Berks man pleads guilty in fake artwork sales
Carter Reese, 77, pleaded guilty Thursday before U.S. District Court Judge Jeffrey L. Schmehl in Philadelphia to one count each of wire fraud and mail fraud, according to an announcement by U.S. Attorney David Metcalf of the Eastern District.
Prosecutors are seeking the forfeiture of $186,125, the total amount Reese received in selling the fake artwork, officials said.
According to court documents:
Reese, claiming to have more than 40 years of experience in art and antiquities, operated Carter P. Reese American Antiques and Fine Art. Online records indicate the business lists a Wyomissing address.
An unnamed person — referred to as Associate 1 in court documents — pleaded guilty in federal court in Illinois in September 2010 to six counts of mail fraud and wire fraud in the sale of counterfeit artwork, some of which he had purchased on eBay.
He admitted he and co-conspirators schemed to sell limited edition fine art prints and that he forged the signatures of certain artists on those prints.
Prosecutors note Associate 1 died in November 2021.
From February 2019 to March 2021, Reese sold and tried to sell art that he represented as genuine pieces created by artists, including Francis Bacon, Jean-Michel Basquiat, Jean Cocteau, Fernand Léger, Roy Lichtenstein, Joan Miró, Pablo Picasso, Andy Warhol and Haring, a Kutztown native.
Reese purchased and acquired pieces from Associate 1 at low prices. Many of the pieces Reese sold appeared identical to images of artwork reproductions Associate 1 bought on eBay.
Reese told potential buyers that he purchased more than 100 pieces of art from a collector — identified in court papers as Individual 1 — including work by Bacon, Basquiat, Cocteau, Haring, Léger, Lichtenstein, Miró, Picasso and Warhol.
Individual 1 never owned or sold such a collection to Reese. At the time Reese offered this art for sale, Individual 1 was dead and thus unavailable to verify Reese's claims for potential buyers.
Reese told potential buyers that he acquired an additional set of art from an individual named 'Ken James' who was friends with various renowned artists.
'Ken James' was an alias used by Associate 1 so potential buyers would not know he had been convicted of selling fake artwork. Associate 1 did not have the purported connections to such artists.
To support his claims that the artwork was authentic, Reese concealed Associate 1's involvement with the fraudulent artwork; provided prospective buyers with false provenance information such as affidavits signed by himself and an attorney stating that he had acquired the artwork from Individual 1 and sold prospective buyers art on which forged inscriptions and signatures had been added.
Reese continued to claim the artwork was authentic even after some potential buyers told him the work was fake.
A potential buyer also informed Reese of Associate 1's conviction, but Reese continued to offer artwork he had obtained from Associate 1 as authentic.
During a telephone call on July 16, 2020, Reese told a person in Florida that he had acquired various works of art from Individual 1 and offered to sell them.
On July 30, 2020, Reese sent a package to the person in Florida containing an affidavit notarized in Berks County falsely certifying that he had acquired artwork by Miró, Lichtenstein, Haring, Picasso, Basquiat, Bacon, Warhol and others from Individual 1.
Reese is scheduled to be sentenced in September and faces a maximum possible prison term of 40 years.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Forbes
6 minutes ago
- Forbes
Why ‘Regulatory Pullback' Could Be Fintech's Biggest Risk In 2025
Most fintechs think 2025 is shaping up to be their year. After a decade of expanding regulatory reach, aggressive enforcement, and agency interpretations that stretched statutory language to its breaking point, the tide seems to be turning. Last week, a federal court struck down the Federal Reserve's Regulation II debit interchange fee cap, upending a framework that defined payment economics for more than a decade. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) paused its open banking rule under Section 1033 of Dodd-Frank and delayed small business lending data collection under Section 1071, both responding to litigation. The Supreme Court's Loper Bright decision eliminated Chevron deference, sharply curtailing agencies' ability to interpret ambiguous laws. From a distance, this looks like a deregulatory moment. For many fintech business models, it creates a high-risk period of uncertainty that can be more damaging than the rules themselves. When Winning In Court Breaks Your Business Model The Regulation II ruling illustrates the problem. Companies that built their economics around debit interchange fees now face uncertainty. Some use those fees to fund rewards programs. Others share them with banking-as-a-service partners or use them to offer zero-fee accounts. The Fed could rewrite the rule to favor merchants, which would slash interchange rates. But that process could drag on for years, with appeals and maybe even congressional hearings. Meanwhile, companies are trying to plan budgets and investor presentations without knowing what their core revenue stream will look like. This pattern extends beyond payments. Credit card rewards, routing rules, and data rights all face similar risks. When a business model depends on a particular legal framework, and that framework gets sent back to the drawing board, companies operate in uncertainty until something new emerges. Open Banking Goes From Simple To Fragmented Section 1033 was supposed to create order. The CFPB would set national standards for APIs, data fields, and dispute handling. Banks and fintechs would know exactly what they had to do. Consumers would get better data access. Instead, the rule is on hold while the Bureau starts over. What's likely to emerge is fragmentation. Private companies will cut bilateral data-sharing deals. Different states will write their own rules. Banks will use different technical standards depending on who's asking for data. For fintechs that need bank data, the complications are significant. Integration costs increase. Product launch timelines extend. And there's always the risk that key data sources will change terms or cut access entirely. Recent developments illustrate this risk, with major banks beginning to charge fintechs for customer data access through aggregators. Industry executives warn these fees could be devastating for early-stage startups and make certain financial transactions economically impossible for consumers. Without clear federal rules, banks can essentially set their own terms for data access. Small Business Lending: When Federal Vacuum Invites State Action The CFPB's 1071 rule, designed to create uniform small business lending data requirements, sits in limbo. While federal enforcement pauses, states may fill the gap by either adopting their own data reporting mandates or using unfair and deceptive acts and practices statutes to police perceived discrimination. For fintech lenders, especially those serving niche or underserved markets, this raises the risk of multiple, overlapping compliance regimes. The absence of a single federal framework doesn't eliminate rules. It creates more of them, with more variation. States Are Already Moving In Federal enforcement isn't simply disappearing. While agencies pull back, state enforcers are getting more aggressive. Massachusetts provides a clear example. This summer, the state's AG settled a case against a student loan company that used AI for underwriting. The state alleged disparate impact discrimination under both federal and state law. This is exactly the kind of case federal regulators have been backing away from. But Massachusetts imposed detailed requirements: annual AI model reviews, documented fair lending tests, comprehensive governance protocols. This pattern is becoming common. Federal regulators step back, state AGs step forward. The rules don't disappear. Companies face 50 different versions of them. Even at the federal level, not every enforcement trend is fading. Redlining cases continue working through courts, and judges sometimes refuse to unwind prior settlements despite joint requests from regulators and defendants. In other instances, the CFPB has terminated consent orders, but only after full compliance with monetary and conduct obligations. This hardly signals that underlying conduct is now acceptable. Post-Chevron: More Litigation, Less Predictability The Supreme Court's Loper Bright decision, overruling Chevron deference, represents perhaps the most significant regulatory shift in decades. By giving courts, rather than agencies, the final word on statutory ambiguities, it invites more challenges to rules, more venue shopping, and more divergent interpretations. In theory, this limits regulatory overreach. In practice, it means a fintech product cleared under one circuit's interpretation could be non-compliant in another. Multi-state operations now carry not just operational complexity but legal risk tied to geography. For fintechs, losing a single authoritative agency interpretation also complicates partnerships. Banks and vendors may adopt the most conservative reading available to mitigate risk, raising the compliance bar across the board. What Companies Should Do Now After years of aggressive enforcement, any pullback feels like relief. But smart executives are taking concrete steps: Map legal dependencies. Companies should catalog every statute, regulation, and agency interpretation that their revenue model relies on. Track the court cases. Know when rulemaking deadlines are coming. Most organizations have little visibility into their actual regulatory exposure until something changes. Plan for different outcomes. What happens if interchange rates get cut significantly? What if data sources get regulated differently across states? What if AI models have to meet the most stringent state standards everywhere? Develop actual contingency plans, not just optimistic projections. Monitor state developments. Companies need systematic tracking of what each state AG is prioritizing. When federal enforcement slows down, state enforcement typically accelerates. The enforcement doesn't stop. It becomes more complicated. Update partnership agreements. Most fintech contracts were written assuming stable regulatory frameworks. But what happens when those frameworks change mid-contract? Agreements should include mechanisms to renegotiate or exit if compliance becomes impossible or uneconomical. The Bottom Line Fintech has always been about finding gaps where technology moves faster than regulation. But today's gaps are different. They're not gaps created by innovation. They're gaps created by the deliberate unwinding of established rules. These gaps don't stay open forever. They get filled by state regulators, by federal courts applying different standards in different circuits, by agencies writing new rules under new administrations. Regulatory pullback isn't a victory lap. It's a signal to prepare for what comes next. Because something always comes next. And in 2025, it's likely to be more fragmented and harder to predict than what came before.
CBS News
36 minutes ago
- CBS News
Market Basket heads to court seeking restraining order against fired executives
Market Basket is headed to court on Thursday as it seeks a restraining order against fired executives Tom Gordon and Joseph Schmidt amid the latest struggle for control of the popular grocery store chain. Thursday's hearing is scheduled for 10 a.m. inside Lowell Superior Court. Schmidt, former director of operations, and Gordon, previously grocery director, were both fired on July 22 by Market Basket, which is based in Tewksbury, Massachusetts. The company had previously suspended them along with CEO Arthur T. Demoulas. Market Basket accused them of "encouraging a widespread work disruption" to show support for Demoulas. Market Basket's board of directors said Gordon and Schmidt were fired for "insubordination, making false and derogatory remarks about the company and people associated with it, and inappropriate communications with colleagues." The fired executives deny the allegations. Demoulas and the board of directors are scheduled to take their dispute to a mediator on September 3. Demoulas is the CEO of Market Basket, but is a minority shareholder. He owns 28% of the company, while three of his sisters each own a 20% share and the remaining 12% is in a trust for the family's grandchildren. In 2014, there was a similar struggle for control of the company. That dispute led to a customer boycott with Market Basket workers walking off the job in solidarity of the man they refer to as "Artie T." Six weeks later, Demoulas and his sister were victorious in the standoff. There are nearly 100 Market Basket stores around New England.
Yahoo
9 hours ago
- Yahoo
Case against cold case murder accused is 'weak': lawyer
An accused murderer should be released on bail because the prosecution's weak case centres around an unreliable key witness, a barrister has argued. Steven Johnson, 73, made the application in the Victorian Supreme Court on Thursday after he was charged in March with the cold case murder of Christopher Jarvis. Mr Jarvis, 38, was last seen leaving his home in Wangoom, near Warrnambool, in Victoria's west, in June 2006. His body has not yet been found but police believe it is buried in Framlingham Forest, a native woodland owned by an Indigenous trust. Johnson was first charged with Mr Jarvis' murder in November 2022 but the charge was dropped in August 2023. His alleged co-accused Glenn Fenwick ultimately pleaded guilty to the lesser charge of manslaughter after agreeing to make a statement to police against Johnson. Fenwick, who could be released on parole as early as October, claims he joined Johnson in confronting Mr Jarvis over outstanding rent. It's alleged Johnson struck Mr Jarvis in his driveway, threw him to the ground and then fired a starter pistol near his ear when he would not stop screaming for help. Fenwick claims he only helped hold Mr Jarvis down and then load him into the boot of the car, before they all drove to Framlingham Forest. It's alleged Johnson then struck Mr Jarvis to the head with a baseball bat before removing his clothes and burying him in a shallow grave. Fenwick received a discounted sentence because he assisted police and will give evidence against Johnson in court. Johnson's barrister Patrick Doyle SC argued there were real issues with Fenwick's evidence, given his account had changed over the years. Mr Doyle pointed to an earlier claim from Fenwick that he and Johnson both "bashed" Mr Jarvis with a tomahawk and cut off his fingers. Fenwick also previously described assaulting Mr Jarvis while he was in the boot of the car, the court was told. Those allegations were not in the signed statement Fenwick provided to police, Mr Doyle noted. The barrister said the discrepancies in Fenwick's story and the fact he made the statement to receive a discounted sentence would give the jury reason to pause. "There are plainly problems with this crown case," the barrister argued. "The case is weak and readily defensible." Mr Doyle claimed there was limited other evidence connecting Johnson to the crime and there was a strong chance he would be acquitted. The barrister also pointed to Johnson's old age, medical issues and previous good record on bail as reasons why he should be released from custody. Prosecutor Jenaya Ellis argued the prosecution's case was far from weak, saying Fenwick's statement was compelling alongside the other evidence. She noted an imitation pistol was found at Johnson's home during a 2022 search and he was seen grading Mr Jarvis' driveway hours after the alleged murder. Ms Ellis also claimed Johnson was an unacceptable risk of trying to interfere with Fenwick or move Mr Jarvis' body if released. Justice Rita Incerti is due to hand down her bail decision on Friday.
