Houston Texas Man Convicted of Mortgage Fraud, Could Face Almost 200 Years in Prison Without Parole

It took a jury just an hour and a half to convict a Houston, Texas, man in a scheme to defraud mortgage lenders.

Michael D. Goodson, 39, was found guilty of conspiracy to commit and committing three counts of mail fraud and five counts of wire fraud.

The minimum term for the conspiracy is 5 years without parole. Each of the wire fraud and mail fraud convictions has a maximum penalty of 20 years without parole. Each of the nine counts that he was convicted of also has a maximum fine of $250,000. Goodson has been in the custody of federal officials since his arrest in March 2006 and will remain in custody pending sentencing.

U. S. District Judge Lynn N. Hughes, who presided over the trial has set sentencing for October 29. The conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud conviction carries a maximum statutory term of imprisonment of five years, without parole. Each of the wire fraud and mail fraud convictions carry a maximum penalty of 20 years imprisonment, without parole. Each of the nine counts of conviction carries a maximum fine of $250,000. Goodson has been in federal custody without bond since his arrest in March 2006 and will remain in custody pending his sentencing hearing.

The trial was not much longer than the jury deliberation, lasting only two days. The evidence showed that Goodson convinced many residential mortgage lenders from around the county to lend more than $11million by using false facts in loan applications. The offenses took place from 2003 to 2005.

They put in false information such as employment by fictitious companies along with inflating the salaries of the applicants in order to make it appear that the applicant had good credit. There were other fraudulent papers submitted also.

Goodson would locate residential properties in order to purchase them and then would negotiate a sales price at the highest possible value. Then, at closing he would collect a large payment from the seller's money by submitting a false invoice for work his business was supposed to have performed on the property, when in actuality, no work was ever done.