By K.R. Claviger
For those interested in the law and how the Bronfman sisters use and abuse it – and why it will benefit the publisher of the Frank Report – Frank Parlato – I submit this article.
In November 2015, the US Attorney for the Western District of NY alleged that Frank Parlato defrauded Clare Bronfman and Sara Bronfman-Igtet. They later dropped those charges.
Here is what they alleged at the time they indicted Parlato:
Frank Parlato entered into a contract – a Letter of Intent (LOI) – dated January 8, 2008, with the Bronfmans. Per the LOI, the Bronfmans wired $1M to Parlato, to “be deducted and repaid” to the Bronfmans against Parlato’s ultimate compensation in a Los Angeles real estate project.
In the LOI, Parlato agreed to a “lien on [his ownership] interest in One Niagara,” a building in Niagara Falls that he owned in part – and he further agreed “…not to dilute or dissipate [sell] said interest in One Niagara while same stands as security for the repayment of [$1 million].”
The government alleged that, based on the terms of the LOI, Parlato owed the Bronfmans $1M when he wrongfully sold his interest in One Niagara in July 2010. These actions, according to the Feds, constituted a felony scheme to defraud.
Clare Bronfman lied about the LOI
In order to convict Parlato, the government needed to prove the LOI was a valid and binding contract because the LOI was the sole basis for the promise “not to dilute or dissipate said interest in One Niagara while same stands as security for the repayment of [$1 million] Draw.”
Without an enforceable Letter of Intent, the Government’s theory had no basis whatsoever.
The Government could not prove Parlato entered into the LOI. The reason for that is that Government had no fully executed LOI because the Bronfmans never signed it.
At one time, the US Attorney’s Office stated it had an LOI signed by the Bronfmans – and the FBI agreed to provide a copy to Parlato’s defense team. The U.S. Attorney’s Office later confirmed that the FBI was unable to locate any LOI signed by the Bronfmans.
The lead prosecutor, then-Assistant US Attorney Anthony Bruce, was aware, prior to the indictment, that the Bronfmans had sworn in other courts that they never signed the LOI. But that did not stop him from indicting Parlato.
AUSA Bruce knew the Bronfmans had filed a civil complaint against Parlato, dated April 2, 2012. He also knew that complaint did not contain any statement by the Bronfmans that they had entered an LOI with Parlato. The Bronfmans’ civil complaint states that “..the Bronfmans loaned Parlato $1.0 million as a demand loan,” “without a written agreement.”
What they swore to in their civil lawsuit against Parlato flatly contradicts the existence of the LOI as a binding contract.
The Bronfmans also denied, in courtroom testimony, that the LOI governed their loan to Parlato. Clare Bronfman testified in Precision Development v. Plyam in LA, on March 28, 2011. Clare Bronfman was presented with a copy of the Letter of Intent.
Q: And does that have Mr. Parlato’s signature on it to your knowledge?
A: Yes, it does. I believe that’s his signature. [Trans. at 36:12‐21.]
She testified that it did not reflect the agreement on the $1M.
Q: Well, let’s go to the language on the million dollars. Is that the language that you agreed to for the million dollars?
A: I don’t believe it was. [Trans. at 37:1‐4. 1]
Bronfman contradicts herself in Grand Jury
But three months later, in her grand jury testimony on June 23, 2011, Clare Bronfman was shown the same LOI she testified about in the Plyam case that she did not enter into.
AUSA Bruce asked her: “And this was at least the initial agreement between you and your sister and Mr. Parlato?
A: That’s correct.
Q: There is a signature on the last page. It appears to be Mr. Parlato’s?
Q: But there are no other signatures on the document?
Q: Do you recall the document actually being- entered into? [i.e. signing it.]
Clare Bronfman told the grand jury – under oath – that she recalled entering into the LOI.
But under oath before and after her grand jury testimony, Clare Bronfman swore she did not enter into the LOI.
Entering into the LOI helped her in her criminal pursuit of Parlato. It hurt her in the civil case – which may be why she denied entering the LOI in the civil cases, while, within the secrecy of the grand jury, she recalled entering into the LOI.
In my next post, I will explain how Clare Bronfman f—-d herself by her own lies…. and why the Feds had to drop the Bronfman charges against Parlato.