A federal appeals court this month affirmed the conviction of a former Texas police chief who arranged the destruction of a personal vehicle, falsely reported it stolen, and received insurance proceeds.
The United States Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a jury could find beyond a reasonable doubt that Christopher Filline, a police chief in Castroville, conspired with a colleague to commit wire fraud. Filline argued the government failed to show there was agreement to a scheme between two parties.
In 2016, Filline and his wife were under serious financial stress, facing $30,000 in credit card debt, and delinquent mortgage and car payments. Filline’s wife drove a 2007 Lincoln Navigator, a car that Filline complained was a “piece of junk.”
Ambrose Rymers, who worked under Filline as an animal-control officer, testified that Filline asked him on several occasions to get rid of the Navigator. Sympathetic to Filline’s financial troubles, Rymers contacted cousin with a criminal background to help with destroying the vehicle.
The scheme was enacted on July 16, when Rymers’ cousin took the Challenger to a dead-end road in Bexar County, doused it with gasoline, and set it on fire, while Rymers watched. The two drove away from the scene.
Filline reported the car was stolen first to his insurance agent before reporting the theft to the Lyttle Police Department. An officer with the police department found the reporting delay strange, while another office noted Filline’s behavior, calm and collected rather than upset, to be unusual.
The police department and Farmers Insurance opened separate investigations into the burning. A Farmers claims investigator found several red flags. Farmers does not usually encounter a vehicle recovered burned, the investigator testified, because burning a vehicle leaves no profit for the thief. Another red flag was Filline’s decision to contact his insurance agent before the police.
The claims investigator learned of Filline’s financial issues, facts that contributed to a potential motivation for insurance fraud. However, the insurance and police investigations stalled for a lack of new leads, and Farmers agreed to pay Filline approximately $14,000 to cover the remainder of the Navigator’s loan.
Two years later, Rymers’ cousin was arrested on unrelated charges, statements made during the arrest led the Lyttle Police Department to reopen their arson investigation. Upon being interviewed, Rymers confessed and identified his cousin and Filline as co-conspirators.
Rymers recorded a conversation the next day with Filline, who expressed concern about the investigation. Filline was indicted by a grand jury on one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud.
At trial, Filline argued that the government failed to show evidence that he agreed with another person to pursue insurance fraud. The district court denied Filline’s motions, and a grand jury returned a guilty verdict. Filline was ordered to pay a $5,000 fine, $14,400 in restitution and serve three years’ probation.
Filline appealed to the Fifth Circuit, who reviewed the case to determine whether the jury’s verdict was rational.
The court affirmed the verdict for three main reasons: The jury could infer a fraudulent objective from Filline’s financial situation and criminal assistance, the plan showed agreement between multiple individuals and the post-destruction conduct confirmed that the Navigator’s destruction was not the end of the scheme, but the means to obtain an insurance payout.
“Viewed together, the evidence allowed the jury to infer that the Navigator’s destruction was not the scheme’s endpoint,” the court wrote. “It was the opening act. The plan was to make the vehicle disappear, keep Filline’s role hidden, report the Navigator stolen, and seek insurance proceeds.”
Topics Fraud Law Enforcement
