A federal grand jury is delving into the affairs of LeFever Mattson, a real estate investment firm, as part of a significant investigation into alleged fraudulent activities surrounding its founders, Ken Mattson and Tim LeFever. The jury is scrutinizing a plethora of documents and testimonies to determine if there’s sufficient evidence to bring charges against the company or its key executives.
The probe has revealed issues with the company’s operations, particularly that investors who backed the enterprise, once valued at $400 million, have ceased receiving dividends and cannot withdraw their funds. Court filings indicate that half a dozen lawsuits have accused the co-founders of both fraud and failing to uphold their fiduciary duties, though it remains unclear what specific charges the U.S. attorneys might pursue.
Documents made public in a bankruptcy filing for LeFever Mattson offer a glimpse into the secretive nature of federal grand jury processes. This includes an invoice from the Law Office of Donald S. Davidson, which documents dealings with a grand jury subpoena involving communications with various legal and financial representatives linked to the case.
Both Bennett, who holds the role of chief financial officer and asset manager at LeFever Mattson Property Management, and Ali Raisdana, an accountant with the firm since 2018, have been involved in preparatory sessions related to the grand jury’s inquiries. These preparations included a video interview with Raisdana conducted by officials from the Department of Justice, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, and the Internal Revenue Service.
Legal professionals and others involved in the investigation have refrained from public comment. Tim LeFever, Ken Mattson, and their respective legal representatives have either declined to respond to inquiries or have outright refused to comment.
Federal grand juries, such as the one examining LeFever Mattson, operate with a high level of confidentiality. These juries do not require a unanimous decision to indict; rather, a majority vote among the 16 to 23 members is sufficient. The evidentiary standard they use—probable cause—is notably lower than the “beyond a reasonable doubt” requirement used in criminal trials.
Assistant Professor David Garavito of the University of Washington School of Law, who specializes in this area, notes that the threshold for probable cause is “somewhere in the 10-50% range” of certainty that a crime was committed by the accused. He also highlighted that such juries are permitted to consider evidence that might not be admissible in a trial setting.
Despite the secrecy and the broad powers of a federal grand jury, indictments are highly likely once such a body is involved, with studies showing that approximately 97% of cases considered result in charges.
As the investigation proceeds, it could potentially last anywhere from a few months to a year, depending on the complexity of the information before the grand jury. In more intricate cases, such as that of LeFever Mattson, with its many entities and involved transactions, the investigation might lean toward the longer end of that spectrum.
While an unfavorable outcome for the government could lead to a re-evaluation of the evidence and potentially another grand jury session, Garavito suggests that given the current circumstances, it is unlikely that prosecutors would simply drop the matter.
This article was generated by OpenAI. For concerns or questions regarding factual inaccuracies, you may request corrections, retractions, or removals by contacting [email protected].