in its motion to sever. These types of antics by the government are not likely to sit well with the judge.

      • punkinseed
        February 7, 2014 at 7:01 PM

        Thanks for the in depth GPM! It does say a lot when the opposition supplies its entire pile of material and tries to call that being in compliance with discovery rules. A pile that high says to me the govt. doesn’t have anything, and/or there’s pieces of exculpatory information in it. It’s wrong to force the defense to winnow and sift through all that information, but I know they do it all the time.
        My question for you with regard to Ms. Peloso: Couldn’t the defense bring a motion for contempt on that?

        • GPM
          February 12, 2014 at 8:08 PM

          Hi, punkin! Sorry I didn’t see this earlier; I got all involved in the Woody Allen/Mia Farrow post!

          Judges punish noncompliant attorneys by “sanctioning” them. There are a number of possible sanctions a judge can choose from (including the nuclear bomb — dismissing the indictment outright) but Brady violations and difficult to find and prove. So while loudly protested by the entire legal profession and actually the subject of pending federal legislation (the trial of U.S. Senator Ted Stevens was fraught with them), they are so common it is unlikely the judge would sanction prosecutor too harshly.

          I think it’s much more likely that the defense attorney is letting the judge know about this in order to increase the likelihood of a favorable ruling on other elements of this or other motions. JMHO tho!

          • punkinseed
            February 12, 2014 at 11:45 PM

            ahhh. Thanks! I think you are right. Defense always has to choose his/her battles wisely.
            I wouldn’t mind seeing a few prosecutors sanctioned, though. Overcharging people isn’t justice, and is a disgrace to our justice system.
            I just read about a cop in Florida who caught another off duty cop speeding to his off duty job at 120 MPH. She took his gun and put him in handcuffs. Since this incident, she’s suing because her driver’s license and other info. was accessed by several agencies and a number of other cops. She got threatening phone calls and other stalking incidents by dirty cops. Sounds like Serpico a bit. The judge isn’t doing jack to the cops for the violations. Looks like he’s putting politiks ahead of the law.
            You watch. The judge probably won’t sever the Guidice trial.

  18. Sackem
    February 8, 2014 at 4:27 PM

    Thank you for the Birthday Wishes!!!!
    I’m away at the moment and for some reason, my Phone doesn’t like wordpress. Thinking of you all and hoping everyone’s ok!

  19. Miami53
    February 8, 2014 at 6:16 PM

    OT- Faux Reality has a new blog up. Its about Dr. Lenny Hochstein, husband of Lisa from RHOMiami. He made a dumb comment about women’s weight.

  20. February 8, 2014 at 8:22 PM

    I’ve got a giggle…watching “Where are they now” and Jill Zarin was on (about the 3 minutes left of her fame) but anyways, all I could think of was how much she sounds like Howard”s mom on the Big Bang Theory……bawhahahah.

  21. February 9, 2014 at 8:42 AM

    Off topic but I read this article on examiner’s website:

    The thing that I found interesting is the “source” for the article reported that Kathy Wakile hasn’t been filmed much. So, maybe the rumors are true and she was demoted. The Wakile’s scripted time on TV may slowly be coming to an end!

  22. February 10, 2014 at 10:15 PM

    Juicy’s business partner, Joe Mastropole, testified under oath that he had not given Juicy authority to sign his name. It was Juicy who testified that they often signed each other’s name, saying, “That’s the way we did business” as justification for the forging of Mastropole’s name. From the opinion letter by the bankruptcy judge on the civil case filed by Mastropole against Juicy:

    The defense’s arguments hypothesizing Mastropole’s motivation to release the lien on Webster Place (Giudice’s out-of-thin-air contention that it was necessary to “save” the property so that Mastropole could be paid), the “that’s the way we did business” justification for the forging of Mastropole’s name, and emphasis on the absence of a specific reference to the Webster Place mortgage in the plaintiff’s defaulted cure letter of December 13, 2007, are make-weight at best. Similarly, unconvincing are Giudice’s contentions (i) that if he had intended to defraud or injure Mastropole, he would not have paid the $300,000 immediate money in June 2007, and (ii) that engaging in a forgery while he was in litigation with Mastropole would have been foolhardy and quickly discovered. Even if these arguments were to have some merit if a truth-telling, law-respecting party were defending, that is not the present case. Giudice is that party defendant who brazenly “notarized” (by forgery) his own forgery of his business associate’s signature, and otherwise fabricated stories (e.g., the Testa “witnessing” that was not), all with reckless abandon.


    In the same case, Juicy stated that he might have signed Teresa’s name:

    His thoroughly cagey statement that he “might” have signed Teresa’s name on the personal guarantee of debt to Mastropole.

    One of my sources told me the following:

    I found TWO power of attorneys filed in 2005. One for Juicy to sign Teresa’s name to docs (filed in Morris County) and the other for Frederick Roughgarden Esq. to sign her name to docs related to the property she owns at 49 Sylvia Ln, Stafford, NJ (in Ocean County), which appears to be their shore house. To me, both signatures on these POAs don’t match her signature shown on some other websites as her “certified signature.”

    The Giudices are claiming that Teresa didn’t authorize Fred Roughgarden to sign her name, but on March 26, 2004 she appointed Power of Attorney to him – are they claiming the notary public really didn’t witness her signing the POA or are they claiming the notarization is a forgery?:

    Teresa also appointed Power of Attorney to Juicy on June 24, 2005, which was both witnessed and notarized by Joe Mastropole – they must be claiming that POA was forged by Mastropole. However, to me, Teresa’s signature on her bankruptcy petition looks very much like the signature on the June 24, 2005 POA witnessed and notarized by Mastropole.

    I screen captured Teresa’s inscription to Joey at the book signing (it wasn’t easy to do, but I got lucky after a few tries) in season 3 episode 15 (http://www.bravotv.com/the-real-housewives-of-new-jersey/season-3/videos/book-signing-drama) to get her official signature (or at least the one she uses now):

    teresa's authentic signature S3 E15

    The image below is for the December 14, 2001 purchase of her home on 6 Indian Lane in Towaco – she signed on the dotted line twice (if indeed that is her signature in both places). The images right below that are Teresa’s signatures on her bankruptcy petition.

    Teresa's signature in different forms

    In a January 2011 blog at LynnNChicago, buffywood commented, saying Teresa testified at the November/December 2009 trial of Mastropole v. Giudice that “she didn’t sign her own bankruptcy petition.” If it is true the Teresa didn’t sign the original bankruptcy petition, I’d say that, based on the images of the signatures above, Joe forged her name on the June 24, 2005 POA to him and on the October 29, 2009 bankruptcy papers.

    But I don’t think Teresa is off the hook since she testified in bankruptcy court concerning her petition and perhaps signed the amendments to the original petition.

    In December 2010, approximately one year after Teresa and Joe filed bankruptcy, the US Trustee overseeing their case accused Teresa and Joe of lying to the court by knowingly concealing various assets, which were legally required to be included in their bankruptcy paperwork. According to a consent order in December 2011, Teresa “agreed to waive discharge of her debts, and acknowledged that she wishes to resolve the Trustee’s proceedings against her ‘without the need for further inquiry or litigation, and without her making any further admissions’.”



    The case went on for two years before the trustee denied the discharge and the Giudices withdrew their petitions.

    Real Housewives Star Teresa Giudice Denied Chapter 7 Bankruptcy Discharge
    Steve Rhode, GetOutOfDebt.org
    March 2, 2012

    Previously I covered the filing of a chapter 7 bankruptcy in 2009 for Real Housewives of New Jersey start Teresa Giudice. It’s been quite a while so I thought I’d drop back in to see what’s been going on in the case.

    Looks like the court, in a somewhat rare move, has agreed to waive Teresa from relief of her debts under bankruptcy. – Source

    According to information, Teresa neglected to tell the court when she filed some critical information that later came back to bite her. For those familiar with the show, I feel the need to throw over a table right about now.

    Documents state when Teresa and her husband filed for their chapter 7 bankruptcy they omitted information about their bank accounts, vehicles, and interest in intellectual property.

    After a request from the court in late 2009, they amended their original bankruptcy filing to include undisclosed properties, checking account, three businesses, three vehicles and a boat. They also then added a leased 2005 Maserati Quattroporte.

    In March, 2010 they filed yet another amended set of documents. This time they listed $89,254.81 which attributable to consumer credit cards and store credit at Bloomingdale’s, Neiman Marcus, and Nordstrom.

    On April 23, 2010 Teresa was questioned regarding her bankruptcy filing. More information emerged.

    Teresa testified that she has a bank account with Lakeland Bank, and she is the only person with signature authority on that account, that she owned a previously undisclosed business by the name of TG Fabulicious, LLC, of which she is the sole member, and she had a previously undisclosed deal with Hyperion, an imprint of Buena Vista Books, Inc., to publish a previously undisclosed cookbook titled “Skinny Italian.”

    Teresa’s husband Joe (Giuseppe) was questioned at the same time and apparently he remembered some additional details as well. Joe admitted that prior to his employment with G&G Stucco & Stone Specialist, Inc., for a three- to four-year period beginning in 2005 he withdrew funds from his LLCs as needed.

    He also said he signed a mortgage application dated July 23, 2008, which indicated that he received $54,269 in monthly income from “G&G Stucco & Stone” and that the IRS informed him “three or four or five months ago” that the purported 2006, 2007, and 2008 individual income tax returns, which had previously been presented to the Case Trustee, were never actually filed. Oops.

    Joe also recalled he was the sole member of a previously undisclosed business named 1601 Maple Avenue Associates, LLC, which owns a parcel of real estate in Hillside, NJ, and collects rents from two commercial businesses operating at that location.

    The bankruptcy trustee filed a lawsuit against Teresa and her husband claiming that they had knowingly and fraudulently made false statements under oath. Additionally, that their original bankruptcy filing was not even close to being a full disclosure.

    For example, Teresa’s “Skinny Italian” book deal with Hyperion was dated October 22, 2009, approximately one week prior to the bankruptcy petition date, and was signed by Teresa on November 18, 2009, but the $250,000 advance owed slipped her mind.

    Statements of Roberts DeAngelis, United States Bankruptcy Trustee:

    The original Schedule B, which the Defendants attested under penalty of perjury was true and correct, failed to disclose Defendant husband’s bank account, two pieces of real property, the Defendants’ vehicles, the Defendant wife’s pending book deal, and certain business interests including TG Fabulicious, LLC and 1601 Maple Avenue Associates, LLC.

    The original Schedule I, which the Defendants attested under penalty of perjury was true and correct, stated that Defendant wife was unemployed with no likelihood of an increase in income in the near future, and understated her true income.

    The Defendants knew that the information contained in their originally- filed Schedules and Statement of Financial Affairs was not true and correct.

    Even after multiple amendments to their Schedules and Statement of Financial Affairs, the Defendants still have not filed any amendments disclosing the existence of the book “Skinny Italian,” the Defendant wife’s publishing deal with Hyperion, the Defendant wife’s interest in TG Fabulicious, LLC, and the Defendant husband’s interest in 1601 Maple Avenue Associates, LLC.

    The Defendant wife testified at the Meeting of Creditors that she does not have any interests in any businesses, which was a false oath in light of her subsequent disclosure of her ownership of TG Fabulicious, LLC.

    The Defendant husband testified at the Meeting of Creditors that the filings with the Court had disclosed all of his business interests, which was a false oath in light of his subsequent disclosure of his interest in 1601 Maple Avenue Associates, LLC.

    The Defendants’ initial and amended Schedule I indicated that the Defendant wife had no income on the petition date other than income from Sirens Media, which was a false oath in light of documents indicating that she had pre-petition income from operations of TG Fabulicious, LLC.

    The Defendants intentionally did not disclose the existence of the undisclosed assets in order to conceal their existence from creditors and the Case Trustee.

    As a result, the Defendants have knowingly and fraudulently made false oaths in this case in the form of false statements on sworn documents filed with the Court and false sworn testimony provided at the Meeting of Creditors.

    Wherefore, the UST respectfully requests that this Court enter judgment denying the Defendants’ discharge under 11 U.S.C. § 727(a)(4)(A) and providing for such other relief as is just.

    The contract between Defendant wife and Hyperion indicates that, during the year preceding the filing of the petition, the Defendant wife was in negotiation of a book publishing deal for which she was to receive a $250,000 initial advance, a $30,000 additional advance, and royalties based on sales of her cookbook “Skinny Italian.”

    The certificate of formation and Lakeland Bank statements for TG Fabulicious, LLC indicate that, during the year preceding the filing of the petition, the Defendant wife owned and operated a business that had a bank account into which over $100,000 was deposited in the six months preceding the petition.

    Since the petition was filed, the book publishing deal with Hyperion was signed, the cookbook “Skinny Italian” was released, and, upon information and belief, the initial $250,000 advance was paid to the Defendant wife.

    In addition, the Lakeland Bank account statements produced by the Defendants reveal that TG Fabulicious, LLC had total deposits of over $190,000 during the first three months after the petition was filed.

    The Defendants presented documents to the Case Trustee that purported to be their 2006, 2007, and 2008 individual income tax returns.

    However, upon information and belief, the Defendants have not filed individual income tax returns for several years. – Source

    And in the end, Teresa’s bankruptcy discharge was denied, withdrawn or waived. She fair game for her creditors again.


    As to the motion filed by Joe’s lawyers in January, he said he would testify that:

    • Teresa has no knowledge of any misrepresentation on loan applications, mortgage applications, or lines of credit;
    • Teresa was not aware that various properties were acquired in her name;
    • Teresa was not aware that various businesses were owned in her name;
    • Mr. Giudice signed Teresa’s name on numerous occasions without her knowledge and authorization;
    • Mr. Giudice’s business partner, Joe Mastropole, and Mr. Giudice’s attorney, Fred Roughgarden, both signed Teresa’s name on numerous occasions without her knowledge and authorization;
    • Other individuals including bank represenatives were aware that Teresa had not signed various documents, including loan and mortgage applications, lines of credit, or HUD-1s.

    Unquestionably, [Joe] Giudice’s conduct and anticipated testimony would be just as imperative to Teresa’s defense. If the codefendants are tried jointly, and Mr. Giudice invokes his Fifth Amendment Right, Teresa will be prejudiced.”

    While there is no confirmation as to whether the trials will be separate, the couple is due back in court April 9.


    danielle v dina 1
    danielle v dina 2

    danielle v dina 4
    danielle v dina 5

  23. March 21, 2014 at 9:04 PM

    On March 21, 2014, RadarOnline reported that Teresa was caught on tape accepting only cash, with no receipts, for her book and signature at a fashion show hosted by Kim DePaola:

    Teresa Giudice held a book signing on Wednesday night at The Porsche Spring Soiree in Garfield — and in exclusive video footage obtained by RadarOnline.com, the Real Housewives of New Jersey star is seen charging CASH ONLY — with no receipts — for her book and signature!

    Headlining the event — hosted by one of her best friends Kim Depaola — tickets were advertised for $110 that included dinner, wine, music and a fashion show, but there was no mention of charging for a signature from one of Bravo’s most controversial stars!

    “Teresa was advertised as the the celebrity guest and that she would be signing copies of her latest book. But nowhere was it advertised that she would be charging guests $25 to sign and take a photo with her!” one guest told Radar.

    “When you walked up to her, the woman next to her was quick to advise that it was $25 and ‘cash only.’ Cash only? Who takes cash only? Even Teresa was telling guests it was ‘cash only, no receipts’ and she had bags of cash beside her where her colleague was collecting the money.”

    According to the eyewitness, guests were okay with paying for a book — but some were shocked when their plastic was turned down!

    “The reaction of everyone was priceless. It was the hot topic of the event. Why would someone insist on cash only?” the eyewitness added.

    “Everyone was saying it was clearly to avoid a paper trial of her sales.”

    “Some of Teresa’s friends were saying that the U.S. Government is likely to be garnishing her wages now that they’ve accepted plea deals,” the guest told Radar.

    “I wonder if Teresa was taking cash only so she could avoid having to declare that income? It’s a possibility.”

    To watch the video, go to:


    On March 25, 2014, Nancy Grace chimed in on the RadarOnline report, asking, “Is Teresa Giudice still scamming money?”

    To watch the video, go to:


    Teresa, being caught in the act, covered her tracks by tweeting on March 26 that she was donating all proceeds from selling her book to Nephcure, “as I often do”:

    “As I so often do, I’m donating all proceeds from selling my book at a recent event to the charity dear to my heart Nephcure Foundation.XO”

    The event had nothing to do with “charity” until Teresa got caught on tape and called out by RadarOnline and Nancy Grace.

    On March 27, 2014, a “source close to Teresa” told RadarOnline that Teresa donated “all the proceeds to charity” after deducting for “several expenses related to the book signing” and paying “several vendors that had to be paid.” According to the source, $400 was all that was left to donate to Nephcure after paying for expenses and vendors. Added the source: “In no way whatsoever was Teresa trying to make a quick buck.”

    “Teresa donated the proceeds from the cash she collected at a book signing event last week to charity, and sent the $400 check to The Nephcure Foundation.”


    Of course, this charity story came out after the video of the cash-only transactions was publicized. How convenient. Had there not been a video of Teresa’s makeup artist collecting cash with no receipts, that money would have gone into Teresa’s pocket without paying taxes, which is the real reason she would accept only cash.

    If Teresa’s intentions were to raise money for charity, she would have advertised the event in that way, and she would have made people aware of that during the actual book signing, giving fans the opportunity to donate money on top of the $25 she was charging for her book/signature/photo, and perhaps vendors would have waived some expenses to support the charity.

    Cash only makes it hard to track Teresa’s earnings and makes it easy for her to cover her tracks if she gets caught, like she did. She handed over $400 to charity but she collected much more than that at the event, even after paying vendors and expenses, but since it was all under that table, there is no way to trace how much cash she actually collected.

    The event had nothing to do with “charity.” Teresa took in hard cash for some leftover books and she got caught on tape saying she would accept only cash and would not give receipts, so she had to cover her tracks with the IRS by claiming that she made no income because all proceeds went to charity. Announcing that a cash-only event was for charity AFTER the event was over, and claiming that all proceeds went to charity, is her way of covering her tracks so that she doesn’t have to report any income and pay taxes on it.

    This situation is reminiscent of Teresa’s denial in backing “The Teresa Giudice Defense Fund” in August 2014: Teresa tweeted a link to a fundraising event for a defense fund in her name; and although neither her tweet or the poster advertising her appearance stated the purpose of the event was to solicit donations for her defense, the press release clearly stated it was for her defense fund. After she got caught attempting to solicit donations for her defense, she claimed that staff at the restaurant had issued the press release without her knowledge; however, her tweet and the press release both had the same misspelling of the restaurant’s name – obviously, the staff knows how to spell the name but Teresa’s team, not so much.

    The press release included the following:

    A group of bartenders and staff from a legendary Long Island beach resort and catering facility are collecting donations to support the legal defense of Real Housewives of New Jersey star Teresa Giudice.

    They are seeking donations from compassionate fans of the reality TV star, who has four young children. The group is dedicated to helping Teresa … pay any fines or other restitution that Teresa and Joe are ordered to pay.

    “I am committed to my family and intend to maintain our lives in the best way possible, which includes continuing my career,” stated Teresa Giudice.

    For interviews or further information please contact the Teresa Giudice Legal Defense Fund at 646-571-3131.

    Read more about The Teresa Giudice Defense Fund at the link below:


    Johanna M said on March 28, 2014 at AllAboutTRH:

    “I like Teresa but come on! We can’t call this something the ‘haters’ are using to raise ‘government theories’. She took cash only at an event and didn’t give receipts for these purchases. Therefore she has no official record of what she even took in. She said that some of the cash was used to ‘pay vendors’ and ‘expenses’ and then the rest, $400 (all the proceeds), was what she gave to charity. A very small portion went to charity compared to what logically would have been collected.

    “She made the charity claim and slid some side cash to Nephcure after Nancy Grace picked up the story. This was never intended for charity. The check she sent them was supposedly for $400 (I’m guessing this small amount is the reason why she didn’t give the amount on twitter and just said ‘all proceeds’). So at $110 just to attend and then a separate $25 charge for the book and autograph, all the profit they had was $400? And when she says ‘all proceeds’, it means that the profits were donated after vendors were paid. But with no receipts, and not saying it was charity up front, it seems very fishy, and I just don’t buy it. We watched them do things they shouldn’t have been doing on TV, so it wouldn’t shock me at all if this was done with poor intentions as well, even though they are in such hot water. I like Teresa, but I’m not going to turn a blind eye to something that no celebrity should be doing. There are legit ways of doing this.”


    On March 31, 2014, Kim Granatell told RadarOnline that she found it suspicious that Teresa only allowed fans to pay in cash (and with no receipts):

    “Yeah she donated it to charity,” Kim said. “I think it’s called the Teresa charity. ‘$24.50 for me and $.50 for them.’” Kim points out: “If you are donating it to charity, you don’t ask for cash. You let people pay the way they can pay.”

    “If you’re asking for cash, it’s because you don’t want to show income and you’re hiding,” Kim continued. “If you’re in debt or whatever she is involved in, in terms of lawyer fees and all the nonsense and everybody she owes, you’re not handing all of that to charity. You’re taking some from the little pot here.”

    And if that’s what Teresa did, Kim doesn’t approve.

    “Her lawyers probably want to kick her ass from one end to another because let’s face it, you’re out there asking for cash, she’s got her neck out on the line and he’s trying to help her,” Granatell concluded. “That’s all I can say?”


    On April 7, 2014, RadarOnline reported that the feds are watching her like a hawk, and that Teresa could be forced to surrender her homes, luxury cars and future earnings.

    RadarOnline.com has learned that law enforcement authorities are said to be keeping a close eye on “Real Fraudwife” Teresa Guidice and have threatened to take away all her worldly possessions, as she waits to learn whether she will be sent behind bars on federal fraud charges.

    Of particular concern, said one source, was the mother-of-four being caught on camera charging fans for autographs and photographs and insisting on cash only!

    “The judge and the prosecutor are aware that Teresa could still be trying to hide money,” a source close to the case revealed.

    “That isn’t going to go over well at her sentencing, for her.”

    Giudice held a book signing on March 19 at The Posche Spring Soiree in Garfield, N.J.— and in exclusive video footage obtained by RadarOnline.com, the Real Housewives of New Jersey star was seen charging CASH ONLY — with no receipts — for her book and signature.

    “Teresa was advertised as the the celebrity guest and that she would be signing copies of her latest book. But nowhere was it advertised that she would be charging guests $25 to sign and take a photo with her,” one guest told Radar.

    “When you walked up to her, the woman next to her was quick to advise that it was $25 and ‘cash only.’ Cash only? Who takes cash only? Even Teresa was telling guests it was ‘cash only, no receipts’ and she had bags of cash beside her where her colleague was collecting the money.”

    Said a law enforcement spy: “It certainly raises red flags.”

    “The feds are threatening to take Joe and Teresa’s homes, cars and future earnings, all to pay the settlement if she can’t come up with the money,” said the insider. “If she continues to flout the law in their faces, things could get worse for her… before they get better!”


    Melissa takes questions at the Tampa Home & Garden Show 2014:

    Teresa interviewed at Sarasota-Bradenton Home & Garden Show 2013:

    Teresa and Joe interviewed by Frank MacKay of Turning Point in November 2010, during taping of season 3 (Joe’s very first interview):

  24. September 30, 2014 at 10:56 PM

    “It’s laughable to watch Tre and Juicy deny the charges (in season 6 footage) since we now know they will plead guilty to a few charges (as taping of the season progresses). I hope that was filmed! So Tre’s blogs have to be short and sweet otherwise she will be eating crow!” – September24, July 30, 2014. AllAboutTRH

    The following is an unflattering piece about Teresa written by the NY Post in July 2014.

    Is a possibly prison-bound Teresa Giudice free of shame?

    By Gregory E. Miller, NY Post
    July 12, 2014

    Let the record state that Teresa Giudice did not want to put on the frock.

    “I would never wear this dress,” she gripes of the coral one-shoulder number that looks pretty much like every dress you’ve ever seen her wearing. “It’s not me.”

    She’s lounging in a cabana with a glass of bubbly — though she’s not pleased that her own brand, Fabellini, has not been provided. Teresa forces a smile as the photographer asks the “Real Housewives of New Jersey” star to try some shots standing.

    “I like sitting because then you can’t see the dress,” the 42-year-old sniffs.

    But Teresa — the most notorious thing to come out of Jersey since Jon Bon Jovi’s hair — might have to get used to wearing orange outfits that aren’t exactly her style.

    Last year, the Towaco resident and her husband, Joe, 42, were indicted on 41 counts of fraud and tax charges — with a maximum sentence of 35 years.

    Teresa and husband Joe Giudice pleaded guilty to nine counts of fraud between them. She continues to promote her various businesses.Photo: Ron Asadorian

    Though they originally denied the charges, the couple pleaded guilty to fraud in March: five counts for Joe, four for Teresa.

    Basically, they copped to deceiving banks and lenders in the process of seeking $5 million in loans and mortgages. In addition, they admitted to mail and wire fraud and deceiving a bankruptcy court.

    Sentencing was set for July, then pushed back to Sept. 23, most likely due to the recent death of Joe’s father, who collapsed from an apparent heart attack in the couple’s yard. Teresa faces a recommended sentence of up to 27 months behind bars, while Joe could endure 47 months and possible deportation. (He’s an Italian citizen.)

    Meanwhile, the new season of Teresa’s show premieres Sunday at 8 p.m. on Bravo, and cameras have been filming the whole mess.

    Teresa launched into the zeitgeist in the spring of 2009 as an original cast member on “The Real Housewives of New Jersey,” and viewers were entranced as she stumbled over simple sentence structure and struggled to articulate herself in confrontations. By the end of the season, she became so angry with cast member Danielle Staub, she called her a “prostitution whore” and flipped a dinner table. In that moment, Teresa secured a comfy spot in reality-TV history. She’s maintained her legacy by continuing to bring the drama — and heaping helpings of crazy — to the show, year after year.

    Teresa says that, even with the case, leaving the show never crossed her mind. “It’s my job,” she says. “This is my career now, and why wouldn’t I return?”

    Perhaps because most people wouldn’t want their worst nightmares played out in front of the American public. But Teresa has no plans to escape camera crews anytime soon.

    “When they don’t want me anymore, then I’ll find another show,” she says.

    In the premiere, Teresa bemoans the mounting legal bills, and how she doesn’t have any money put away for the eldest of her four daughters, 13-year-old Gia, to attend college. Reports estimate Teresa’s salary for the show at $650,000 a season, so could it be that she’s putting up with the cameras because she needs the paycheck?

    She doesn’t have a chance to respond as her “legal crisis manager” Wendy Feldman jumps in. Feldman listens to the entire interview, fending off questions and frequently speaking for the reality star.

    Despite her title, Feldman admits she has no law degree. But she did spend 16 months in federal prison for a $4.1 million Ponzi-esque scheme.

    “[I was] a real wolf-ess of Wall Street, but not so dramatic,” Feldman tells The Post.

    One question Feldman does let Teresa answer is whether she has any regrets.

    “Um, my God. I don’t know,” Teresa says. “Yes and no. … I think I’m just going to leave it at that. It’s a hard question for me.”

    She admits she’s not embarrassed by her outrageous behavior on the show, like that table flip.

    “I’m not ashamed of that. That’s what happens. I take it, I take it, I take it — and then I explode,” she says. “But also, looking at that now, you learn, and you grow every day. I want to show my daughters a strong role model.”

    ‘I don’t know. Yes and no. … It’s a hard question for me.’ – Teresa Giudice on whether she has any regrets about her situation

    After that scene went viral, Teresa sat her kids down to explain what happened. But the same can’t be said for her criminal case. She hasn’t discussed with them how Mommy and Daddy might be getting new wardrobes colored entirely orange.

    “Gia knows something’s going on, but she just knows that Joe and I — we’re on it,” she says. “That’s all she needs to know.”

    Her eldest may know more than Teresa realizes. Gia’s told her parents, as well as her teacher, that she wants to be a criminal lawyer when she grows up.

    Teresa recently told In Touch, “How could I ever prepare myself to be away from my kids? It’s too terrifying for me to even think about.”

    For now, she’s doing anything she can to keep her mind off it.

    “I work out,” she says. “I’m a mom of four, very busy with that, and I’m working.”

    Indeed, it seems Teresa is driving herself to distraction with business ventures. She’s working on a book to follow up her four best-selling cookbooks (though she insists it’s not a tell-all, as reports have suggested). She’s hawking her sparkling wines, her “Skinny Italian” pastas and sauces and her hair-care line. Her latest venture is “Fabulicious” gelato, which will hit stores in September.

    It calls into question whether the parent companies of these brands will stand behind someone who has admitted to fraud, let alone a jailbird. A rep for Wine Wave, which markets Teresa’s bellinis, said that getting a comment for this story by deadline was “not possible.” Hair expert Jerel James, who partners with Giudice on the “Youthful 8 Milania Collection” hair-care line, says, “I am not prepared to comment on the brand and our relationship until after the court decision.”

    That decision is looming, and legal commentator Nancy Grace says it won’t be pretty.

    “In a time when people are standing in the unemployment lines, the over-the-top lavish lifestyle … is offensive,” she says. “They’re looking at [a maximum of] 35 years each. Do I think they’re going to get that? No, I don’t. I think there’s an outside chance the judge might feel sorry for Teresa, based on the fact that she’s a mother, and give her probation. If she’s lucky, she’s going to walk with two to five [years] behind bars. If [Joe’s] lucky, he’s going to walk on three to five behind bars. If they’ll put Martha Stewart in jail, they’re gonna put these two in jail.”

    Said Joe’s lawyer, Miles Feinstein, after the plea deal was struck, “It’s the best we could ever get. Teresa has a good chance of getting probation. Joe will most likely do federal time.”

    Family may be forever, but as the saying goes, a predicament shows who your real friends are.

    “Housewives” has seen plenty of Teresa’s relationships go hot and cold. She’s quick to dismiss her apparent “bestie” from last season, Kim “D” DePaola, as a workplace friend. She no longer talks to former cast members Jacqueline Laurita and Caroline Manzo as often as she used to, though both attended her father-in-law’s wake.

    “I was surprised. That meant a lot to me,” she says, noting she probably won’t have time to watch the pair’s upcoming spinoff series.

    Teresa’s also in a better place with her brother Joe Gorga and his wife, Melissa, with whom she’s battled it out on the show.

    “Unfortunately, because of fame and money, things happen, and that’s what happened to my family. We’re all in a good place,” she says. “No matter what happens, I’ll always be [Joe’s] sister. I’ll always forgive him, and blah blah blah.”

    As for the new season, complete with three new ladies, Teresa says you’ll see her living it up. Think Nero fiddling as Rome burns.

    “I was like, ‘Yay, this is going to be fun!’ I was really into it and so happy. And I think you’re going to see the Teresa you saw first season,” she says. “If you really know me, I’m all about having a good time.

    “I’m not going to sit in bed all day,” she says. “I’m going to keep going.

    “Nothing’s going to stop me.”

    In addition to listing their mansion for sale, the Giudices put their shore house on the market on 09/06/14 for $315,000. They purchased it in December 2005 for $347,000 and have three mortgages on it, totaling $$550,266.

    49 Sylvia Ln, Manahawkin, NJ 08050
    4 beds, 2 baths, 980 sqft

    This Contemporary 4 Bedroom 2 Bath Ranch was Completely Renovated with Light Bright and Airy tones, Vaulted Ceilings, Fans & Recessed Lighting. Brand New Kitchen w/ Custom Cabinets, Stainless Appliances, Ceramic Tile Flooring. The outdoor living space is relaxed and comfortable w/ Double Sliders to stamped concrete patio, 50 feet of waterfront w/ vinyl bulkhead. Plenty of storage inside and out. Deck & Dock make a perfect place for Social Gatherings & Family Parties.The Perfect Weekend Getaway!

    Lot: 3,999 sqft
    Single Family
    Built in 1970
    Cooling: Central
    Heating: Forced air


    Shortly after filing for filing for bankruptcy protection on 10/29/09, the Giudices listed their shore house for sale at $375,00. However, just like with their mansion during their bankruptcy, they removed their shore house from the market less than six months later, on 02/26/10.

    Variety published a good article on the sale of the property at the following link:


    Teresa also put her residential property in Lincoln Park on the market (it had been leased to a tenant). It is a three bedroom, one bath, 1122 SF single family home. The property is currently listed for $179,900. The Giudices have three mortgages on it totaling $314,162.

    This is the house Teresa and Joe were living in when they signed their Bravo contracts in 2007, and they lived there during taping of season one in 2008, as they were finishing renovations to their mansion in Montville. See that story at the following link:


    The following is Variety’s article on the sale of their rental home in Lincoln Park, which is near Paterson, NJ.

    September 19, 2014 | 10:16AM PT
    By Mark David

    SELLER: Teresa Giudice
    LOCATION: Lincoln Park, NJ
    PRICE: $179,900
    SIZE: 1,122 square feet, 3 bedrooms, 1 bathrooms

    YOUR MAMA’S NOTES: First came the over-blown faux-chateau in Towaco at $3.999 million, then came their rinky-dinky vacation house in Manahawkin for $315,000 and now comes word via one of the ever-so-helpful children that legally embattled and soon to be sentenced “Real Housewives of New Jersey” headliner Teresa Giudice also has a ticky-tacky property in Lincoln Park on the market with an asking price of $179,900.

    Property records show Miz Giudice purchased the property in her own name in October 2005 for $170,000. She subsequently secured several mortgages and loans against the property, including at least one from a fella who himself was sent to the pokey in 2011 for mortgage and wire fraud, coincidentally the very crimes Mister and Missus Giudice pled guilty to and for which they will soon be sentenced. One of the lenders on the property initiated foreclosure proceedings when a Notice of Default was filed in May of this year but, honestly kittens and caboodles, it’s unclear to this property gossip if that matter is still an issue or if it’s been cleared up.

    Current listing details for the property are slim but do show the mostly wooded parcel spans close to half an acre and the existing residence, a rag-tag 1920s era cottage set hard up on road, has three bedrooms and one bathroom in 1,122 square feet. In the right hands, this house could be quaint and cute — if quaint and cute is your thing — but right now it’s a bit of a mess with unkempt landscaping and what looks like sheets hung over some of the windows. Sheets!

    Sheets as curtains are, of course, strictly verboten and, indeed, Rule #27 in “Your Mama’s Big Book of Decoratin’ Dos and Don’ts” succinctly states, “Sheets of any brand, color, pattern or thread count are never to be used as window coverings, not even as a cost saving decorative measure. Nevuh, hunties, evuh.” Fer chrissakes, you can buy about 47 dozen different types of actual curtain panels from Target for less than twenty bucks. But we digress.

    A little research turned up evidence the Giudices first attempted to unload the property in September 2013 when it popped up for sale with at $199,000. The price plummeted to $150,000 before it was taken off the market in mid-May 2014 and than briefly put up for rent at $1,650 per month. (Maybe it’s tenants who are responsible for the sheet-curtains? Anyways…)


    Comments from PreviouslyTV Forum:

    BK Trustee had already accused them of filing a fraudulent petition so Teresa going to jail was also a possibility. But Teresa’s still spending away. Jaq mentioned the spending sprees on the wine room, carport, garage and furniture. She forgot handbags.

    I know lots of folks were mad because Jaq went there, but I think she had just had it with Teresa at that point. I always thought that was the real reason Teresa was pissed at Jaq. She was the first and only person (to my knowledge) that ever questioned the fact that they were broke (and telling the tabs all about it for a price), yet spending on the show like everything was great and her only problem was her whore of a SIL. Yep, Jaq may be in the exact same position and may well have looted Signature Apparel to pay for all her botox and plastic surgery. If so, I will be just as happy for someone to call her out on that. The one thing I will say about Jaq and Chris – if they were doing some shady stuff, they were smart enough to not come across as materialistic as Teresa did. Teresa running through the streets looking for Chanel, refusing to sit on a used toilet, guilting Juicy into a 10th anniversary present they had no money for. This was all on Teresa and we all knew there was no money for any of it.

    Everything Teresa said is BULLSHIT, but that’s because she’s a con artist. Her whole attitude about needing protection from God (as if He doesn’t have bigger things to worry about) and going through a difficult time makes me infuriated. She needs to get some jail time to understand that she’s done something wrong. I don’t get the sense that she believes that she did. She is so caught up in the con; she doesn’t even know the truth. She’s terrible.



    Prosecutors Ask Judge To Sentence Both Teresa & Joe Giudice To Prison Terms
    Sep 30, 2014

    With just two days until Joe and Teresa Giudice’s sentencing in their bankruptcy and fraud criminal case, RadarOnline.com has learned that the pair’s prospects are not good. According to an insider, prosecutors are asking the judge to sentence the Real Housewives of New Jersey stars to prison, for maximum terms provided under the plea deal.

    A source familiar with the situation told Radar, “The prosecutors are asking for prison time for Joe and Teresa. It’s all outlined in their sentencing documents filed with the court. For Joe, prosecutors want him sentenced to 47 months in prison, and Teresa, 27 months. Joe has been resigned to the fact that he will most likely be going to prison, but no one was ready for the possibility of Teresa going also.”

    Though Teresa had previously hoped to lay the blame on Joe and take house arrest, the source said prosecutors “never believed that Teresa wasn’t aware of the consequences of her actions.”

    “Naturally, Joe and Teresa are absolutely devastated and had hoped prosecutors would have agreed to probation, or even house arrest,” the source said. “No one forced the Giudices to take the plea deal, and they accepted responsibility for their actions. Putting them behind bars doesn’t do anything but hurt their four daughters.”

    One of the reasons prosecutors believe Teresa was involved in the ploy, the source said, was RadarOnline.com’s exclusive report about her gifting her daughter, Gia, a prized diamond family heirloom ring.

    The source said that prosecutors cited Radar’s story about the diamond ring, alleging that Teresa didn’t disclose it as a “valued asset. In the prosecutor’s opinion, it just shows a disturbing pattern of behavior that Teresa isn’t being honest,” the source added.

    It will ultimately be up to Federal District Judge Esther Salas to determine what the punishment will be for the pair.

    Lawyers for Joe and Teresa plan to “ask for leniency from the judge, and hope to be given probation, and/or house arrest,” the source explained.

    During the sentencing proceedings on Thursday, Teresa and Joe will address the court. “They are both working on their statements, and the proper way to express their remorse over their actions,” the source added.

    According to the source, “Teresa and Joe are being punished because they are celebrities. If this was any other regular person, prison time wouldn’t even be on the table. It’s just shocking that the government is going after them so harshly.”

    Sentencing is scheduled for Thursday, October 2, in Newark, New Jersey.


  25. October 3, 2014 at 8:01 PM

    During sentencing, Judge Salsa told Teresa: “I’ve got to say, you’re a devoted mother … The court is empowered with some discretion,” to reduce the sentencing in light of that fact.” There is a bond between these girls and their mother,” she continued. “I have to consider these girls, and their bond [with you].” Teresa’s attorney stressed her role as caregiver to Joe’s ailing mother and her own aging parents. “Part of the consideration for the sentencing was that Teresa takes care of her ailing parents, and with her gone, the burden of caring for the girls and all three of the parents would fall on Joe.” The Judge admitted that the tears Teresa shed as she read her letter to the court were what swayed the sentencing in her favor. Teresa told the judge she was “really scared” and regretful of her actions. “I need to wake up,” she admitted to the courtroom. “When you spoke from your heart, that was the best thing you could have done,” the judge said. “I need to send a message to you,” she continued. “But I think at the end of the day, you finally got it. You finally woke up.” – RadarOnline, October 3, 2014

    ‘My four daughters are my life. I don’t care about the TV show,’ Teresa Giudice to the sentencing judge.

    Teresa Giudice gets prison advice from ‘Orange Is the New Black’ author (Excerpt)
    October 3, 2014, 6:57 PM

    Teresa apparently had a shot at probation but blew it, in part because Judge Esther Salas felt that the couple continued to hide assets. On Thursday, Salas told Teresa that “for a moment” she had considered probation, but decided that “a period of confinement is absolutely necessary in this case. I don’t honestly believe that you understand or respect the law.”

    The rate of incarceration for women in this country has increased by 800 percent and yes, two-thirds of all female prisoners are in prison for non-violent offenses.”

    According to statistics from The Sentencing Project — a nonprofit that seeks reforms for the U.S. criminal justice system — between 1980 and 2010, the number of women in prison increased by 646 percent, rising from 15,118 to 112,797.

    “It’s impossible to overstate how important it is to maintain your ties to the outside world, to your family and to your friends and to any of the people on the outside who may be pulling for you and invested in your success, because that is the single most fundamental predictor for people surviving with less suffering while they’re incarcerated and returning home successfully,” Kerman said.

    Kerman did 13 months of a 15-month sentence — 11 months in a “women’s camp” in Danbury. Kerman, a member of the board of the New York nonprofit Women’s Prison Association, is an advocate of a program the association administers, JusticeHome, that would allow some felons to serve their sentences from home.

    Teresa and Joe met in Paterson as children, she told The Record in an interview in May 2009, shortly before “RHONJ” debuted. Their families happened to have come from the same town in Italy — Sala Consilina, in the province of Salerno — and her mother and Joe’s mother always hung out together. While they did, all their children would “play house” together, Teresa said.

    During that 2009 interview, Teresa — now so practiced at saying much while revealing nothing — seemed largely unfiltered, and so unsavvy about dealing with the media that she talked openly about her husband’s juvenile brushes with the law. A Bravo publicist gently suggested she not do this, but Teresa kept talking. After the interview, though, she sheepishly asked this reporter to not use those quotes in that “RHONJ” story. At the time, her remarks didn’t seem germane, so I agreed. Now, they seem relevant.

    “He was like a bad kid growing up. At 12, 13, 14, he was bad, ­really bad. Like bad,” Teresa said. “My mother was like, ‘Stay away from him. No good.’ … But she loved him to death. She would like go with his mom to bail him out of jail. He would steal his dad’s car.”

    Joe had been “an altar boy for many years,” Teresa said and ultimately, “He straightened out himself.”

    Sadly, it appears that he did not.

    Despite tearful pleas, ‘Real Housewives’ stars Joe, Teresa Giudice sentenced to prison
    October 3, 2014, 6:58 PM

    Reality — in the form of a federal judge — hit Teresa and Joe Giudice hard Thursday when they were sentenced to prison for mortgage and bankruptcy fraud despite last-ditch, tearful pleas by the fallen TV stars.

    “I fully take responsibility for my actions,” Teresa, one of the stars of “The Real Housewives of New Jersey,” told U.S. District Judge Esther Salas. “I deeply love my family. … My four daughters are my life.”

    Her voice faltering, she went on: “I wrote this last night because I knew I was going to be nervous. … I’m scared, I’m not going to deny it. I’m really scared.”

    Teresa got 15 months in prison; Joe got three years and five months.

    Salas said their sentences will be staggered so that one parent will be available to care for their four daughters while the other is in prison. Teresa will go to prison first. She must surrender on Jan. 5, which gives her time to spend the holidays with her family, Salas said.

    “I stand here humiliated in front of the court and society,” Joe said. “I disgraced many people. I disgraced my wife. I disgraced my daughters. I deserve blame and punishment for the poor choices I have made.”

    When it was over, the couple left the federal courthouse in Newark holding hands. They were surrounded by security as they made their way to a white Mercedes-Benz SUV. Joe looked straight ahead while Teresa sobbed behind her sunglasses.

    Salas had expressed frustration with the couple’s financial maneuvers and the behavior that resulted in a federal indictment and ultimately a guilty plea to charges of mortgage and bankruptcy fraud.

    They owe almost half a million dollars in restitution, and Joe, a citizen of Italy, may ultimately be deported.

    The Giudices had agreed to a plea deal with federal prosecutors in the hope that Teresa, at least, would get probation instead of prison time.

    Late in the afternoon, Teresa addressed the judge in a last attempt to lighten the sentence that was about to be imposed. “I have heard you,” she told the judge. “I need to live to do things for myself,” she read. “It’s time for me to wake up. … I will make this right no matter what it takes.”

    Joe, 44, had admitted being responsible for the bulk of the fraud in the case.

    The couple were ordered to make $414,588 in restitution, and Joe must pay $224,211 in back taxes owed on $1.2 million in income. As part of their plea agreements, Teresa was supposed to show up with $200,000 to go toward the restitution, but the funds are still being processed, one of her attorneys said.

    The couple had pleaded guilty in March to submitting phony loan applications to get some $5 million in mortgages and construction loans, and to hiding assets from bankruptcy court. Joe also admitted failing to file a 2004 tax return.

    Their attorneys did not address the news media after the sentencing.

    U.S. Attorney Paul Fishman said during a brief news conference that “it was a fair, appropriate and reasonable sentence, and this office is satisfied.”

    He said he didn’t think the couple’s celebrity status played any part in the judge’s sentencing or his office’s investigation of the Giudices. “It sends a message to everyone watching,” he said. “Hopefully, people will think twice.”

    The nearly six-hour hearing featured some moments of drama. The couple cried at a mention that Joe’s father had died in his arms. There was a declaration from Teresa’s attorney that Joe would be deported to Italy after serving his sentence.

    And the judge lambasted the couple for failing to disclose assets on financial forms that were tied to their sentencing.

    Teresa, 42, appeared dumbfounded when Salas said that she had first considered a probation or home confinement instead of prison time.

    Salas said she changed her mind when she noticed discrepancies between what the prosecutors had listed as the couple’s assets and what the couple had reported to the probation department. Even so, Salas gave her credit for her charitable endeavors and for the fact that her husband would likely be deported.

    Teresa faced between 21 and 27 months in prison, but her attorney, Henry Klingeman, had argued for probation, saying that Teresa had played a minor role in the scheme and that her husband had managed the finances.

    But Salas said she was troubled that such a savvy businesswoman would claim not to know that she had to provide basic financial information to probation officers. Salas said she didn’t understand Teresa’s motives for the crimes and speculated that it was because the couple was trying to maintain a lavish lifestyle like those of their friends.

    Assistant U.S. Attorney Jonathan W. Romankow argued that Teresa deserved a prison term because she knew of the schemes and reaped the profits of the loans, including one obtained to build their 10,000-square-foot home in Montville.

    “This defendant was involved with her husband,” he said. “She was no babe in the woods.”

    Romankow said a sentence of from 37 to 46 months was reasonable for Joe, given that he had a lengthy criminal record of at least seven arrests. One was for allegedly slamming a woman’s head into a mailbox and kicking her on the ground.

    Joe was not remorseful and took the central role in lying and hiding assets from the bankruptcy trustee as well as submitting phony documents to obtain loans, Romankow said.

    “Make no mistake, his wife Teresa was the first mate while this defendant was the captain of the ship,” he said.

    Throughout the daylong hearing, Salas appeared to seesaw on some points while weighing her options on sentencing the couple.

    But on one point she never wavered: her outrage at the Giudices’ “glaring omissions” in their financial disclosure statements to the court.

    “It feels as if things have been hidden or concealed,” Salas said.

    They had failed to mention a pool table, jewelry, all-terrain vehicles, closets full of pricey handbags and expensive shoes when reporting their assets.

    “It’s as if you thumb your nose at this court,” Salas said.

    It also took longer than necessary to report the incomplete information, Salas said. The couple received documents for financial disclosures either on or before March 4. The required documents were not turned in to the court until Aug. 19.

    “I had to put the sentencing off because the financial disclosure wasn’t in,” Salas said.

    Salas rattled off a list of a dozen items that were not listed on reports to probation officials but were on the U.S. attorney’s inventory of the couple’s property.

    The judge noted the total value of the discrepancies at more than $75,000, and cited seven assets that were not listed on any document provided to the court.

    “If [Teresa] had put something down, anything, I think [probation] would have been fine with that,” Salas said of Teresa’s reports to probation officers. “She put nothing down, nothing.”

    She repeatedly challenged Teresa’s attorney, Klingeman, to explain the problem-riddled documents.

    “I’ve been a judge for seven years and I have yet to ever see the amount of confusion and work that went into these financial disclosures,” Salas said.

    Klingeman told the judge that Teresa had hired an accountant and provided that person with information, trusting that it would be reported accurately.

    He said the difficulties with the financial documents reflected “complex and chaotic” financial lives of the couple.

    But the ultimate responsibility, Salas hammered, rested with the Giudices.

    “I’m not sure you respect this court. I’m not sure you respect our laws. And I’m not sure you understand what you’ve done,” Salas said.

    What the judge said

    Some conclusions that U.S. District Judge Esther Salas reached before deciding on sentences for Teresa and Joe Giudice on Thursday:

    They failed to report their financial disclosures on time to court officials.

    They gave inaccurate information on the disclosure forms, possibly concealing assets.

    They showed little understanding of the gravity of the charges they faced and crimes they committed.

    Teresa’s failure to pay $200,000 at sentencing, which was part of the plea agreement, was another example her failure to respect the court.

    Given Teresa’s savvy as a businesswoman it “defied logic” that she wouldn’t understand she needed to disclose information to the court.

    Teresa needed to take responsibility for herself, stop relying on others and make her own decisions.

    They were trying to “keep up with the Joneses,” people who judge others for what they have.

    Teresa is a devoted mother.

    Teresa showed genuine remorse when she apologized to the court.

    — Todd South


    For reality TV stars Joe and Teresa Giudice, a very different kind of reality awaits
    By Thomas Zambito and Vicki Hyman | NJ Advance Media for NJ.com
    October 03, 2014 at 11:29 AM

    For years, the stars of New Jersey’s most popular reality TV show enjoyed the fruits of their fame, celebrating extravagance before a national audience.

    Now, they face the grim reality of prison.

    In a circus-like atmosphere at the federal courthouse in Newark Thursday, Joe and Teresa Giudice, two of the more colorful characters on Bravo’s “Real Housewives of New Jersey,” were sentenced to 41 months and 15 months, respectively, for illegally obtaining millions of dollars in loans and for hiding income and assets in a 2009 bankruptcy filing.

    Reporters and celebrity-chroniclers from across the nation packed the courtroom and an overflow room for the day-long proceedings, punctuated by apologies and tears from the Giudices and and stern lectures from U.S. District Court Judge Esther Salas, who sentenced the husband and wife separately.

    In an arrangement that will allow one of the Giudices to be present at their Montville home for their four daughters, Teresa Giudice will serve her 15-month term first. She is scheduled to report to prison Jan. 5.

    Once she is released, Joe Giudice will begin his 41-month term, Salas ruled. The husband, who was born in Italy and who never obtained U.S. citizenship, also faces the possibility of deportation when his term is complete.

    Both apologized for their crimes, which entailed hiding millions of dollars in assets. They had previously pleaded guilty to multiple bankruptcy fraud counts, along with conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud. Joe Giudice also pleaded guilty to one count of failure to file a tax return.

    “I stand here humiliated before the court and my family and society,” Joe Giudice said nervously before Salas handed down his sentence earlier in the day. “I disgraced many people, including my wife and four daughters. I take full responsibility for my actions. I promise to be a better person.”

    Teresa Giudice spoke tearfully before her own sentencing hours later.

    “I’m so scared,” she said, her voice breaking. “I’m blessed, but today I am also humbled. I fully take responsibility for my actions. This is not how I was raised. I am more sorry than anyone will ever know.”

    Salas, who spoke for about 10 minutes during Teresa Giudice’s appearance, said she considered sparing the wife from prison. In the end, however, the judge said she needed to show that criminal behavior must be punished regardless of one’s celebrity.

    “For a moment, I thought about probation,” Salas said. “For a moment.”

    She later added: “I need to send a message that it isn’t who you are, how famous you are. If you do something wrong, there will be consequences to pay.”

    The judge expressed some sympathy for Teresa Giudice, saying it was her husband who took the lead in the fraud. Salas called her a “dedicated mother” and noted she had expressed “genuine remorse.”

    At the same time, Salas said she was “greatly offended” by the lack of transparency in the couple’s asset disclosures to probation officials.

    “Confinement is absolutely necessary in this case,” Salas said, adding, “I don’t honestly believe you respect the law.”

    Teresa Giudice could have been sentenced to as much as 27 months under the plea agreement with the U.S. Attorney’s Office.

    Assistant U.S. Attorney Jonathan Romankow, who prosecuted the case, argued against leniency for the wife, saying she was just as guilty as her husband in the mortgage and bankruptcy fraud.

    “He was the captain of the ship. Well, she was the first mate,” Romankow said.

    “The house she is living in now is a product of criminal conduct,” the prosecutor added, referring to the fraudulent loans that helped finance it. “She is not deserving of a variance. She is deserving of a sentence of 21 months.”

    Romankow was equally critical of Joe Giudice.

    Citing the husband’s long history of brushes with the law in the years before the fraud case — including assault, possession of marijuana, and impersonating a police officer — Romankow said even his driving record “demonstrates his reckless disregard for the law.”

    Joe Giudice’s lawyer, Miles Feinstein, presented a vastly softer portrait of his client, asking Salas to consider leniency because Joe took responsibility for the crimes in an attempt to exonerate his wife.

    “That is the mark of a real man,” Feinstein said.

    The attorney talked at length about the recent loss of Joe’s father, Frank, who died of a massive heart attack “in Joe’s arms,” and how devastated his client has been since then. Though mostly stoic throughout the hearing, Joe Giudice reacted to the description of his father’s death by wiping away tears.

    “Nobody can say Joe Giudice is not a good and considerate son,” Feinstein said. “He’s a low-key and loving individual. This is the real Joe. Not the ‘Housewives’ Joe.”

    The lawyer also read a letter from Joe Giudice’s mother, Filomena, who could not be in court because of health problems.

    “My son needs a slap on the wrist, not to be taken away from his family,” she wrote.

    Speaking later, the judge returned to the mother’s words in making clear Joe Giudice would not escape without significant punishment.

    “It’s not a slap on your wrist you need, Mr. Giudice. Uh-uh,” Salas said. “You need to understand the laws of this country and that they need to be respected.”

    Salas grew visibly angry with the couple over what she called their “glaring” omissions and inconsistencies in their required pre-sentencing financial disclosure statement and that Feinstein couldn’t confirm whether his client had actually paid the $224,000 he owes in back taxes. Salas called it “a direct affront to the court.”

    “I am not sure you respect our laws,” she told Joe Giudice. “And I am not sure you understand yet what you did.”

    Yet in balancing a sentence, Salas also took into account the dozens of letters written on the the defendant’s behalf, describing him as a loving and devoted husband and father.

    “A sentence under the top end of the range would be appropriate,” she said, “but I have to give you credit for the live you have lived, at least to the people you have loved.”

    Before concluding the court session, Salas told Giudice she wished him luck.

    “What you did in this case doesn’t define you as a man … You have a lot to live for,” she said.

    She said U.S. immigration officials told the court that if they do seek to deport Giudice, they would wait until after he has served his sentence.

    Teresa Giudice’s attorney, Henry Klingeman, raised the “almost certain” deportation of Joe Giudice in his plea for leniency for the wife.

    Klingeman, who sought a sentence of probation or home confinement with community service, said Teresa Giudice is always seen in public holding the hand of her husband.

    “They will not be holding hands at their daughters’ graduation,” the lawyer said. “They will not be holding hands at their weddings. They will not be holding hands at the hospital when their grandchildren are born. This family is not going to be temporarily separated. They will be permanently separated.”

    In a day filled with more drama than the TV show that made the couple famous, the normally staid federal courthouse teemed with entertainment bloggers and others who apparently had never been in a federal courtroom.

    One had an electronic stylus and tablet to take notes. When the U.S. marshals told him that no electronic devices were allowed, he protested, asking how he was supposed to write.

    “Try a pad and pen,” he was told.

    He did not have either.

    Another person took a picture with his camera phone in the hallway — a serious violation in a federal courthouse. His phone was confiscated, and he was nearly escorted from the building.

    Outside the courthouse following Teresa Giudice’s sentencing, U.S. Attorney Paul Fishman said the wife’s fame didn’t impact the prosecution one way or another.

    “The fact she is a celebrity played no role in her punishment,” Fishman said. “But it sends a message that these are the kinds of crimes that send people to jail.”

    Emerging from a white Mercedes Benz GL450 with tinted windows shortly before 9 a.m., the Giudices walked to the courthouse flanked by their lawyers and security guards. They were stone-faced and did not answer questions. Teresa wore a black pants suit with gold shirt; Joe had on a black suit with blue shirt and black tie.

    Joe and Teresa each pleaded guilty in March to one count of conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud and three counts of bankruptcy fraud – by concealing assets, falsifying court filings and falsely testifying. They admitted to hiding assets from a bankruptcy trustee, and Joe pleaded guilty to failing to file one year’s tax returns. Prosecutors said they conspired to fraudulently obtain millions of dollars in mortgages and loans by falsifying applications over an eight-year period.

    Barricades were set up from Mulberry Street to the courthouse steps, leaving a path for the Giudices to enter the courthouse for their 10 a.m. sentencing. The media was out in force with at least 17 camera crews — including Extra, E!, Insider and Inside Edition — shooting their arrival.

    The couple left the courthouse hand-in-hand shortly after 5 p.m. Teresa appeared to be crying. Flanked by security guards, they ignored questions from reporters, got into an SUV and drove away. A news helicopter appeared to be following the vehicle.

    Outside the courthouse, Paul Fishman, the U.S. Attorney for New Jersey, said the sentencing was “fair, appropriate and reasonable and our office is satisfied.” The sentencing, he said, “sends a message to everyone watching and hopefully people will think twice.”

    The extravagant exploits of the Montville couple were first celebrated by Bravo’s cameras; their financial freefall and legal woes were then chronicled relentlessly by the news media.

    The couple’s troubles first surfaced in 2009, when they declared bankruptcy, citing millions in debt and blaming the economy for torpedoing Joe’s real estate ventures.

    The bankruptcy trustee representing their creditors questioned the couple’s failure to declare assets and income, including rental properties and Teresa’s “Real Housewives of New Jersey” true salary. Joe later took the Fifth Amendment when questioned about the apparently flawed bankruptcy filing, and they both abandoned their quest to get their debt absolved in 2011. They still owe millions to creditors.

    Joe Giudice was indicted in 2010 for using his brother’s identification to get a New Jersey driver’s license because his own was suspended due to a DUI, charges that carry more than 10 years in prison.

    And in July 2013, federal prosecutors not only brought bankruptcy fraud charges against the couple but alleged a long-running conspiracy from their pre-fame days to illegally obtain millions in mortgages, construction loans and lines of credit using falsified W-2 forms and tax returns. Joe also failed to pay income tax on nearly $1 million in earnings over five years, prosecutors alleged.

    Though they maintained their innocence — “We’re good people. I don’t understand why this is happening to us,” Teresa said inher first post-indictment interview with Bravo’s Andy Cohen — and claimed prosecutors targeted them because they’re famous, they eventually pleaded guilty in the case.

    The couple also face court fines and must make restitution of more than $400,000.

    Bravo, the network that airs “Real Housewives,” declined to comment on the sentencing. But in a sign that the Giudices have no problem remaining in the spotlight, they are scheduled to sit down with the network’s Andy Cohen on “Watch What Happens” for this first post-sentencing interview.


    Teresa Giudice And Joe Giudice Fraud Sentencing Recap: All The Details That Led To Their Prison Sentences!
    by Mary on October 3rd, 2014
    Reality Tea

    Yesterday Teresa Giudice was sentenced to 15 months in prison, while her husband Joe Giudice received a 41 month sentence for federal fraud charges of bankruptcy fraud, mail fraud, and conspiracy to commit wire fraud. The Judge decided to give the couple staggered sentences allowing one of them to always be at home with their 4 daughters.

    Teresa will begin serving her sentence first, on January 5th, 2015, so she will be able to spend the holidays with her daughters. Teresa and Joe owe $414,588 in restitution as a couple and each face two-years of supervised release following prison.

    Below we give a rundown on the course of the day and what led to the Real Housewives Of New Jersey stars’ sentences.

    The day did not start off well for Teresa and Joe who arrived at the courthouse at 10 am with their defense attorneys. Both Teresa and Joe seemed subdued and disquieted by the events about to take place.


    The presiding judge, Esther Salas, immediately took the Giudices to task for failing to disclose necessary financial assets as part of their pre-sentencing requirements. In fact she shared that she delayed sentencing twice while waiting for those documents. “How is it that at this point the court is having to go over this?” Salas demanded of both defense attorneys.

    Among the list of “glaring omissions” the Giudices failed to reveal were ATVs, construction equipment, several cars, jewelry (Teresa claimed she had none), and $25,000 worth of furniture (for which they have a $1 million insurance policy) and other items which were discovered by federal investigators. “It feels like things have been hidden,” Judge Salas chastised, who believed the Giudices failed to declare an estimated $75,680 worth of possessions.

    Teresa’s attorney explained that most of the designer furniture seen on TV was brought in by RHONJ to stage the house. Furthermore, Teresa’s attorney argued against the judge basing Teresa’s sentencing on the ostentatious ways she behaves on reality TV. “The image is little more than a carefully crafted fiction, engineered by Bravo TV through scripted lines and clever editing.”

    The couple declared the value of Teresa’s Milania hair care line at $0. And Teresa failed to declare her designer clothes, handbags and shoes. Joe and Teresa, via a letter, read aloud by the Judge, claimed they caved to the pressure to keep up with their wealthier friends which is what led them to commit fraudulent acts.

    The Judge scoffed at this: “Your four daughters need to understand discipline. If you don’t have it you shouldn’t spend it,” she said. “If they won’t like you because you’re not driving a Benz or walking on Jimmy Choos or Manolo Blahniks then they’re not your friends.” #TRUTH

    Furthermore the Judge wondered why Joe, who was indicted for tax fraud, had still not filed his tax returns for the last several years, another pre-sentencing requirement. And neither Joe nor his attorney seemed to know if he had repaid the $240,000 he owes in back taxes, which the judge declared a “direct affront to the court.”

    Presumably the Giudices were waiting for their bankruptcy to be settled before they were able to? “I’ve been a judge for seven years and I have yet to ever see the amount of confusion and work that went into these financial disclosures,” the baffled Judge Salas lectured.


    As he faced the Judge, a humbled Joe did not beg for mercy, but instead took responsibility for his actions and apologized. “I stand here humiliated before the court and my family and society,” he admitted. “I disgraced many people, including my wife and four daughters. I take full responsibility for my actions. I promise to be a better person.”

    Joe also attempted exonerate Teresa from serving prison time by pleading that she deserved leniency because he forced her to sign documents. Joe’s attorney, Miles Feinstein, reminded the judge of the traumatic year the family had with the loss of Joe’s father who passed away from a heart attack “in Joe’s arms.” He also argued that the Joe seen on RHONJ is not the real Joe. “He’s a low-key and loving individual. This is the real Joe. Not the ‘Housewives’ Joe.”

    Joe’s mother, Filomena wrote a letter, read aloud in court, which begged for Joe to receive a “slap on the wrists.” The Judge also received dozens of letters from friends and family attesting to his character as a loving and devoted father and husband. The Judge took all of these things into consideration, she said, before deciding not to give Joe the full sentence. Joe was given 41 months, along with the restitution, and an additional $10,000 in fines to the court.

    “I am not sure you respect this court or our laws, and I’m not sure you understand what you’ve done,” Judge Salas reprimanded. “I want you home with your girls. You’re a great dad.”

    “I have to give you credit for the life you have lived, at least to the people you have loved,” Judge Salas praised. “What you did in this case doesn’t define you as a man … You have a lot to live for.” Joe’s sentence encompasses both his federal fraud charges and his identity theft charges in state court.

    After sentencing Joe’s attorney informed the Judge that his client has a drinking problem and would benefit from a residential treatment alcohol program. Joe’s attorney placed the blame on RHONJ producers and Bravo for making alcohol so readily available. The Judge dismissed this notion, but agreed Joe should get help for his substance issues in prison.

    As for Joe’s “imminent deportation” (per Judge Salas), she declared that U.S. Immigrations and Customs Enforcement will not act on that until after his sentence is served.

    In addition to his sentence, restitution, and fine, Joe must pay his back taxes.


    Before sentencing Teresa’s legal team, led by Henry Klingeman, tried to persuade Judge Salas that Teresa deserved probation, or at the very least, house arrest for her crimes.

    Teresa offered to do community service and forfeit any ill-begotten monies if she was able to do home arrest, in lieu of prison time. In arguing for probation Teresa’s attorney cited that Teresa’s financial state is very “fragile” due to the nature of RHONJ’s “shelf life”. He argued that Teresa relies on the show to provide for her family and with Joe facing deportation, along with the couple’s massive debt, removing her from her only source of income for prison time could leave her and her 4 children with “no career to rely upon, no skills to rely upon, no income, no savings.”

    The Prosecutor argued back, “She thumbed her nose at the court, now she wants sympathy. It’s business as usual.” As for Teresa requesting house arrest, the Prosecutor reminded the Judge that Teresa would be confined “in the very house she built on fraudulent loans.”

    Judge Salas ultimately denied the “downward departure.”

    Breaking down in front of Judge Salas, Teresa sobbed as she read a letter in her own defense, admitting that she was scared, nervous, and incredibly remorseful.

    “Today you will hear from the wife and mother that I am and the daughter that I am. I’m not going to deny that I’m really scared … I’m blessed but today I’m humbled. I fully take responsibility for my actions. I need to learn to do things for myself. It’s time for me to wake up … My daughters are my life, that’s what keeps me going. I’ve done so much crying; my daughters are my life.

    I don’t care about the TV show or materialistic things … we lost my father-in-law and that was the first grandparent we lost. I feel bad my 13-year-old knows anything.” The court then issued a five minute recess for Teresa to compose herself.

    Teresa continued, crying, “I’m a woman of faith. This was not how I was raised. I’m more sorry than anyone will ever know. I will make this right no matter what it takes. Now I have even more to give. I will take this experience and continue to do the right thing. I know in my heart everything happens for a reason and I’ve found my reason.”

    Credit: RumorFix

    The Judge also acknowledged that it is Teresa and Joe, not Joe Gorga, who “shoulder” most of the responsibility for Teresa’s ailing parents, and she took that into consideration when administering the sentence. Whoa – even the Judge is slamming Poison!

    Judge Salas said that she considered probation “for a moment,” but then felt Teresa needed to feel the effects of her choices. “I think a period of confinement is absolutely necessary in this case,” Judge Salas explained. “I don’t honestly believe that you understand or respect the law. I need to send a message. In the eyes of the law, it doesn’t matter who you are. There are consequences to pay.”

    “You need to stop relying on PR. You need to stop relying on CPAs. You need to starting listening and making decisions,” the Judge advised Teresa. The Judge expressed frustration that Teresa appeared to be a savvy businesswoman, but, yet was so clueless about her own financial affairs.

    It was the discrepancies between what the prosecutors listed as the couple’s assets and what Teresa and Joe presented to the court that led to the Judge’s decision for Teresa to serve time instead of probation. “If [Teresa] had put something down, anything, I think [probation] would have been fine,” Judge Salas stated. “She put nothing down, nothing.”

    Addressing Teresa after handing down the sentence, Judge Salas said, “You, quite frankly, display genuine remorse. At the end of the day, I think you finally got it. You finally woke up.” In addition to the 15 months Teresa was also given a $5,000 fine.

    On January 5th when Teresa self-surrenders, she is remanded to show up with $200,000 to go towards the restitution, her attorneys revealed the funds are still being processed.

    Teresa has not yet received her prison assignment.

    As they left the courthouse, surrounded by security guards, witnesses report that Teresa appeared to be crying. Both Teresa and Joe dodged questions from reporters and got into their SUV.

    U.S. Attorney Paul Fishman seemed pleased, “It was a fair, appropriate and reasonable sentence, and this office is satisfied,” he said in a brief post-sentencing news conference. Here US Attorney’s official press release on the matter.

    Thank you NorthJersey.com, NJ.com, and journalist Vicki Hyman (@VickiHy).

    As a gentle word of reminder, although Teresa and Joe did indeed break the law, and fully deserve to pay the consequences for that, they are still human beings and it is appropriate to display some compassion, at the very least for their children and families.


    Doblin: Chapters close for Teresa Giudice and Nazerah Bugg
    October 3, 2014, 3:09 PM
    The Record

    THEY LINED up in Newark on Thursday to catch a glimpse of Teresa Giudice. They lined up in Paterson on Thursday to catch a glimpse of Nazerah Bugg.

    Teresa was wearing a black pants suit.

    Nazerah was wearing a basketball uniform.

    Teresa Giudice was in a white Mercedes.

    Nazerah Bugg was in a coffin.

    These two stories are connected not just by geography – both Teresa and Nazerah had roots in Paterson. And not just by date – one was sentenced to prison Thursday, while the other was remembered at her funeral. No, they are connected by a society that celebrates celebrity over accomplishment and accepts the deaths of inner-city children as collateral damage in a failed war on crime and drugs.

    Teresa Giudice and her husband, Joe, rose to fame on a reality show I have yet to watch. They admitted they faked financial statements to get loans to live large, hid assets and, in the case of Joe, also failed to file a tax return. On Thursday, they were sentenced by a U.S. District Court judge.

    Teresa grew up in Paterson. Unlike Nazerah, she married, had children and moved into a massive mansion in the nearby affluent suburb of Montville. That the national attention Thursday was not on the tragedy of a young girl slain on a gritty urban street but on a pampered matron, a star of a reality show, shows how skewed our values are.

    The more we elevate undeserving people, the more we devalue those who choose to play by the rules. Reality television is built on conflict, on people behaving badly and laughing about it over a cocktail. Reality is different. In Paterson, there are not a lot of people throwing drinks at someone’s face. In Paterson, they have guns and bullets.

    The motivations are not that different. Money and power can insulate against consequences. That is until they don’t. Until the 10,000-square-foot house of cards comes falling down. Or until some thug falls prey to another thug.

    The Giudices came to believe their false reality was the genuine thing and they used whatever tricks they could to keep the sham going. I have no sympathy for either of them and believe both should go to prison sooner rather than later. I don’t think less-celebrated parents often get to go to jail in shifts because they have children at home. Teresa Giudice knew she had four children when she broke the law. If she wants to play the violin for sympathy, she can join an orchestra in prison.

    In contrast, 14-year-old Nazerah Bugg wanted to play basketball. Her ticket out of Paterson was not going to be achieved by committing fraud; it was going to be through athletic excellence. Nazerah was slated to play varsity ball this year at Kennedy High School. Those dreams ended Sept. 20. There is still no explanation as to why she was shot. Nor is there public indignation from Paterson’s mayor.

    For that matter, The Real Political Players of New Jersey, from Governor Christie to U.S. Sens. Bob Menendez and Cory Booker to Rep. Bill Pascrell have not made speeches in Paterson about the shooting deaths of two girls over the summer. Genesis Rincon, 12 years old, was slain in July while riding a scooter.

    The lack of attention paid to these killings while all eyes are fixated on the sentencing of the Giudices turns my stomach. Teresa and Joe Giudice aren’t worth spit, and, yet, there they are front and center. The real people of Paterson came out for Nazerah on Thursday. Police gave her a 14-motorcycle escort. Family, friends and neighbors mourned. She did not go unnoticed, but she did not receive the attention she deserved. Neither did Genesis.

    These girls – not yet women – were denied the chances given to Teresa Giudice. Whatever they might have been was ended in random acts of violence. Until we pay as much attention to reality as we do to reality television, nothing will change.

    When were our civic and religious leaders replaced by the program creators at Bravo? What confounds me – no, angers me – is the lack of indignation about this most recent killing in Paterson. No Republican or Democratic gubernatorial wannabe came to Paterson. No posse of television crews. Not even Al Sharpton. Because a 14-year-old girl killed on the streets of Paterson and mourned at her funeral on Thursday isn’t news anymore; it’s just Thursday.

    The premise behind “The Real Housewives” franchise is that there are millions of people who either want to be rich, vulgar and outrageous or want to watch people who are rich, vulgar and outrageous. There must be, because Bravo isn’t going out of business. But somebody has to stand up and say, “America, these people are nothing. Their lives are nothing.”

    Nazerah Bugg’s life was something, something more than too short. She had a dream and a plan and she should have been given the opportunity to live that dream. But today America will not be talking about Nazerah Bugg. The water-cooler conversation will be all about the sentencing of Joe and Teresa Giudice, what they wore and how they arrived at their Thursday destination.

    Teresa Giudice was in a white Mercedes.

    Nazerah Bugg was in a coffin.

    Alfred P. Doblin is the editorial page editor of The Record. Contact him at doblin@northjersey.com. Follow AlfredPDoblin on Twitter.


    10 revelations from Joe and Teresa Giudice’s sentencing hearing

    The 18 most telling quotes from ‘Real Housewives’ stars Joe and Teresa Giudice sentencing

    Why Wasn’t Melissa Gorga At Teresa Giudice Sentencing

    Judge Salas- I Read The Pre-Sentence Reports and I Have A Number Of Concerns- Teresa and Joe’s Sentencing, Part 1

    The judge, Esther Salas, announced that this was the case of the US vs Giuseppe and Teresa Giudice. She made it clear that a representative from the FDIC and a representative from the IRS were present as well.

    Judge Salas noted that in advance of today’s sentencing, she had reviewed the sentence reports dated 9/17, the Government sentencing memo dated 9/22, the defendant sentencing memoranda dated 9/22, and the Government responsive memo dated 9/29. In addition, the court had received letters for consideration from friends, family, and the public. Joe had received 44 letters on his behalf, Teresa had received 51 letters on her behalf, 9 letters were received from public members, 2 anonymous letters were received, and 2 phone calls were received.

    The court then asked Judge Salas not to consider anonymous letters and she agreed to not consider anonymous letters or phone calls. Then, Joe’s lawyer asked Judge Salas to not consider any letters in general. She agreed that any ruling she makes would not be based on the letters.

    Then, before the lawyers began speaking, Judge Salas made it known that she had read the pre-sentencing reports and, based on them, she had a number of concerns.


    Bravo had a camera crew stationed outside the New Jersey courthouse where the Giudices were sentenced Thursday and has been following their legal woes closely as a main “RHONJ” storyline this season.

    “Teresa doesn’t have to surrender until January,” the production source said. “So there’s plenty of time to continue filming.”

    Among the “touching” moments viewers can expect to see next season will be the Giudice’s final Christmas together and their tearful separation when Teresa surrenders to authorities for her long stay behind bars.

    Another possibility would be to focus a minor storyline about Joe Giudice caring for the couple’s children while Teresa is locked up.

    The topic is expected to be a major topic of discussion on Sunday when Teresa Giudice tapes in the “RHONJ” season 6 reunion.

    It will of course be the focus of Monday’s 9 p.m. “very special” edition of “Watch What Happens Live: One-on-One with Teresa and Joe.”


  26. December 19, 2014 at 10:15 PM

    Several news sources cleared up false reports by bloggers that the feds and New Jersey law enforcement agencies were involved in a raid of Teresa Giudice’s home to seize assets. The U.S. prosecutors’ public affairs office in Newark told The NY Post the story was fabricated.

    “There was no raid.” The story was “as close to completely false as you can get,” a spokesman said.

    Matt Reilly, a spokesman for the U.S. Attorney’s office in the District of New Jersey, told the Huffington Post that deputies did not raid the Giudices’ home. Reilly explained: “We didn’t undertake any action like that. There seems to be a lot of specific detail in [the articles]. If there was going to be something like that, our office would be involved. It just didn’t happen.” Additionally, a Morris County Sheriff’s Office spokeswoman told NJ.com no deputies were involved in a raid at the Giudices’ home. A representative for Teresa Giudice denied the claims as well, telling the Daily Mail: “There is no truth to this rumor. It is 100 percent fabricated.”

    Mark Reilly also told Gossip Cop the report is “not true.” He added: “We have not gone out there, and we haven’t sent anyone out there. We do not know where this came from.” The story is “not based on reality.” Reilly explained that this kind of action would not happen because federal authorities already have worked out an arrangement with the Giudices to pay the remainder of the court-ordered restitution for the charges to which they pleaded guilty.

    RadarOnline is the tabloid that many news sources quoted. RadarOnline falsely reported that a raid occurred at the Giudices’ home on December 15, 2014: “Teresa was home and was absolutely stunned by the raid. She had no clue they were coming. She was absolutely hysterical, and begging them not to take the girls’ Christmas presents.” The tabloid also falsely reported that the Giudices’ assets were seized: “The property will now be auctioned off with the money going into a trust account. If there is any money left over, it would go to paying creditors in their bankruptcy, in which they owe $14.3 million.”

    According to Us Weekly on December 18, 2014:

    The U.S. Attorney’s office and reps for Joe and Teresa Giudice say there’s no truth to reports that the prison-bound couple’s home was raided by Feds.

    Don’t blame the Feds for stealing Christmas. Multiple reports this week claimed that government officials descended upon Montville, N.J., to raid Joe and Teresa Giudice’s multimillion-dollar mansion — but both the U.S. Attorney’s office and Joe’s lawyer deny that any such drama went down.

    “We weren’t involved in anything over there,” Matt Reilly, a spokesperson from the U.S. Attorney’s office, tells Us Weekly of rumors that the government seized jewelry, electronics, and other valuables in an hours-long search of the Bravo stars’ property on Monday, Dec. 15.

    Asked whether another arm of the government might be involved, Reilly says no. “We would be enforcing any forfeiture action, so if anything like that needed to be done, we would arrange for it to happen,” he explains. “But that hasn’t happened.”

    In fact, as far as Reilly knows, the Giudices are still making their required payments for restitution. “We have an asset forfeiture unit here,” he tells Us. “I haven’t talked to them, but typically they would work out [debt repayment] with the defendants. I haven’t heard that there’s any problem with that.”

    A spokeswoman for the Morris County Sheriff’s Office adds that no one there was involved or has any knowledge of the supposed raid, either. And a rep for Real Housewives of New Jersey star Teresa says, “There is no truth to this story. It is 100 percent fabricated.”

    Joe’s attorney, Miles Feinstein, also denies that there was any sort of raid at his client’s home. “I checked with Joe and he said there was no FBI raid,” Feinstein tells Us exclusively. “I also checked with the government and they said it didn’t happen.”

    He adds: “I’ve been a criminal lawyer for a long time, and I’ve never heard of the government coming into a home with four children right before Christmas and seizing their gifts. If it did happen, I would think it was an absolutely cruel and merciless act by the U.S. government. It’s just not true.”


    According to NJ.com on December 18, 2014:

    Reports that federal agents raided Teresa and Joe’s Montville Township home because they failed to set up a payment plan to repay the $214,588.90 they still owe in restitution for their mortgage scam are not true.

    A detailed report claiming that “county deputies, along with two probation officers and two interns, arrived at the couple’s mansion on Monday and confiscated all of Teresa’s jewelry, high-end accessories, and a large amount of cash hidden behind a trap door in the ceiling of a closet” also are not true.

    Federal agents did not “seize Christmas presents, plasma televisions, jewelry and stashes of hidden cash,” according to a spokesman for the U.S. Attorney’s Office that prosecuted the couple for bankruptcy, mail and wire fraud. If “anyone went over there under official capacity, it would be under us,” he says.

    In addition, a spokeswoman for the Morris County Sheriff’s Office says no deputies were involved in any raid on the Giudice home.

    James J. Leonard, a lawyer recently retained by Teresa to deal with outstanding issues from the plea bargain, including the restitution, calls the story “a completely fabrication” and says that Teresa is “complying 100 percent” with the U.S. Attorney’s Office to satisfy the restitution. “I can tell you with absolute certainty there was no raid and there was no assets seized,” Leonard says. “Santa Claus coming down the chimney is more believable than the raid story.”

    Stacy Biancamano, Teresa’s lawyer for her prison designation and forfeiture, says she no longer represents the “Real Housewives” star and had no information about the alleged raid. Henry Klingeman, who defended Teresa in the federal fraud case, also no longer represents her.


    Sources told E! News that Teresa is using her final weeks of freedom to spend quality time with friends and family, carrying on as a full-time mother of four daughters as usual. “She wants them [the kids] to be as affected by this as little as possible,” one insider said. “She’s been so excited, for example, by Gia’s budding music career. She knows how happy and busy it keeps Gia, and that’s all Teresa really wants for her girls.”

    Last week Teresa retweeted sister-in-law Sheila Giudice’s post shooting down one tabloid report that claimed to have all the details on Teresa and Joe’s emotional “last Christmas together.”

    “Don’t believe all that you read,” Sheila tweeted, posting the following caption:

    Teresa’s plea agreement did address the forfeiture of assets, which is why “Criminal No. 13-495 Order of Forfeiture (Money Judgment)” for Teresa Giudice is dated November 10, 2014, before Teresa’s sentencing hearing on October 2, 2014.

    Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure
    Rule 32.2 Criminal Forfeiture

    (a) Notice to the Defendant. A court must not enter a judgment of forfeiture in a criminal proceeding unless the indictment or information contains notice to the defendant that the government will seek the forfeiture of property as part of any sentence in accordance with the applicable statute. The notice should not be designated as a count of the indictment or information. The indictment or information need not identify the property subject to forfeiture or specify the amount of any forfeiture money judgment that the government seeks.

    (b) Entering a Preliminary Order of Forfeiture.

    (1) Forfeiture Phase of the Trial.

    (A) Forfeiture Determinations. As soon as practical after a verdict or finding of guilty, or after a plea of guilty or nolo contendere is accepted, on any count in an indictment or information regarding which criminal forfeiture is sought, the court must determine what property is subject to forfeiture under the applicable statute. If the government seeks forfeiture of specific property, the court must determine whether the government has established the requisite nexus between the property and the offense. If the government seeks a personal money judgment, the court must determine the amount of money that the defendant will be ordered to pay.

    (B) Evidence and Hearing. The court’s determination may be based on evidence already in the record, including any written plea agreement, and on any additional evidence or information submitted by the parties and accepted by the court as relevant and reliable. If the forfeiture is contested, on either party’s request the court must conduct a hearing after the verdict or finding of guilty.

    (2) Preliminary Order.

    (A) Contents of a Specific Order. If the court finds that property is subject to forfeiture, it must promptly enter a preliminary order of forfeiture setting forth the amount of any money judgment, directing the forfeiture of specific property, and directing the forfeiture of any substitute property if the government has met the statutory criteria. The court must enter the order without regard to any third party’s interest in the property. Determining whether a third party has such an interest must be deferred until any third party files a claim in an ancillary proceeding under Rule 32.2(c).

    (B) Timing. Unless doing so is impractical, the court must enter the preliminary order sufficiently in advance of sentencing to allow the parties to suggest revisions or modifications before the order becomes final as to the defendant under Rule 32.2(b)(4).

    (C) General Order. If, before sentencing, the court cannot identify all the specific property subject to forfeiture or calculate the total amount of the money judgment, the court may enter a forfeiture order that:

    (i) lists any identified property;

    (ii) describes other property in general terms; and

    (iii) states that the order will be amended under Rule 32.2(e)(1) when additional specific property is identified or the amount of the money judgment has been calculated.

    (3) Seizing Property. The entry of a preliminary order of forfeiture authorizes the Attorney General (or a designee) to seize the specific property subject to forfeiture; to conduct any discovery the court considers proper in identifying, locating, or disposing of the property; and to commence proceedings that comply with any statutes governing third-party rights. The court may include in the order of forfeiture conditions reasonably necessary to preserve the property’s value pending any appeal.

    (4) Sentence and Judgment.

    (A) When Final. At sentencing—or at any time before sentencing if the defendant consents—the preliminary forfeiture order becomes final as to the defendant. If the order directs the defendant to forfeit specific property, it remains preliminary as to third parties until the ancillary proceeding is concluded under Rule 32.2(c).

    (B) Notice and Inclusion in the Judgment. The court must include the forfeiture when orally announcing the sentence or must otherwise ensure that the defendant knows of the forfeiture at sentencing. The court must also include the forfeiture order, directly or by reference, in the judgment, but the court’s failure to do so may be corrected at any time under Rule 36.

    (C) Time to Appeal. The time for the defendant or the government to file an appeal from the forfeiture order, or from the court’s failure to enter an order, begins to run when judgment is entered. If the court later amends or declines to amend a forfeiture order to include additional property under Rule 32.2(e), the defendant or the government may file an appeal regarding that property under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4 (b). The time for that appeal runs from the date when the order granting or denying the amendment becomes final.

    (5) Jury Determination.

    (A) Retaining the Jury. In any case tried before a jury, if the indictment or information states that the government is seeking forfeiture, the court must determine before the jury begins deliberating whether either party requests that the jury be retained to determine the forfeitability of specific property if it returns a guilty verdict.

    (B) Special Verdict Form. If a party timely requests to have the jury determine forfeiture, the government must submit a proposed Special Verdict Form listing each property subject to forfeiture and asking the jury to determine whether the government has established the requisite nexus between the property and the offense committed by the defendant.

    (6) Notice of the Forfeiture Order.

    (A) Publishing and Sending Notice. If the court orders the forfeiture of specific property, the government must publish notice of the order and send notice to any person who reasonably appears to be a potential claimant with standing to contest the forfeiture in the ancillary proceeding.

    (B) Content of the Notice. The notice must describe the forfeited property, state the times under the applicable statute when a petition contesting the forfeiture must be filed, and state the name and contact information for the government attorney to be served with the petition.

    (C) Means of Publication; Exceptions to Publication Requirement. Publication must take place as described in Supplemental Rule G(4)(a)(iii) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and may be by any means described in Supplemental Rule G(4)(a)(iv). Publication is unnecessary if any exception in Supplemental Rule G(4)(a)(i) applies.

    (D) Means of Sending the Notice. The notice may be sent in accordance with Supplemental Rules G(4)(b)(iii)–(v) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

    (7) Interlocutory Sale. At any time before entry of a final forfeiture order, the court, in accordance with Supplemental Rule G(7) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, may order the interlocutory sale of property alleged to be forfeitable.

    (c) Ancillary Proceeding; Entering a Final Order of Forfeiture.

    (1) In General. If, as prescribed by statute, a third party files a petition asserting an interest in the property to be forfeited, the court must conduct an ancillary proceeding, but no ancillary proceeding is required to the extent that the forfeiture consists of a money judgment.

    (A) In the ancillary proceeding, the court may, on motion, dismiss the petition for lack of standing, for failure to state a claim, or for any other lawful reason. For purposes of the motion, the facts set forth in the petition are assumed to be true.

    (B) After disposing of any motion filed under Rule 32.2(c)(1)(A) and before conducting a hearing on the petition, the court may permit the parties to conduct discovery in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure if the court determines that discovery is necessary or desirable to resolve factual issues. When discovery ends, a party may move for summary judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56.

    (2) Entering a Final Order. When the ancillary proceeding ends, the court must enter a final order of forfeiture by amending the preliminary order as necessary to account for any third-party rights. If no third party files a timely petition, the preliminary order becomes the final order of forfeiture if the court finds that the defendant (or any combination of defendants convicted in the case) had an interest in the property that is forfeitable under the applicable statute. The defendant may not object to the entry of the final order on the ground that the property belongs, in whole or in part, to a codefendant or third party; nor may a third party object to the final order on the ground that the third party had an interest in the property.

    (3) Multiple Petitions. If multiple third-party petitions are filed in the same case, an order dismissing or granting one petition is not appealable until rulings are made on all the petitions, unless the court determines that there is no just reason for delay.

    (4) Ancillary Proceeding Not Part of Sentencing. An ancillary proceeding is not part of sentencing.

    (d) Stay Pending Appeal. If a defendant appeals from a conviction or an order of forfeiture, the court may stay the order of forfeiture on terms appropriate to ensure that the property remains available pending appellate review. A stay does not delay the ancillary proceeding or the determination of a third party’s rights or interests. If the court rules in favor of any third party while an appeal is pending, the court may amend the order of forfeiture but must not transfer any property interest to a third party until the decision on appeal becomes final, unless the defendant consents in writing or on the record.

    (e) Subsequently Located Property; Substitute Property.

    (1) In General. On the government’s motion, the court may at any time enter an order of forfeiture or amend an existing order of forfeiture to include property that:

    (A) is subject to forfeiture under an existing order of forfeiture but was located and identified after that order was entered; or

    (B) is substitute property that qualifies for forfeiture under an applicable statute.

    (2) Procedure. If the government shows that the property is subject to forfeiture under Rule 32.2(e)(1), the court must:

    (A) enter an order forfeiting that property, or amend an existing preliminary or final order to include it; and

    (B) if a third party files a petition claiming an interest in the property, conduct an ancillary proceeding under Rule 32.2(c).


  1. No trackbacks yet.
Comments are closed.
%d bloggers like this: