eds STATE OF ILLINOIS ) )ss. COUNTY OF COOK ) IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, CRIMINAL DIVISION PEOPLE OF THI TATE OF ILLINOIS) ) vs. 523 100184 wy ) DEMARCO FRANKLIN ) (FILED \ JAN 04 2023 med BS ¥, PEOPLE’S FACTUAL PROFFER IN SUPPORT OF SETTING BOND Saas, NOW COME the People of the State of Illinois, by and through, their attorney KIMBERLY M. FOXX, State's Attormey of Cook County, by her Assistant, Thomas P. Simpson, hereby present their factual proffer in support of setting bond. I, INTRODUCTION Section 5/110-5 of the Illinois Code of Criminal Procedure sets forth criteria relevant to determining the amount of bail and conditions of release. 725 ILCS 5/110-5. The information used by the Court in its findings with regard to setting the amount of bail may be presented by way of written proffer based upon reliable information offered by the State. 725 ILCS 5/110-5. Defendant, Demarco Franklin (hereafter “Franklin”), is charged by way of a complaint for preliminary hearing with two counts of Theft by deception (720 ILCS 5/16-1(a)(2)(A), both counts allege Class 2 felonies. Class 2 offenses carry a potential penitentiary sentence of three to seven years followed by a one-year MSR period or a term of probation pursuant to 730 ILCS 5/5I-4.5-35 or a probation sentence not to exceed 48 months. Additionally, Franklin is charged with Wire Fraud (720 ILCS 5/17-24(b)), a Class 3 fleony and False Impersonation of a Charity (720 ILCS 5/17-2(1)(2.5)), a Class A Misdemeanor. If convicted, Franklin could also be fined up to $25,000. I, DEFENDANT Franklin is thirty-five year old residing in Cook County. Franklin has multiple felony convictions including for offenses in which Franklin employed the same scheme alleged in these current charges. Franklin falsely represented himself as a charity representative in a theft scheme in which he collected “donations” from unsuspecting vitims in his convictions for theft under 08CR06059(01), 08CRO6094(01), and O8CR13835(01). Franklin was convicted was onprobation for Class 3 felony offenses under case numbers 08CR06059(01) and 08CR06094(01) when he committed the offense he was convicted of under 08CR13835(01). Franklin was sentenced to three years’ incarceration in the IDOC for 08CR13835(01) and his violations of probation under 08CRO6059(01) and 08CRO6094(01). Under case umber 08CR06059(01), 08CR06094(01), and 08CR13835(01), Franklin posed as a field representative of CHARITY A and deceived the victims into giving him a donation for CHARITY A after “paying” some of their bills. Neither Franklin nor CHARITY A ever paid the bills and Franklin pocketed the funds, Franklin again used CHARITY A's name to accomplish the offenses detailed in this filing. ml. FACTS The facts contained herein were documented through an investigation by the Chicago Police Department. On January 25, 2022, Franklin approached VICTIM A in the parking lot of the Bank of America branch located on Chicago’s southside claiming to be a representative of CHARITY A and offered to pay some of VICTIM A’s bills through CHARITY A’s program. Franklin stressed that he had limited time to use the funds and the failure to use the funds could diminish the amount of funds available in the future. Franklin introduced himself using a fake name. VICTIM A was skeptical so Franklin offered to prove that his offer was real end sincere by paying VICTIM A’s cell phone bill. VICTIM A called her service provider, from her cell phone to discuss a payment and then tured the phone over to Franklin. Franklin gave the cell phone provider representative a routing number and an account number for the “payment.” The banking information was not a valid account number for the institution assigned that routing number. Nonetheless, the provider sent a text saying that the payment had been received. After receiving text message of the payment, Franklin asked if VICTIM A had larger bills to pay like credit cards or mortgages. VICTIM A called her mortgage servicer from her cell phone and put Franklin on the call with her permission. On that call, he again claimed affiliation with CHARITY A. Franklin purported to pay off the balance of VICTIM A’s mortgage. The mortgage servicer representative confirmed the payment and the balance had been paid off. Mortgage servicer sent an email almost immediately regarding the receipt of the payment. Franklin explained that CHARITY A need cash donations to continue its efforts, Franklin suggested that VICTIM A provide a $9,250 cash donation. VICTIM A withdrew that amount in cash fiom her account at the bank branch they were at and tured it over to Franklin, Franklin and VICTIM A exchanged contact information before parting ways, On January 27, 2022, Franklin contacted VICTIM A to “check” on the payment confirmations. VICTIM A confirmed that the payments were still showing up on her accounts as received. Franklin inquired whether VICTIM A had any other mortgages that needed payment because CHARITY A had received an extension of available funds. Franklin told VICTIM A that she had to meet him soon because the funds were only available for a short time and they agreed to meet at the parking lot of a different bank, JP Morgan Chase, branch on the south side. VICTIM A contacted a family member, VICTIM B, to meet them there. VICTIM A told VICTIM B that Franklin through CHARITY A had paid off her debts. After Franklia a \ JAN 04 2923 od Sel grives |fraudulently made payments on VICTIM A’s behalf, VICTIM A asked Franklin to pay off loans for her other family members. Franklin explained that those payments would have to be processed at the office and the expected total donation for the payments on this occasion would be $9,400. VICTIM A withdrew an additional $9,400 from her account in cash and turned it over to Franklin. Franklin never attempted to make a payment on either loan. In total, Franklin deceived VICTIM A into turning over $18,650 to him. VICTIM B joined VICTIM A and Franklin in VICTIM A’s vehicle in the JP Morgan ‘Chase branch parking Jot. Franklin continued to represent himself as an agent of CHARITY A to VICTIM B and CHARITY A. VICTIM B called her creditors and mortgager servicers and put Franklin on the calls while on speaker phone to make “payments” for her credit cards and mortgages. After VICTIM B witnessed Franklin verbally make “payments” on her debts and received notifications that the payments were processed, VICTIM B was convinced that Franklin ‘would similarly make payments on the others. Franklin suggested that VICTIM B provide him a.cash donation for CHARITY A to continue its work in the amount of $27,500. VICTIM B withdrew that amount in cash and turned it over to Franklin, VICTIM B also told Franklin that she had a Small Business Association(heraeafter “SBA”) loan as well. Franklin also offered to make payments on SBA and mortgages requested by VICTIM A when he returned to the “office.” VICTIM B agreed to provide an additional $23,000 donation for thet paying off the SBA loan. In total, VICTIM B provided $50,500 to Franklin. The following day, Franklin called VICITM A and B inquiring about the pay-off statuses of the office payments. Franklin assured them that the payments he made from his office the previous day will show in their accounts as posted soon. Franklin also solicited the VICTIM A and B to have their friends connect with him so they could take advantage of the charitable assistance. After three business days, all Franklin’s transactions were marked as payments not processed and the balances returned to the VICTIM A’s and B’s accounts. In total, Franklin defraud the victims out of approximately $70,000 in physical currency in the span of a few days. While condueting the phone transactions on January 25, VICTIM A’s phone captured a cell phone photograph of Franklin’s face. Both VICTIM A and B positively identified Franklin in photo arrays as the individual that took cash from them representing himself as part of CHARITY A and made the fictitious payments. There are voice recordings of multiple conversations involving the fictitious payments to the VICTIMS" financial institutions. The VICTIMs can identify their voices and Franklin’s on the recofdings as they were present, and the calls occurred on speaker phone. CHARITY A confirmed that Franklin is not a representative of their organization nor is the name he gave to the vietims. CHARITY A stressed that it does not conduct community outreach or solicit funds from individuals in this manner, \ JAN 4 mag nde MVE,IV. BOND RECOMMENDATION Section 5/110-5 of the Ilinois Code of Criminal Procedure sets forth criteria relevant to determining the amount of bail and conditions of release. 725 ILCS 5/110-5. In particular, the Court may take into account the likelihood of conviction, the sentence applicable upon conviction, whether there exists motivation of ability to flee, financial resources, and the amount of unrecovered proceeds lost as a result of the alleged offense, The People respectfully submit that in light of the facts and circumstances of the charges and he was convicted of the same fraud scheme previously and continued to commit the same crime, that this Court set a reasaonable bond. Additionally, the People of the State of Illinois request that this Court impose special conditions of release ordering Franklin to refrain from having contact with the witnesses. Respecifllly submitted, KIMBERLY M. FOXX STATE'S ATTORNBY-OF $00K COUNTY — Assistant State's Attorney \ JAN O 4 2023 melanins,