A complex insurance fraud operation with ties to Mayor Eric Adams’ former chief of staff, Frank Carone, has come under intense scrutiny by federal prosecutors. The $10 million scheme, which allegedly exploited New York’s no-fault auto insurance system, highlights troubling connections to influential figures in the city’s political and legal circles.
The Insurance Fraud Scheme Unveiled
In October, Manhattan federal prosecutors indicted three individuals—Kenan Tariverdi, Nazim Tariverdi, and Dilshod Islamov—on charges of operating an extensive insurance fraud ring. The trio allegedly manipulated the no-fault insurance system, which covers medical expenses for car accident victims, regardless of fault.
Prosecutors accuse the group of billing insurance companies over $10 million for medical procedures, some of which were never performed. These fraudulent claims were filed using the names and credentials of licensed healthcare providers. However, the payments were diverted to shell companies controlled by the accused, bypassing the legitimate medical practitioners entirely.
Financial Vision Capital Group’s Involvement
Financial Vision Capital Group II, a company co-founded in 2018 by Frank Carone and attorney Howard Fensterman, finds itself entangled in the case. According to a civil lawsuit filed by GEICO in Brooklyn federal court, Financial Vision knowingly funded and facilitated fraudulent activities by the indicted trio.
Internal emails cited in GEICO’s complaint suggest Financial Vision played a pivotal role in managing billing logistics for the alleged scheme. Despite these allegations, Carone and his legal representatives maintain that Financial Vision operated lawfully, merely advancing funds to medical providers in exchange for legitimate insurance payouts.
GEICO’s Amended Complaint Raises Questions
In August, GEICO updated its civil lawsuit to include Financial Vision as a defendant. The insurer accuses the company of aiding and abetting the fraudulent operation. GEICO alleges that the medical providers involved were interchangeable participants in a broader conspiracy, acting as “cogs” in a well-oiled fraud machine.
Carone’s former law firm, Abrams Fensterman, which represents Financial Vision, denies any wrongdoing. The firm claims it had no knowledge of fraudulent activities and that all financial advances were based on assurances of legitimacy.
Federal Indictments and Broader Implications
The criminal charges against the Tariverdis and Islamov have brought additional attention to Financial Vision’s operations. Prosecutors allege that the trio funneled fraudulent insurance payments through bank accounts linked to providers but controlled by themselves. They also used pre-signed blank checks to launder proceeds via shell companies.
Frank Sztuk, a seasoned insurance fraud investigator, commented, “From an investigative standpoint, this is just the tip of the iceberg.”
Frank Carone’s Political and Professional Ties
Frank Carone’s influential role in New York politics further complicates the case. As Mayor Eric Adams’ chief of staff during his first year in office, Carone wielded significant influence. After stepping down in 2022, he returned to Abrams Fensterman in an advisory capacity and launched his consulting firm.
Emails included in legal documents reveal discussions between Carone and associates about the financial logistics of the alleged scheme. Despite this, Carone insists he had no operational role in the fraud and that his involvement was limited to funding agreements.
Additional Legal Troubles for Financial Vision
Financial Vision’s challenges extend beyond the current federal case. The company is embroiled in a separate civil fraud lawsuit against Daniel Kandhorov, a business associate who referred providers to the firm. Financial Vision claims Kandhorov misrepresented the legitimacy of these providers, resulting in over $12 million in improper advances.
Another figure tied to this case is Zhan “Johnny” Petrosyants, a restaurateur and convicted felon. Petrosyants allegedly collaborated with Kandhorov to connect Financial Vision with no-fault providers, earning a 5% referral fee. Legal filings describe Petrosyants as a key player with extensive experience in fraudulent schemes.
Federal Investigations Expand
Federal investigators are also examining Carone’s business dealings with Monsignor Jamie Gigantiello, a Brooklyn priest involved in another Financial Vision entity. Prosecutors have subpoenaed records related to their transactions, though the exact focus of this inquiry remains unclear.
Conclusion
The unfolding investigation into Financial Vision Capital Group II and its ties to alleged no-fault insurance fraud sheds light on a complex web of legal, financial, and political connections. While no criminal charges have been filed against Carone or Fensterman, the allegations raise serious questions about the integrity of those involved and the systemic vulnerabilities exploited by the accused.
FAQs About Financial Vision and the Insurance Fraud Case
1. What is no-fault insurance, and how was it exploited in this scheme?
No-fault insurance allows car accident victims to claim up to $50,000 for medical expenses, regardless of fault. The accused exploited this system by submitting fraudulent claims for procedures that were never performed, diverting payments to shell companies.
2. What role did Financial Vision Capital Group play in the alleged fraud?
Financial Vision is accused of funding the fraudulent operation and managing billing logistics. GEICO alleges the company knowingly aided the scheme, though Carone and Fensterman deny these claims.
3. Has Frank Carone been charged with a crime?
No, Carone has not been charged. He maintains that his involvement with Financial Vision was lawful and limited to funding agreements.
4. What legal actions has GEICO taken against Financial Vision?
GEICO has filed a civil lawsuit accusing Financial Vision of aiding and abetting the fraud. The insurer seeks damages and further accountability for the alleged misconduct.
5. What are the broader implications of this investigation?
The case highlights vulnerabilities in New York’s no-fault insurance system and raises concerns about financial oversight and accountability in political and legal circles. It may lead to stricter regulatory measures and further legal scrutiny of those involved.