Santa Fe swindler’s lifestyle questioned
Prosecutors want him to pay more restitution to victims, less for rent
A Santa Fe swindler’s appetite for luxury has once again caught the attention of federal prosecutors, who are now trying to force him to make several lifestyle changes — such as moving away from one of the “coolest streets” in America — so he can pay more restitution to his victims.
Matthew Sample, who pleaded guilty to fraud charges and was ordered to pay more than $1 million in restitution, missed one of his first two restitution payments, is living in an apartment two blocks from “the epicenter of San Diego’s coolest place,” and is funneling significant portions of his income into a 401K account and life insurance policies, Assistant U.S. Attorney Fred Federici said in a court filing last week.
Ray Twohig, Sample’s attorney, didn’t return calls for comment.
U.S. District Judge Judith Herrera in March sentenced Sample to five years of probation and ordered him to pay more than $1 million in restitution to six sets of victims after he entered guilty pleas to federal fraud and wire fraud charges. At
the time, Sample said he had learned his lesson and promised to live frugally so he could pay the money back more quickly.
Prosecutors, who asked for a six-year prison sentence, have appealed the judgment and sentence to the Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit. In the meantime, they filed a document last week seeking, among other things, to get the court to direct the probation office to scrutinize Sample’s monthly expenses and require him to make changes.
For example, prosecutors said that Sample should not be permitted to put large chunks of his income into his life insurance policies and retirement accounts and instead liquidate them and give the money to his victims.
Prosecutors also want Sample to move out of San Diego’s North Park neighborhood, reduce his monthly expenses and make other changes so he can more quickly pay back his victims.
It’s not the first time prosecutors have raised concerns about Sample’s lavish lifestyle.
A description of his Santa Fe home and Facebook photos that showed him “living it up” at ballparks, arenas, bars, cruises and at a beach were included in a sentencing memorandum filed in court earlier in the case.
“The court may recall that defendant Sample very much seems to enjoy living in ‘cool’ places,” Federici said in the recent filing, while referring to an exhibit that showed Sample had real gold woven into the wallpaper of his former Santa Fe home. “Much of the victims’ stolen money went into that house. It would undoubtedly surprise the victims to know that, despite the May 5, 2017 judgment, defendant Sample can still afford to pay the apparent high rents in such a ‘cool’ neighborhood.”
Sample from 2008 to 2014 fleeced six sets of victims out of more than $1 million, which they had put aside in some cases for college or retirement.
His victims thought they were investing in The Lobo Volatility Fund LLC. But it was really a scheme, and to cover his tracks Sample moved money around between clients, mixed it with his own, held weekly phone and quarterly meetings with his clients and sent them false statements that appeared to show the accounts were profitable, according to documents filed in the case.
Some of Sample’s victims were elderly, including a 95-year-old widow who uses a wheelchair to get around and requires 24-hour care.
The judge handed down the lighter sentence, in part, because Sample had been hired at SettlementOne, a San Diegobased company where he is expected to earn more than $200,000 a year. Sample had said in court that he could better repay his victims if he were allowed to remain out of prison and continue his high-paying job.
While awaiting sentencing, he paid more than $70,000 in restitution, according to court documents.
But Herrera said during the sentencing hearing that she didn’t want Sample to have any “fun” while on probation.
“I don’t want you going on vacations,” Herrera told Sample while handing down his sentence. “This is not intended to be a fun five-year probationary period. This is not. You’re not free to do as you please. I don’t want to ever hear about you going to some nice restaurant. I mean, I really don’t.”
Federal prosecutors said in last week’s court filing that Sample’s living expenses have inexplicably increased recently.
The prosecution’s motion said that in October 2016, the probation office set Sample’s monthly living expenses at $2,894. But on June 15, Sample, in a motion to modify the judgment against him, set his monthly living expenses at $5,000.
Herrera, in the judgment against Sample, authorized his monthly living expenses at between $4,500 and $5,000.
Prosecutors said Sample made only one restitution payment in April and May and that it was less than the $5,675 minimum amount he is required to pay each month. They said he shorted the victims by subtracting his required drug treatment costs and a special penalty assessment from the restitution payment, according to court filings.
For those reasons, prosecutors have asked Herrera to direct the probation office to conduct a thorough investigation into Sample’s finances and eliminate all unnecessary monthly living expenses, which would include moving to a less expensive location, according to the court filing.
“A quick Google search confirms that there are several mobile home parks within the city of San Diego where defendant Sample could presumably live,” the prosecution’s court filing states. “The victims simply should not be required to continue to pay a premium for defendant Sample and his fiancé to enjoy living in San Diego’s trendiest neighborhood.”
The prosecutor’s motion was filed in response to a motion from the defense to modify the judgment against Sample.
Sample was trying to get court permission to take out a loan from his friend to pay for his civil and criminal attorney fees. Sample has previously declined to comment on the case.
“There is no compelling reason why defendant Sample should be allowed to accumulate more debt so that he can immediately pay back both his civil and criminal attorneys in full,” the prosecution’s response states. The “proposal would obviously again push his victims to the back of the line in favor of others by forcing them to patiently wait behind his attorneys.”