no time did he mention that she had
dementia or Alzheimer’s Disease,”
says Neasham. “If he had done so, I
would immediately have stopped the
transaction from going through.
“The policy wasn’t even issued yet
and [Schuber] had a 30-day free-look
period,” he adds. “If I had had any in-
kling of a mental health issue, I would
immediately have called Allianz and
asked them and my FMO [Triumph
Marketing] what to do in this situa-
tion. I would also have contacted the
client and asked further questions
about her mental health.”
The first sign of trouble arose even
before the ink on the annuity contract
was dry. When Jochim accompanied
Schuber to her bank on February 4
to withdraw the $175,000, he called
Neasham to say the bank was “giving
them problems in reference to mov-
ing the money.”
The reason: Jochim’s purported
“influence” over Schuber who—the
prosecutor later argued at Neas-
ham’s trial—was confused about the
reason for the withdrawal. (The bank
rep who handled the request, Neas-
ham insists, mentioned nothing about
Schuber’s comportment at the time.)
Neasham’s intervention helped to
facilitate the withdrawal, but the le-
gitimacy of the transaction was again
thrown into doubt when the bank
alerted the California Dept. of Insur-
ance to the withdrawal. In December,
DOI Investigator Kristian Schriber
began questioning the parties to the
sale. For Neasham, the CYA letter
he had drafted for his protection had
become a bone of contention; Schrib-
er contended, despite Neasham’s
protestations to the contrary, that he
had Schuber sign the February letter
because he “knew something was
wrong” with her. Something was in-
deed wrong by this point, as Neasham
understood only too clearly. The DOI
was an investigating a sale that, if
shown to be unsuitable and in contra-
Two of the jurors
had decided at
the start of trial
that Neasham
was guilty based
on reporting of
the case in a lo-
cal newspaper.
Schuber’s request, he designated
Jochim as the product beneficiary in
the event of her death.
Neasham voiced concern, however,
about Schuber’s stated preference for
the contingent beneficiary: Betty Koe-
nig, Jochim’s daughter, rather than
Schuber’s son Ted, from whom she
had been estranged for many years.
This issue—not the product’s suit-
ability or Schuber’s competence to
agree to the transaction—was the
sole complication that Neasham
thought might invite scrutiny from
Allianz or the State of California In-
surance Dept. And so, Neasham says,
he had Schuber sign a “CYA” letter
confirming her choice of beneficiary.
The letter also states that she pur-
chased the annuity of her “own free
will,” in part to secure the product’s
tax-favored treatment.
Neasham adds that, the day after
the sale, he invited the son to a client
appreciation dinner that Schuber
was scheduled to attend. But the son
declined; thus was lost an opportunity
to patch up relations with his mother
and get himself named as the annu-
ity’s contingent beneficiary.
