Frank Seddio’s Alleged Role in Investment Fraud

Frank Seddio, a well-known figure in the Democratic Party, faces serious allegations of being involved in a fraudulent scheme that has reportedly helped a businessman defraud investors of $2 million, as detailed in recent court documents.

A federal lawsuit filed this month claims that Seddio’s actions have impeded foreign investors over the past year in their attempts to retrieve millions placed in escrow while exploring potential ventures with real estate investor Sam Spry.

This lawsuit is just one of several linked to Seddio’s dealings with Spry, indicating a troubling pattern. An investor from Switzerland, Angelos Metaxas, along with a New Zealand firm, Partscher Investments LP, asserts in the latest filing that Seddio has a history of exploiting and manipulating the legal system, even alleging that he has submitted false affidavits.

Furthermore, the complaint accuses Democratic Party affiliates of engaging in questionable tactics, including bribery, to leverage Seddio’s political influence for Spry’s fraudulent activities.

To date, neither Seddio nor Spry has responded to requests for comments regarding these allegations.

Attorney Lauren Zimmerman, representing two investors affected by this alleged scheme, noted that similar claims have emerged in several other lawsuits against Spry, with Seddio often named as a defendant or attorney. One notable case involves seasoned Manhattan investor David Sofer, who filed a federal RICO suit last spring.

The complaint states that investors were required to deposit their funds in an escrow account managed by Mark David Graubard to demonstrate financial capacity for potential deals, with the understanding that they could retrieve their money at any time.

However, when these investors opted out of the deal and requested refunds, they faced numerous delays and excuses, even as their legal representatives tried to confirm the status of the $2 million fund, based on emails submitted to state court.

Interestingly, Gloverd, who is involved in this situation, allegedly sent confirmation of a wire transfer, but the funds never actually arrived, according to court records. Subsequently, Gloverd and Spry apparently suggested the investors could access their escrowed money, conditional on them agreeing not to sue, while also urging them to report the supposed theft to law enforcement.

Meanwhile, Seddio allegedly filed a “sham lawsuit” to prevent the return of funds in Kings County Supreme Court, adding another layer to his involvement.

Instead of dismissing the case, Zimmerman and her colleagues chose to challenge it in court, briefly gaining a judge’s sympathetic ear. During a hearing, Judge Stephen Mostofsky expressed concern over the whereabouts of the escrow funds, asking, “Where is this?”

At one point, it seems Graubard may have presented a check in court, as he had been ordered to deposit the missing funds. However, Seddio reportedly intervened to assist Graubard in hiring legal representation, just before a significant hearing. Court files suggest that Seddio was in a conflicting position, representing opposing parties.

After hiring a new attorney who had connections to the judge, Seddio took credit for this legal maneuvering during the proceedings, complicating matters further.

Federal court documentation indicates that the new judge has been significantly less involved in the case, with little progress made since the preceding summer, all while a judicial directive for the deposit of the missing funds remains unaddressed.

Zimmerman’s firm has identified at least six similar cases involving Spry and his associates. She pointed out that investor funds have been unlawfully controlled, with pending litigation concerning the return of those assets.

“It’s notable that Mr. Seddio often acts as legal counsel for Mr. Spry,” Zimmerman remarked, adding that in some instances, Seddio is named as a defendant.

Graubard, who also appears in the federal lawsuit, has not issued any comment on the situation.

According to Zimmerman, the implications of Seddio’s purported “sham lawsuit” could prove to be costly and drawn-out for victims trying to assert their rights in court, leading them to reconsider pursuing the recovery of lost funds.

The investors have expressed that while they once appreciated the U.S. legal system’s commitment to justice, this experience has left them disillusioned. They lament that the defendants’ apparent ability to elude accountability for a $2 million theft is undermining the very principles of justice.