It has been 18 months since I first discovered that my business identities had been unknowingly assumed as part of an M&T commercial loan fraud plot.  Every day, it seems to get much bigger and more complex than I thought the day before.

I have learned that many people who know Mick believe that he represented the good in the world and as such, can’t bring themselves to believe that Mick is a fraud and criminal.  Seemingly, he is a devoted father and husband, he coached youth sports, is religiously devote and the last person anyone would ever think would steal money from a bank.

A few months ago, a CEO of a local small business called me just to tell me that he felt I was wrong for attempting to inform other unknowing victims that their identity may have been jeopardized.  He felt that my efforts were unjustly at the expense of Mick.  After scolding me, he proceeded to to tell me he too was a victim and that Mick had stolen his business identity as well.

In a 2012 study conducted by Carnegie Mellon University entitled “Insider Fraud In Financial Services”, the profile of an employee who commits insider fraud is on average; 32 years of age, has an average tenure of 7.5 years, has the ability to alter business processes and has subordinates unknowingly contribute to fraud activities. This profile describes Mick Whipple to a tee.

The study also found that on average 32 months elapsed between the beginning of insider fraud and its detection by the organization or law enforcement.

The Mick Whipple M&T Bank insider fraud case is well outside of the average of 32 months as reported in this study.  According to Mick’s plea agreement, Mick conducted fraudulent loan activity over a 72 month period while contradicting evidence suggests that the scheme may have been viable for as long as 120 months without detection.

Interestingly, the study also found that in cases which involved collusion, generally involved external collusion with an external party to facilitate the crime.  This trend would appear to consistent with the M&T bank fraud case as well.

For example, the more complex transactions conducted in this scheme could have triggered tax reporting such as IRS 1098 forms or would have required specific knowledge of government small business economic incentive program administration.

Recently, I came across a letter that I wrote to Bob Wilmers in 2002 praising Mick Whipple and other bank employees for service to me and my business.  I write about our growing business and our plans to purchase a commercial building with the help of an M&T Commercial mortgage.

Ironically, I found this letter while preparing for a fabricated loan default suit brought against me by M&T.  Its sobering to compare my sentiments about M&T in 2002 to today when I am defending myself in a law suit where M&T claims that I am in material default due to the fact that the previous 120 months of auto-deducted loan payments were deducted out of a M&T money market account when my original loan documents listed that payments be debited from my M&T checking account.

I know its hard to believe but it is Gods honest truth.





Leave a Reply