2015 UPDATE BAIL BLUNDERS - ceclass.com

2015 UPDATE
BAIL BLUNDERS

© Copyright D&H Investment Trust

JUNE 2014 - EXONERATION OF BOND DENIED WHEN DEFENDANT WAS DENIED RE-
ENTRY TO THE COUNTRY

The court can exonerate a surety's bail bond obligations in certain circumstances. One of those
circumstances is when the defendant has been deported. In the State vs. All Star Bail Bonds,
the defendant left the country voluntarily but was denied admission when he tried to return.
Was he considered deported? The court said NO. The defendant here was excluded, not
deported. And the district court may not exonerate a bond without a statutory basis for doing so.
Accordingly, the court denied the surety's petition for extraordinary relief from the district court's
order denying the motion for exoneration.

The surety appealed, but the court disagreed with the surety again based on the State's
arguments: A border stop is not a deportation. The U.S. Supreme Court has recognized that
immigration law distinguishes between "exclusion" and "deportation." See Landon v.
Plasencia, 459 U.S. 21, 25 (1982) ("The deportation hearing is the usual means of proceeding
against an alien already physically in the United States, and the exclusion hearing is the usual
means of proceeding against an alien outside the United States seeking admission.").
Historically, detention at the border has not been considered entry into the country, Leng May
Ma v. Barber, 357 U.S. 185, 188 (1958), and, thus, someone who is denied entry at the border
generally cannot be considered deported. The law treats deportation and exclusion differently:
"[T]hose with the status of deportable aliens are constitutionally entitled to rights in the
deportation context that are inapplicable to exclusion proceedings." Jean v. Nelson, 727 F.2d
957, 972 (11th Cir. 1984) (en banc), affirmed on other grounds, 472 U.S. 846 (1985).

In this case, the federal government prevented Rascon-Flores from entering at the port of entry.
He was excluded, not deported. Cf. Landon, 459 U.S. at 25, 28 (exclusion hearings occur at
port of entry and apply to people who are entering). Therefore, NRS 178.509(1)(b)(5), permitting
exoneration in the case of deportation, does not apply here.

The court denied the appeal. There was no exoneration of the bond . . . the surety had to pay.

JANUARY 2013 - EXRADITION POSSIBLE . . . JUST "NOT FEASIBLE"

A surety's bond could be exonerated where the defendant skips the country and extradition is not possible. In
The People vs. International Fidelity, the courts determined that there are now cases where a surety will pay,
even though the defendant COULD BE extradited. What happened? The powers to be simply determined
that for the crime committed, it was NOT FEASIBLE to extradite. The bottom line? The surety pays. Here's
the background:

In March 2010, International Fidelity posted a $400,000 bond for the release of defendant Gus
Ramos from custody. Ramos was charged with transporting approximately 10 pounds of

methamphetamine. However, Ramos failed to appear for his arraignment on March 15, 2010,
and the bail was declared forfeited by the trial court.
International Fidelity moved the court for an extension of the bond exoneration period to enable
it to locate Ramos. The court granted the motion and ordered the period for exoneration
extended to December 31, 2010.
On December 30, 2010, International Fidelity filed a second motion to extend the exoneration
period again since Ramos had been located in Guadelajara, Mexico. There was also an e-mail
from FBI Special Agent Alba Lorena Sierra. In this e-mail, attached to the declaration as an
exhibit, Sierra stated that she had been in contact with a duty agent who had communicated
with Chief Deputy District Attorney Douglas E. Hass and that Hass told the duty agent that "he
had previously reviewed the case several months ago, and that he decided extradition is not
worth the time and expenses based on the crime committed by Ramos." The duty agent further
told Sierra that Hass also stated that "in Fresno they let people out of jail right away so [Ramos]
would be released almost as soon as he gets locked up." According to Sierra, she was unable
to open a formal FBI case due to this information from the duty agent.

On December 31, 2010, Ramos was located by International Fidelity's agent in Mexico and was
temporarily detained and positively identified by a local law enforcement officer. International
Fidelity thereafter filed a supplemental memorandum of points and authorities in support of its
motion to extend the exoneration period. International Fidelity argued that the bail forfeiture
should be vacated under section 1305, subdivision (g). According to International Fidelity, it had
complied with all the procedural requirements and, as stated in the e-mail from FBI Agent
Sierra, the district attorney had elected not to extradite Ramos.

The trial court denied International Fidelity's motion to vacate the forfeiture and exonerate bail.
The court found that International Fidelity failed to establish that the district attorney elected not
to seek Ramos's extradition after it was informed by International Fidelity that Ramos had been
located and positively identified. Nevertheless, the court extended the exoneration period to
March 16, 2011.
On March 15, 2011, International Fidelity filed a second motion to vacate the forfeiture and
exonerate bail. Respondent, the People of the State of California, opposed the motion on the
ground that it was not feasible to extradite Ramos from Mexico.

In support of its position, the People submitted a declaration from Hass. Hass declared that he
had reviewed the Ramos case and was familiar with the applicable treaty between Mexico and
the United States. Hass explained that he had participated in a webinar/seminar that presented
an overview of the extradition process with Mexico. Hass stated that, at this seminar, he learned
that while Mexico will now extradite its own nationals and United States citizens with Mexican
ties, Mexico limits the process to serious and violent offenders and "narcotics 'kingpins' or
offenders functioning at the cartel level." Hass also learned through the California District
Attorney's Association Extradition and Foreign Prosecution Committee that all of the existing
requests for extradition in 2010 involved either homicide, crimes of extreme violence, or sexual
assault and that extradition had not been requested on narcotics cases unless the defendant
was classified as a major narcotics kingpin. Hass further heard from the Associate Director of
the Office of International Affairs in the United States Department of Justice that, as of January
2011, there were 115 pending provisional arrest warrants that needed to be approved by a
Mexican judge and that it was becoming more difficult to obtain extradition in voluntary
manslaughter and aider and abettor homicide cases. Further, it is very difficult to initiate
extraditions on fugitives that live in rural areas versus those that can be located in the greater
Mexico City area. Finally, Hass spoke to the United States Department of Justice liaison to
California prosecutors who relayed that she had one narcotics case pending out of Arizona

where the fugitive was part of a multiple member conspiracy to traffic marijuana. Based on this
knowledge and his experience, Hass opined that "there is no indication from Mexico's current
pattern of extradition that Mexico would extradite [Ramos] in this case." After examining the
facts, Hass concluded that Ramos's case did not come within the categories or types of cases
subject to extradition from Mexico and therefore it was not feasible for the district attorney's
office to elect to extradite Ramos.

In response, International Fidelity's counsel submitted his own declaration. Counsel included
declarations and supporting documents from prosecutors in Los Angeles County regarding
various cases where the office had elected not to pursue extradition. Counsel also included a
declaration regarding one case where extradition was not sought in Fresno County. Additionally,
counsel described his conversations with a deputy district attorney in Riverside County, a United
States Marshal, and a Mexican attorney who all told counsel that there is no current policy or
practice of denying extraditions of Mexican nationals on drug charges. Finally, counsel included
press releases and articles regarding defendants on drug charges being extradited from Mexico
.
The People objected to International Fidelity's counsel's declaration on hearsay grounds. The
People also objected to the admissibility of the e-mail sent by FBI Agent Sierra on the ground
that it was not in the form of a declaration submitted under penalty of perjury. The court
sustained these objections and appellant has not raised these evidentiary rulings on appeal.
Following a hearing, the court denied International Fidelity's motion to vacate the forfeiture and
exonerate bail.

JANUARY 2013 - COURT ALLOWED DEFENDANT TO LEAVE THE COUNTRY WITHOUT
INFORMING THE SURETY . . . BAIL WAS EXONERATED.

In 2010, Los Angeles County District Attorney filed a felony complaint charging defendant Dizon
with two counts of committing a lewd act upon a child, in violation of Penal Code section 288,
subdivision (a).1 Dizon was ordered held to answer, and bail was set at $200,000. Western
Surety, through its agent, Two Jinn, Inc., doing business as Aladdin Bail Bonds, posted the
$200,000 bond. The bond agreement between Western and Dizon provided:

"Now the Western Insurance Company, a Nevada Corporation, hereby undertakes that the
above-named defendant [Dizon] will appear in the above-named court on the date above set
forth to answer any charges in any accusatory pleading based upon the acts supporting the
complaint filed against him/her and as duly authorized amendments thereof, in whatever court it
may be filed and prosecuted, and will at all times hold him/herself amenable to the orders and
process of the court, and if convicted, will appear for pronouncement of judgment or grant of
probation; or if he/she fails to perform either of these conditions, that the Western Insurance
Company, a Nevada Corporation, will pay the people of the said State the sum of ***Two
Hundred Thousand Dollars And No Cents.

On November 19, 2010, Dizon requested permission to travel to the Philippines to attend his
mother's funeral. The prosecutor did not oppose the request. The court granted Dizon
permission to leave the country on November 21 and return November 29; it further ordered
Dizon to appear for trial on November 30. Western was not informed that Dizon had requested
permission to travel to the Philippines, or that the trial court had granted him permission to leave
the United States.

On November 30, 2010, Dizon failed to appear for trial. Dizon's counsel represented that Dizon
was ill and hospitalized in the Philippines. The trial court issued a bench warrant, and ordered

the bail forfeited. Notice of forfeiture of the bail bond was mailed to Western, informing it that
unless the order of forfeiture was set aside within 185 days, summary judgment would be
entered pursuant to section 1306. On June 1, 2011, Western moved to extend the 185-day bail
bond forfeiture period to allow Western more time to locate and apprehend Dizon. The motion
was granted, and the forfeiture period was extended to December 20, 2011. On December 20,
2011, Western filed a motion to vacate forfeiture and exonerate the bail bond. Western
contended, among other grounds, that the trial court had substantially increased Western's risk
by not informing it of Dizon's request to travel to the Philippines, or of the court order granting
him permission to travel outside the United States. Western noted that it was not provided an
opportunity to surrender Dizon before he travelled to the Philippines, and that the trial court had
made it practically impossible for Western to perform its contractual obligations under the bond
agreement.

In support of its motion, Western attached a declaration of Douglas Creer, an investigator
retained by Western. Creer stated he was a retired Department of Homeland Security special
agent, with over 28 years of experience in law enforcement. Creer stated he had retained a
local private investigator in the Philippines to assist him in locating Dizon. However, the two men
had been unsuccessful, because (1) "[u]nlike similar fugitives [who] have fled to the Philippines
and who generally lacked a support system, [Dizon] has considerable family ties and friends
that have been providing support to [him]"; (2) the investigation had been significantly hindered
due to bad weather and poor roads in areas the defendant had been known to frequent; and (3)
the local enforcement officers in those areas were not cooperating. Creer opined that if Dizon
had fled to another part of California or the United States, he or another investigator would have
been able to locate and surrender Dizon to the court.

At the January 19, 2012 hearing on Western's motion to vacate forfeiture and exonerate the bail
bond, Western's counsel represented that "there's no way our company would have agreed" to
allow Dizon to travel to the Philippines. Counsel also stated: "If the court wanted to allow him to
go to the Philippines and trusted him to, then we should [have] be[en] allowed to return our
bond, maybe even return the premium if that was the issue, and the court could have OR'ed him
or something to that effect to allow him to go to the Philippines." Noting the absence of a
published California case squarely addressing the issue, the superior court denied Western's
motion. On January 27, 2012, the court entered summary judgment on the forfeited bond in
favor of the County of Los Angeles.
On March 16, 2012, Western timely filed its notice of appeal.

On appeal, Western rejected the People's argument that the bail bond agreement encompassed
the court order at issue. Dizon's agreement to be "amenable to the orders and process of the
court," in no way authorized him to request permission to leave the country without informing the
surety. As the United States Supreme Court has noted, to do so would be a breach of the
implied covenant between the principal and the surety. More important, that contractual
provision does not constitute consent by the surety to a court order permitting the principal to
leave the country without notice to the surety.

Because Western satisfied its burden of showing that the court order permitting Dizon to leave
the United States materially increased its risk under the bail bond agreement, the court
concluded the trial court abused its discretion in denying the motion to vacate the forfeiture and
exonerate the bond. The judgment denying Western's motion to vacate the forfeiture and
exonerate the bond are reversed. The forfeiture is vacated and the bond exonerated. Western
shall recover its costs on appeal.

MARCH 2012 -- RESIDENTS AWARDED $450,000 AFTER BAIL AGENT INVADES THEIR PRIVACY

A jury slapped Fairfield bail bondsman with a $450,000 judgment after hearing details about
what happened after the bondsman showed up at a Vallejo home in January 2009 looking for
one of his bail bond customers.

After the bail agent showed up uninvited at the home, the residents called 911. They said the
agent had been verbally abusive and threatening and flashed the gun hanging from his hip.
Later, Toler sued them for more than$100,000, claiming “tortious interference with a contractual
relationship” for not helping him track down his customer who jumped bail. He also sued for
defamation for making a report to the police and to the state Department of Insurance, the
agency that regulates the bail bond industry.

The police report and report to the Department of Insurance resulted in criminal charges and an
effort by the state to revoke the agent's bail bond license. The criminal charges were dropped
and the Department of Insurance report resulted in a judge issuing a scathing opinion, accusing
authorities of misconduct and perjury in their dealings with the bail agent.. The agent ended up
settling a lawsuit with the county and the city of Vacaville over both matters for $270,000.

But, in the original case. the residents countersued the bondsman. After the two-day trial, it took
less than an hour for the jury to award the residents $150,000 for the bondsman maliciously
suing the residents, causing them emotional distress and assaulting them at their home.

The jury then tacked on $300,000 more in punitive damages for the bail agent's conduct. To
further compound his problems, the bail agent acted as his own attorney both during the trial
and since the lawsuits were filed in 2010. The bondsman also reportedly taunted the resident's
attorney, inviting him to sue. As a final insult, the jury required the bondsman to pay all of the
resident's legal fees.

FEBRUARY 2012 -- BAIL AGENT CHARGED WITH THEFT

A bail bondsman was arrested and charged with theft after police say she is accused of stealing
the personal items of a client while they were being booked into a local jail. The claim is that the
victim “had a purse that contained 8,000 Euros, valued at approximately $11,500 U.S. She
also had in her possession approximately $500 in U.S. currency as well as a cell phone.

While she was taken to jail to be booked and processed, her personal items were brought to the
bail agent's office. When the victim completed her jail sentence, she returned to bail agent and
requested her items be returned. The bondsman declined, saying the victim owed her money.
An attorney was hired to help recover the items. Although the purse was returned, the Euros,
as well as other items in the purse, were not. The attorney tried arranging several meetings in
order to recover the missing property but the agent made no effort to attend resulting in her
arrested and the charge of felony theft.

March 2013 -- $1 MILLION LAWSUIT ACCUSES BAIL AGENT OF MISREPRESENTING
HIS POSITION

The suit was filed by an attorney for an undocumented worker who was arrested for driving
without a driver’s license. That night after his arrest, he was detained by ICE. An ICE agent
reportedly gave the bondsman's phone number to the detainee and told the detainee's wife
that if she paid him $965 quickly, her husband would be released from the jail the same day.

He also told her he was a licensed federal immigration bail bond agent, the suit alleges. In
fact, the detainee was not released for days.

According to the attorney for the plaintiff, “The Plaintiffs were ‘suckered’ into making an
outrageous payment because the defendant bondsman exercised dominion over the Plaintiffs
with his superior knowledge and skill,” the suit said. “The Defendant made promises he knew
were not obtainable and could not be fulfilled.”

The bondsman alleges he told the plaintiff he was licensed to write or execute federal
immigration bonds, and that he was a licensed immigration bondsman.

The suit was settled with any awards undisclosed. At the very least, the bondsman incurred
attorney fees and time away from his business.

JUNE 2011 - MAN ARRESTED AFTER POSING AS AN OFFICER IN BAIL SCAM

A young San Francisco resident falsely posed as an officer in order to gain information about
inmates that were recently released from jail. He would then approach his victims, claiming to
be a bondsman, and tell them that their bail would be going up and if they failed to pay him they
would be re-arrested.

Authorities say the man made contact with all of the bondsmen in the Sacramento area. There
is no definite number of how many victims were taken in by this scam.

2015 UPDATE
BAIL IDENTITY THEFT

© Copyright D&H Investment Trust

2014 - SAMPLE BAIL CONSUMER PRIVACY STATEMENT

Any and all personal information and or data obtained by our bail company are considered
confidential information and are used only by us. No such information or data will ever be
disseminated, distributed or copied. All of our files are kept under lock and key in an alarmed
office. All our files continue to be "paper" files and are not available for email distribution. Because
they are not digital files there is no chance of them being compromised by computer viruses,
hacking and the like.

Your personal information cannot be accessed by ANYONE who has not been with our
organization for less than 18+ years.

We DO NOT supply any information about arrests, charges, allegations, etc to the press.

On rare occasion we are contacted by law enforcement for updated defendant information; that
information is released only by Court Order.

2013 - BAIL AGENT ARRESTED IN TAX AND IDENTITY THEFT SCHEME

A former bail bondsman faces multiple federal felony charges for his alleged role in a tax fraud
scheme which also involves aggravated identity theft. Records show the offenses happened while
Neal formerly worked as a local bail bondsman.

The federal government charged Neal with conspiring to defraud the government with two women,
filing false federal income tax returns in the names of third parties without their knowledge or
permission from January 2012 to December 2013.

The indictment charged the bondsman with obtaining identifications belonging to other people,
including their names, dates of birth and Social Security numbers and then providing it to other
parties who used the personal information to prepare and file fraudulent federal tax income returns
and then directed the refunds to be deposited into the accounts for pre-paid debit cards. This was
considered conspiracy to defraud the government, wire fraud and aggravated identity theft.
.
Stolen identities were used to electronically file false federal income tax returns that fraudulently
requested tax refunds from the IRS between January 2012 and June 2013 in the amount of
$865,404, but the IRS actually only paid out $209,243 through the false tax returns. In 2012, a
fraudulent claims was made for $696,435 in refunds. The IRS stopped the majority of those
refunds, but was defrauded into paying $161,154 in 2012.

What could be significant to other bondsmen is the fact that the bail agent obtained identity
information from different sources, which included the Social Security death Index and jail records.
This agent obviously had access to office records to compile his returns. To disguise their trail, the
parties filed the false tax returns from different locations around where Internet access was
available through Wi-Fi connections.

JUNE 2013 - BAIL AGENT ARRESTED FOR ASSUMING IDENTITY

Tampa, FL - Acting United States Attorney A. Lee Bentley, III announces that a federal jury today
found Freddie Wilson (40, Temple Terrace) guilty of six counts of theft of government funds, five
counts of aggravated identity theft, one count of money laundering, and one count of obstruction of
justice. Wilson faces a maximum penalty of ten years in federal prison on each count of theft of
government funds, two years' consecutive imprisonment on each count of aggravated identity theft,
ten years' imprisonment for money laundering, and five years' imprisonment for obstruction of
justice. His sentencing hearing is scheduled for October 8, 2013. Wilson was indicted on April 23,
2013.

According to testimony and evidence presented at trial, Wilson was a licensed bail bondsman who
operated "Against All Odds Bail Bonds, Inc." (AAO) in Tampa. In June 2012, he opened an account
in the name of AAO at a local bank, under the guise that he was a check casher. Within a three
month period, Wilson deposited over $318,000 in U.S. Treasury income tax refund checks into that
account. The checks had been issued as a result of fraudulently filed federal income tax returns,
which were derived from the identities of deceased, elderly, and disabled victims.

In January 2013, a federal search warrant was executed at AAO and agents seized a 2011
Camaro and approximately $8,600 in cash. Wilson subsequently obstructed the criminal
investigation by taking records that were seized during the search warrant and failing to return
them to the government. Wilson spent all of the money that he received from the fraudulent tax
returns on personal expenses, including the purchase of the 2011 Chevrolet Camaro, mortgage
payments, expensive restaurants, hotels, and large dollar transactions at the Seminole Hard Rock
Casino.

This case was investigated by the Internal Revenue Service Criminal Investigation. It is being
prosecuted by Assistant United States Attorney Josephine W. Thomas.

JUNE 2012 - BAIL BOND AGENT ADMITS TO JAIL AND IDENTITY THEFT SCHEME

SANTA ANA – A 43-year-old bail bond agent was sentenced to nine months in jail and will have
her license revoked after pleading guilty Thursday to illegally soliciting jailed clients in a scheme
that involved seven co-defendants – six of them inmates, authorities said.

Cynthia Cheryl Shirey, who pleaded guilty to four felony violations of bail license regulations,
worked at Plotkin Bail Bonds with one of the co-defendants, Ernesto Perez, 37, of Burbank, to
carry out what authorities have described as one of the biggest such cases in Orange County.

Shirey allowed her unlicensed co-defendants to illegally solicit and negotiate bail bonds on her
behalf with inmates at the Orange County Jail, according to a news release from the Orange
County District Attorney's Office.

Shirey, of Brea, also conducted business under the name Bail Star Bail Bonds without receiving
authorization to use the business name by the California Department of Insurance, which licenses
bail bond agents.

Perez is out of custody on $150,000 bail and is scheduled for a pretrial hearing June 25. He has
been charged with 49 felony counts of negotiating bail without a license and 56 felony counts of
identity theft.

According to prosecutors, Perez plotted with six inmates between Aug. 5, 2010, and March 15,
2011, to solicit other in-custody inmates to contact him to provide their bail. Although he worked at
Plotkin Bail Bonds, Perez was not a licensed bail bondsman, according to the news release.

Perez is accused of using a stolen bail bondman license to access inmate information and of
posting money to the jail accounts of the six inmate co-defendants in exchange for the illegal
solicitation of clients.

The District Attorney's Office provided the following information about the six inmate co-
defendants – all of whom have been convicted in the scheme:

•Richard Anthony Arant, 29, Silverado Canyon, pleaded guilty Nov. 18, 2011, to five felony counts
of soliciting bail without a license and two felony counts of violation of bail license regulations. He
was sentenced to 16 months in jail. Arant was in custody for misdemeanor driving under the
influence of alcohol and driving on a suspended license.

•Jason Anthony Gatewood, 24, Fullerton, pleaded guilty Jan. 3, 2012, two felony counts of
violation of bail license regulations and four felony counts of soliciting bail without a license. He
was sentenced to 240 days in jail and three years of formal probation. At the time of the crime,
Gatewood was in custody for felony false imprisonment by violence.

•Vaughn Michael Hutchins, 27, San Clemente, pleaded guilty to a court offer July 8, 2011, to four
felony counts of soliciting bail without a license and two felony counts of violation of bail license
regulations. He was sentenced to one year in jail and three years of formal probation. At the time
of the crime, Hutchins was in custody for two felony counts of commercial burglary and
misdemeanor providing false information to a police officer.

•Jonathan Thomas Campos, 28, Long Beach, pleaded guilty April 29, 2011, to two felony counts
of violation of bail license regulations and two felony counts of soliciting bail without a license. He
was sentenced June 24, 2011, to two years in state prison for this case. He was sentenced to an
additional two years, totaling four years in prison, for two other criminal cases for which he was
incarcerated at the time of the bail bonds scheme.

•Frank Matthew Tokeshi, 51, West Covina, pleaded guilty to a court offer Nov. 29, 2011, to four
felony counts of soliciting bail without a license and three felony counts of violation of bail license
regulations. He was sentenced to two years in state prison. At the time of the crime, Tokeshi was
in custody for felony possession for sale of a controlled substance and misdemeanor driving
under the influence of drugs.

• Mark Ward, 48, Las Vegas, pleaded guilty Oct. 28, 2011, to one felony count of violation of bail
license regulations and two felony counts of soliciting bail without a license. He was sentenced to
180 days in jail and three years of formal probation. At the time of the crime, Ward was in custody
for felony attempted murder, domestic violence with corporal injury and residential burglary.

AUGUST 2011 - BAIL AGENT SENTENCED FOR GRAND THEFT

On June 10, 2011, Rodney Dennis Mayhan,41, was sentenced to three years of supervised felony
probation, six months in the county jail and was ordered to pay $3,015.00 in restitution to his
previous employer, Aladdin Bail Bonds. Mayhan was also fined $270.00 by the court. Mayhan had
previously entered a plea of Nolo Contendere to one count of grand theft, in violation of section
487 of the penal code.

Reports were received by the California Department of Insurance (CDI), Investigation Division,
alleging that Mayhan, a Bail Agent previously employed by Aladdin Bail Bonds, had stolen bail
premium money and issued forged/stolen documents to the courts. Mayhan was originally licensed
by the CDI to act as a Bail Agent on July 26, 1999. On May 11, 2009, CDI issued Mayhan a
Summary Order of Revocation, as a result of the Aladdin Complaint, the CDI investigation results,
and the District Attorney's criminal prosecution.

CDI conducted an extensive investigation and determined that on January 14, 2008, Rodney
Mayhan arranged a bail transaction using Aladdin Bail Bond forms and received $3,015.00 in cash
from the bail co-signor. Mayhan kept this cash for his own benefit and he provided a bogus bail
bond to the court. Aladdin Bail Bonds never received any premium in connection with this bail
bond. This case was prosecuted by the District Attorney of San Mateo.

NOTE - CONSEQUENCES OF ASSUMING IDENTITY

Bail agents should be aware that identity theft is taking on the identity of another person to obtain
information is identity theft with consequences varying from fines, compensation, jail or prison.

Forms of identity theft include unlawful use of an individuals personal identification inclusive of
name, birth date, driver’s license, or other forms of personal identity. This is a third-degree felony.
Using this information to acquire property or anything of value of more than $5,000 will be charged
with a second-degree felony.

When someone uses multiple identities resulting in a gain of $50,000 or more, the charge is first-
degree felony. The laws also apply if the identity information is stolen from someone who is
deceased. Committing an identity theft crime in Florida can lead to sizeable penalties. The offender
could face from one year to forty years. Fines can range from $1,000 for a misdemeanor to
$15,000 and higher.

Depending on the severity of the theft, the court can order probation in addition to jail time and
fines and also can direct the re-payment of money lost. It has been reported that identity theft is
one of the fastest-growing crimes with over 10 million victims in one year’s time.

2010 -BONDSMAN COMMENTS ON BAIL BOND MANAGEMENT SOFTWARE ISSUES

Bondsman Daniel Dugger says "If I were a bail agent looking for software, I would be concerned
about price, custody of my data, viability of vendor, and "health" of the software. It has been my
experience that many bondsmen are very hesitant to commit to a monthly maintenance fee due to
the uncertainty of their business. There isn't another industry where if you suffer a loss, you have to
generate ten times your loss and collect 100% of what's owed in order to be indemnified. I would
aim to find something that served my company's needs in the most economical way.

As a business owner, I am very concerned about who has custody of my data. You don't have to
look far on the Internet to learn of another security breach. Bondsmen come into contact with
Personally Identifiable Information (PII) which could easily be used to assume the identity of a
cosigner or relative. If a bondsman uses a hosted solution, I would insure that there was an
indemnification clause that addresses identity theft.

If a bondsman has been in the business for any length whatsoever, they can surely tell you that
there have been many software companies that have closed their doors almost as quick as they
opened them. Finding a vendor who has been in business for several years is vitally important. As
to the "health" of the software, what I refer to is whether or not the software is living and breathing.

Users of QuickBooks, Microsoft Office and other commercially available software programs can
rest assured that there will be a new version for them to purchase just about every year. Bail laws
change. Programming languages change. Make sure that your software vendor is committed to
adding additional functionality to their software program.

WARNING - AGENTS CAN BE TARGETS OF IDENTITY THEFT SCAMMERS

Bail agents and insurance Agents are being targeted in identity theft scam as callers posing as
regulatory agents threaten fines and loss of license. Insurance agents throughout the U.S. are
being advised to be wary of telephone calls from people posing as insurance department
regulators. This activity has been identified as a scam designed to obtain personal information for
the purpose of identity theft. Several state insurance departments, including Oklahoma, Idaho,
Nevada, and California, have reported similar scam attempts during recent months.

According to a report issued by the Nevada Department of Insurance, the scammers tell insurance
agents that they represent a state regulatory agency. They lead the agents to believe they owe a
penalty fee for some infraction, and they demand payment over the phone via credit card. They
also ask the agents to provide their social security numbers and dates of birth, purportedly to avoid
cancellation of their licenses.

Although the scam has only been reported in about half a dozen states so far, officials warn that it
is likely to spread quickly. If you receive a call asking you to provide your social security number or
credit card information, you are advised to contact both local law enforcement officials and your
state’s department of insurance. It is not the practice of any legitimate, state-sanctioned insurance
department to solicit such information by phone.