- 26 - Church Street Property From 1988 through at least 1992, Mr. Vulis, who at the time of the further trial in this case was a licensed real estate broker in the State of California, was the broker in charge of Markfel Property Management and Investment Corporation (Markfel). In general, during those years, Markfel served as a real estate investment vehicle for various individuals who wanted to invest in certain real properties. As such, Markfel identified a particular real property as a desirable investment, collected funds from those individuals who were interested in investing in that real property, and purchased that real property in the names of those interested individuals, and not in its own name. Any individual who chose to invest through Markfel in a particular real property was responsible for any expenditures with respect to that real property in proportion to such individual’s invest- ment interest therein. At times that are not disclosed by credible evidence in the record, petitioner paid Markfel amounts of money that are not disclosed by credible evidence in the record, which were to be used to invest in certain real properties, to increase his respective investment interests in such properties, and/or to pay his proportionate share of any respective expenditures with respect to such interests. Over the course of his dealings with Markfel, petitioner allocated the funds that he paid Markfel toPage: Previous 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011