Mr. Cooney has worked with both plaintiffs and defendants involved in both civil and criminal cases.  During his management and consulting careers, Mr. Cooney has had experience dealing with aspects of Articles 3, 4 and 4A of the Uniform Commercial Code and banking law and federal regulations relating to his areas of expertise to include the Bank Secrecy Act. He began his first Litigation Support engagement in 1997. He obtained additional engagements from referrals provided by previous clients and opposition counsel prior to expanding this practice nationally. Mr. Cooney offers a full range of services and has experience with cases involving amounts at issue from $100,000 to over $130 million.

     $130,000,000 Fraud Case. After attorneys had been working on the case for nearly two years Mr. Cooney was brought in. After reviewing documents, he realized the case focused on two areas of little significance to bankers. Efforts were refocused to transactions originated by the perpetrators requiring bank officer approval. Transactions approved by the bank’s officers to avoid government reporting, launder money, buy cars, boats and other real property and services having no bearing on the nature of the business and in violation of existing banking law and regulations were identified. He also proved bank employees either knowingly or unknowingly assisted the perpetrators by opening a fiduciary account without proper documentation and inserting a notation on corporate checks that misrepresented the type of account. The case was settled out of court in the client’s favor.

     $53,000,000 Fraud Case.The amount at issue was originally $16,000,000 but Mr. Cooney noticed certain account irregularities that lead to the identification of an additional $37,000,000. He established that an unauthorized South American bank employee opened an account at a U. S. bank in the name of a British Virgin Islands (BVI) corporation in violation of the U. S. bank’s policies and procedures. Bank employees sold U. S. dollar instruments, issued certificates in the name of the BVI corporation and cleared the checks received through the U. S. bank using the BVI account. He also showed how many of the transactions transferring funds from the U. S. bank to other U. S. banks, South American banks and corporations were improperly authorized according to the U. S. bank’s procedures. This case was settled out of court in the clients favor.

      $7,000,000 Embezzlement Case.  The Controller of a holding company embezzled approximately $7,000,000 of corporate funds.  After reviewing extensive documentation Mr. Cooney prepared a report proving the bank:

• Violated standards of ordinary care as set forth in the state’s Uniform Commercial Code;
• Aided and abetted the perpetrator by violating its own procedures, training programs and information published by the corporation;
• Had not been properly monitoring accounts as required by various Bank Secrecy Act Examination Manuals; the bank had failed to recognize the deposits and withdrawals to the account had increased approximately 35 times over a 2 ½ year period; and
• Had to have been aware of the questionable uses of funds since the perpetrator used Cashier’s and Certified Checks, often if the $40,000 to $55,000 range, drawn on the bank to pay gambling debts and other very questionable transactions. In many cases the approval of Supervisors and/or a Bank Officer was required prior to issuing the checks.
• None of the cash management or fraud detection products the bank had in place would have detected the embezzlement.
• During this period of time the bank had a major problem with fraudulently obtained and embezzled funds being deposited to its accounts.

     Cash Management Case. Certain officers of a major national corporation were accused of misappropriation of corporate funds through the use of the corporation’s cash management network.  Mr. Cooney read an extremely large number of reports and interviewed selected corporate officers involved and other parties associated with or close to the issue.  He researched the practices of other corporations using the same methodology and also used his own experience with cash management products.  He then prepared a report that addressed:

• The purposes and uses of the cash management products and services involved;
• The corporation’s cash management network and the products used;
• The position(s) of the national body responsible for certification in the field;
• Corporate collection and payment of funds;
• Industry and Cash Management Standards and practices of other corporations;
• Reviews by Independent parties of the Cash Management Methodology used.

Mr. Cooney was then deposed by attorneys representing the stockholders, the company’s CPA firm and the federal government.  Approximately four months later all charges were dropped. 

 

     Bank Secrecy Act/Anti-Money Laundering Case. An individual with no banking background was accused by a major bank of being a party to the fraudulent acquisition of funds from the personal account of a customer through a very sophisticated banking scheme.  Mr. Cooney reviewed various reports, bank procedures and interviewed selected individuals.  He found the bank had violated several very basic Bank Secrecy Act/Anti-Money Laundering requirements to include but not limited to: permitting the structuring of transactions, failure to identify suspicious transactions, failure to record selected transaction information in accordance with 31 CFR 103 and inadequate Bank Secrecy Act/Anti-Money Laundering training of branch office personnel.  He also identified certain occurrences and irregularities associated with the scheme that made it appear highly likely certain information used by the perpetrators could have only come from a party or parties within the bank.

The information above was provided to the client’s attorney who met with representatives of the bank. The attorney informed the bank representatives Mr. Cooney was prepared to write a report addressing the above issues and presented relevant information obtained and the regulatory requirements to the bank’s representatives.  Without so much as writing a report, all charges were dropped by the bank.