How “Crazy Eddie” Turned Crimefighter—and Put Letitia James in the Hot Seat
If you grew up in the New York area during the 1980s, you probably remember the wild, almost manic TV commercials for Crazy Eddie’s electronics stores—“His prices are INSANE!” Behind the scenes, though, the real insanity was financial: a sprawling fraud that would become one of Wall Street’s greatest cautionary tales. At the center was Sam Antar, the company’s chief financial officer, fraud architect, and, eventually, its most remorseful whistleblower.
But this isn’t a story about ancient history. It’s about how a man who once orchestrated one of the country’s most notorious scams now trains FBI agents, consults for Fortune 500 companies, and—most recently—uncovered a series of alleged deceptions surrounding New York’s own top cop, Attorney General Letitia James.
From “Crazy Eddie” to Fraud Hunter
Sam Antar’s journey is one of rare redemption. After serving his time and coming clean about the Crazy Eddie fraud, he didn’t just fade into obscurity. Instead, he dedicated himself to teaching others how to spot the tricks he once used. Law enforcement agencies, including the FBI, now rely on his expertise. Major corporations bring him in to stress-test their financial controls. Rather than running from his past, Antar uses it as a warning—and a tool—for the next generation of investigators and executives.
That unique perspective recently led him to investigate someone who has made her own career out of exposing fraud: Letitia James.
A New York Powerhouse Under Scrutiny
Letitia James is no stranger to headlines or high-stakes legal battles. As New York’s Attorney General, she’s gone toe-to-toe with some of the most powerful figures in America, including Donald Trump. Her reputation is built on holding others accountable, particularly in matters of financial honesty.
But in a twist worthy of a legal thriller, it’s now James herself who faces questions about her own truthfulness—this time over mortgage documents and property records.
The Federal Referral: A Bombshell Allegation
Earlier this year, the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA)—the watchdog for the nation’s mortgage system—sent a referral to the U.S. Department of Justice. Their claim? That Letitia James may have lied on a mortgage application for a house in Norfolk, Virginia, declaring it her “primary residence” despite her legal and practical ties to New York.
Why does this matter? Because banks offer better rates and terms to people who actually plan to live in a house, rather than using it as a vacation home or rental. For a public official, especially one required by law to reside in New York, this isn’t just a paperwork issue—it could be seen as a material misrepresentation, a potential federal crime.
But the story doesn’t end with a single house in Virginia.
Peeling Back the Layers: Antar’s Forensic Trail
Sam Antar didn’t just skim the headlines. He dug into public records, mortgage filings, city permits, and decades’ worth of paperwork. What he found painted a pattern—one that raised far bigger questions than a single loan application.
The Virginia Home
The heart of the controversy is a modest single-family house in Norfolk, Virginia—1,450 square feet, three bedrooms, a tidy lawn, and a mortgage for $219,780. In August 2023, Letitia James, still very much New York’s Attorney General, signed a notarized “Specific Power of Attorney” that stated, “I HEREBY DECLARE that I intend to occupy this property as my principal residence.” This wasn’t just a formality—the mortgage required her and her co-borrower to move in within 60 days and make it their main home for at least a year.
Why does this matter? Because banks offer significantly better rates and terms to people who actually live in the homes they buy. By declaring the Virginia house her primary residence, James stood to save thousands over the life of the loan.
But here’s where the story takes a turn: During the entire time she was supposed to be establishing residency in Virginia, James was a constant fixture in New York. She was in the thick of the Trump civil fraud trial, appearing in court, holding press conferences, and never showing any public sign of relocating. Public records and media reports tell a story of someone deeply rooted in New York, not Virginia.
Sam Antar dug into financial disclosures and found another red flag: James never listed the Virginia property or its mortgage on her mandatory New York ethics forms. If she truly lived there as her primary home, that omission could itself be a violation.
For regular citizens, pretending to live somewhere you don’t in order to get a better mortgage is fraud—plain and simple. For the state’s top law enforcer, it’s an irony that’s hard to ignore.
The Brooklyn Brownstone
James’s Brooklyn property is a classic New York brownstone—a five-family building, according to city records, since 2001. That single number—five—makes a world of difference in the eyes of banks and regulators.
Here’s why: A property with five or more units is classified as “commercial,” not residential. That means higher down payments, stricter lending standards, fewer protections, and, most importantly, ineligibility for certain federal mortgage relief programs intended for small landlords or homeowners. Any loan application or federal aid form for such a property must reflect its true status.
But Sam Antar’s investigation uncovered a paper trail stretching back nearly two decades in which James described the building as having fewer units—sometimes “1–2 family,” sometimes “4 family,” but never five—on mortgage applications, building permits, and even federal aid paperwork like the Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP). For instance, in 2011, a HAMP document contained a handwritten “4 fam,” potentially qualifying her for mortgage aid she wouldn’t have received if she’d declared the true size.
City records tell the opposite story: The building has never been legally reclassified as having fewer than five units. There are no permits, no certificates of occupancy, no official actions—just a persistent mismatch between what’s on the forms and what’s on file at the Department of Buildings.
Why does this matter? Because misstating the number of units could mean James received lower interest rates and government aid she wasn’t entitled to—while also dodging the legal and financial hurdles that come with owning a commercial property.
A Pattern Emerges
What Antar’s investigation reveals isn’t just a pair of isolated mistakes, but a pattern of embellishments and omissions across multiple properties and decades.
In the 1980s and again in 2000, mortgage documents on a Queens property list James and her father as “husband and wife,” not “father and daughter.” While it might sound like a simple clerical error, that distinction can affect loan approval—married couples often face fewer hurdles when applying jointly.
Then there’s the matter of disclosures: James’s official New York financial reports leave out entire properties and mortgages. Her Brooklyn brownstone’s true number of units? Omitted or misrepresented. The Virginia house? Nowhere to be found. Even tax and building code violations seemed to be unresolved or unreported.
To a forensic accountant like Antar, these aren’t harmless shortcuts. They’re red flags—signs that the person filling out the forms understood exactly which boxes to check, which numbers to fudge, and how to position herself for financial advantage. In the world of fraud examination, a single misstatement might be a mistake; a pattern is almost always intentional.
For Letitia James, the stakes are enormous. As someone who’s built her career on prosecuting others for “material misrepresentation,” these findings don’t just hurt her image—they could jeopardize her career, her legal standing, and her legacy. And for the public, they raise a disturbing question: If the state’s top law enforcement officer can cut corners for personal gain, who’s left to police the system?
Why This Matters—and What Could Happen Next
For most people, fibbing on a mortgage application is a risky game that could end in financial disaster. But for Letitia James, the stakes are much higher. As Attorney General, she’s required to be a New York resident. If she truly established a primary residence in Virginia, state law could deem her office vacant—instant career-ending territory.
Legally, if the Department of Justice or New York authorities decide to act on the evidence, James could face charges similar to those she once brought against others for “material misrepresentation” and fraud. Even if charges aren’t filed, the political fallout could be devastating. James built her brand on integrity and transparency; these revelations risk undermining the very foundation of her public trust.
Imagine the optics: the prosecutor of Donald Trump for property value misrepresentation now facing similar allegations herself. Political opponents will not miss the opportunity to highlight the apparent hypocrisy. Even supporters may start to question whether the rules apply equally to everyone.
There’s also the potential for a domino effect—if further investigation uncovers more inconsistencies or if a pattern of misrepresentation is shown over many years, it could invite deeper scrutiny not just from federal authorities, but from state ethics boards and even the media. This could jeopardize any ambitions James has for higher office, or even her ability to remain in her current role.
And on a broader level, this episode could fuel cynicism about public officials and the justice system itself. If the top law enforcement officer in New York can bend the rules for personal gain, what message does that send to the public? It’s precisely the kind of erosion of trust that Sam Antar, in his new life as a fraud fighter, hopes to prevent.
A Whistleblower’s Warning
Sam Antar’s journey from infamous fraudster to respected fraud hunter is a testament to the possibility of redemption—and to the value of hard-won expertise. He’s living proof that, sometimes, it takes someone who’s been inside the machine to see how it really works.
His investigation into Letitia James is more than a story about one official’s alleged missteps. It’s a reminder that transparency, accountability, and vigilance are everyone’s responsibility—especially for those sworn to uphold the law.
As the legal process unfolds, all eyes will be on what happens next. For Letitia James, the coming months will test not just her legal standing, but her legacy. For those who care about ethical government, it’s a test of whether the system can police itself—even at the very top.