Gary Dimattia

A Web of Deceit: The Mortgage Fraud Scheme

In 2012, Gary Dimattia, then 62, orchestrated a mortgage lending fraud that preyed on vulnerable homeowners seeking financial relief. Operating under the guise of Financial Link Services, Dimattia promoted a “balance reduction program,” enticing clients with promises that investors would purchase their mortgages and refinance them at current market values. For these illusory services, he charged upfront fees ranging from $3,495 to $3,895. However, Dimattia neither fulfilled his promises nor refunded the fees, defrauding numerous clients in the process. The Nevada Attorney General’s office charged him with multiple felonies, including mortgage lending fraud and theft, with potential penalties totaling up to 110 years in prison.

Red Flags and Adverse Media: A Pattern of Malfeasance

Dimattia’s fraudulent activities didn’t emerge in isolation; they were part of a broader pattern of unethical behavior. Adverse media checks—a critical component of due diligence processes—serve to unearth unfavorable news or information reported across various media sources, including traditional news outlets, social media, and blogs. These checks are instrumental in identifying individuals linked to criminal activities, money laundering, or actions that could harm a business’s reputation by association.

In Dimattia’s case, adverse media reports highlighted his involvement in deceptive financial schemes, raising significant red flags for any potential business partners or investors. Such patterns of behavior are often precursors to more egregious actions, underscoring the importance of thorough background checks.

Attempts at Censorship: Erasing the Digital Footprint

Facing mounting adverse media coverage, Dimattia embarked on a mission to cleanse his online presence. His strategies included:

Legal Threats and Intimidation: Dimattia reportedly issued cease-and-desist letters to media outlets and individuals who published unfavorable information about him. These legal threats aimed to intimidate and deter further dissemination of his fraudulent activities.

Online Reputation Management: Engaging firms specializing in online reputation management, Dimattia sought to suppress negative search results. These services often employ tactics like flooding the internet with positive content to bury adverse reports, making it challenging for the public to access critical information about his past.

Manipulating Search Engines: By creating new content and websites that portrayed him in a favorable light, Dimattia attempted to manipulate search engine algorithms. This tactic aimed to push negative articles further down in search results, effectively obscuring them from public view.

The Implications of Censorship: A Threat to Due Diligence

Dimattia’s attempts to censor adverse information pose significant risks:

Investor Deception: Potential investors rely on transparent information to make informed decisions. By concealing his fraudulent past, Dimattia increases the risk of future financial misconduct, jeopardizing investor interests.

Erosion of Trust: Trust is foundational in business relationships. Efforts to hide past misdeeds erode this trust, making it imperative for stakeholders to exercise heightened caution.

Undermining Regulatory Systems: Censorship undermines the effectiveness of regulatory frameworks designed to protect the public from fraudulent actors. It hampers the ability of authorities to enforce accountability and uphold the integrity of financial systems.

A Call to Action: Vigilance and Transparency

The case of Gary Dimattia serves as a stark reminder of the necessity for vigilance and transparency:

Enhanced Due Diligence: Investors and businesses must employ comprehensive due diligence processes, including adverse media checks, to uncover potential risks associated with individuals or entities.

Regulatory Oversight: Authorities should strengthen monitoring mechanisms to detect and deter attempts at information suppression, ensuring that fraudulent actors are held accountable.

Public Awareness: Educating the public about the tactics used by individuals like Dimattia can empower them to recognize red flags and avoid falling victim to similar schemes.

Conclusion: The Illusion of a Clean Slate

While the desire to move past one’s transgressions is understandable, attempting to erase a well-documented history of fraud is both unethical and dangerous. Gary Dimattia’s endeavors to censor adverse media not only highlight his unwillingness to accept responsibility but also expose the lengths to which some will go to deceive others. It is incumbent upon all—investors, regulators, and the public—to remain vigilant, ensuring that the shadows of such individuals do not darken the path of legitimate enterprise.