Orange County Man Faces Trial for Stealing High-End Violins and Robbing Irvine Bank

Federal authorities have charged Mark Meng, a 57-year-old Irvine resident, with wire fraud and bank robbery. The charges stem from his alleged involvement in stealing high-end violins and a separate incident of bank robbery in Orange County. The Justice Department confirmed these charges following Meng’s arrest. He has been in state custody since April 11, awaiting an initial court appearance scheduled for May 9.

From August 2020 to April 2023, Mark Meng allegedly orchestrated a complex scheme to acquire and subsequently sell stolen high-end violins. He purportedly contacted various violin shops across the United States, expressing his interest in high-value violins for a trial period to assess potential purchases. Exploiting his perceived role as a collector, Meng gained the trust of shop owners. He then failed to return the instruments, choosing instead to sell them. The stolen collection includes several notable pieces:

  • A Lorenzo Ventapane violin from 1823, valued at $175,000.
  • A Guilio Degani violin from 1903, worth $55,000.
  • A Caressa & Francais violin from 1913, priced at $40,000.
  • A Gand & Bernardel violin from 1870, valued at $60,000.
  • A Francais Lott violin bow stamped “Lupot,” worth $7,500.

The Violin Theft Scheme

Meng employed a deceptive approach to procure high-end violins by initially contacting shops under the guise of a serious collector. He specifically requested violins on a trial basis, a common practice in the industry, which usually allows potential buyers to assess the instruments before finalizing a purchase. Meng’s representation as a collector facilitated his access to these valuable items, as shop owners typically rely on the good faith of the individuals involved.

Upon receiving the violins, Meng effectively gained the trust of these shop owners by initially purchasing smaller items, such as violin bows. This act served as a demonstration of his supposed sincerity and intent to engage in legitimate transactions. However, instead of returning the violins after the agreed trial period, Meng retained possession of each instrument. He exploited this trust to execute his scheme without immediate suspicion from the victims.

Meng’s final step in the scheme involved selling the stolen violins. He managed to sell these items to a dealer in Los Angeles, who was unaware of their stolen status. This dealer, operating under the assumption of legitimacy, purchased the violins, thereby converting Meng’s fraudulent acquisitions into financial gain. This entire process not only highlights Meng’s calculated approach to the thefts but also underscores the sophisticated nature of the wire fraud activities he orchestrated.

The Bank Robbery Incident

On April 2, Mark Meng executed a bank robbery in Irvine, employing a calculated approach to minimize identification and maximize success. He arrived at the bank branch dressed in a disguise that included a hat, sunglasses, a bandana covering his face, and blue latex gloves. This attire was strategically chosen to obscure his identity and reduce the risk of being recognized either during the robbery or from surveillance footage.

Meng approached a bank teller and handed over a note that stated, “Withdraw $18,000. Please. Stay Cool! No harm. Thx.” This non-threatening yet firm demand ensured the teller complied without panic, aiming to prevent any immediate alarm that could jeopardize the robbery. After the teller handed over the money, Meng promptly fled the scene in his white minivan, a detail that later proved crucial in his apprehension.

Law enforcement officials played a pivotal role in Meng’s identification and arrest. A key piece of forensic evidence came from the robbery note he used to communicate with the bank teller. Investigators discovered a latent fingerprint on this note, which they successfully matched to Meng, thereby confirming his presence at the crime scene. Additionally, surveillance footage and witness testimonies allowed police to track the white minivan back to Meng’s residence. Several days following the robbery, officers arrested Meng at his home, effectively linking him to the crime through both direct and circumstantial evidence. This combination of forensic technology and traditional police work underscores the effectiveness of modern investigative techniques in solving crimes.

Legal Charges and Potential Consequences

Bank Robbery: This charge is particularly severe due to the nature of the crime involving a threat, albeit implicit, and the direct impact on a financial institution’s operation. The statutory maximum sentence for bank robbery under federal law can reach up to 20 years in prison. This reflects the federal government’s stringent stance on crimes that threaten public safety and disrupt the secure environment of national banking systems.

Wire Fraud: Meng is also charged with wire fraud, primarily related to his scheme involving the theft of high-end violins. Wire fraud pertains to any fraudulent scheme to intentionally deprive another of property or honest services via wire, radio, or television communication in interstate or foreign commerce. Given that Meng’s actions involved communication across state lines to orchestrate the theft and sale of stolen violins, this charge is applicable. The maximum sentence for wire fraud can also be up to 20 years in prison, highlighting the seriousness with which the law views deceit and manipulation involving communication technologies.

If convicted of both charges, Meng could face a statutory maximum sentence of 20 years, given the potential for sentences to be served consecutively. However, the actual sentence would depend on various factors, including Meng’s prior criminal history, the specifics of the crime, and the discretion of the sentencing judge. Convictions would also likely involve substantial financial penalties and mandatory restitution to compensate the victims for their losses, both monetary and beyond.

A complaint is merely an allegation, and the defendant is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.

Write a Reply or Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.