Facebook X-twitter Instagram Linkedin
Drop us a line!

Mark Braddock – The whole story including his victory over Julie!

Mark Braddock – The whole story including his victory over Julie!

1. Mark Braddock’s Role in Chrisley Asset Management (CAM)

Mark Braddock was a key figure in the Chrisleys’ real estate business. In 2005, he joined Chrisley Asset Management (CAM) as a “practice partner,” tasked with bringing in new business, managing existing clients, and handling the personal finances of Todd and Julie Chrisley (gov.uscourts.gand.188156.51.0.pdf). He was made Vice President of CAM, awarded a 30% ownership stake (with Julie owning 60% and Todd 10%) (gov.uscourts.gand.188156.51.0.pdf) (gov.uscourts.gand.188156.51.0.pdf). Braddock effectively ran CAM’s day-to-day operations – especially as the Chrisleys often spent time out of state – and in return he received 30% of the company’s profits (gov.uscourts.gand.188156.51.0.pdf). This trusted position gave Braddock broad access to CAM’s finances and banking, including authority to pay bills and manage accounts.

Alleged Financial Misconduct: Over time, concerns arose about Braddock’s financial management. In August 2010, CAM’s COO reported to Todd Chrisley that Braddock was “mishandling CAM’s financial accounts,”prompting her resignation (gov.uscourts.gand.188156.51.0.pdf) (gov.uscourts.gand.188156.51.0.pdf). A new COO likewise warned that Braddock had misrepresented CAM’s status to Fannie Mae – even falsely claiming he would soon “buy the Chrisleys out”to become sole owner (gov.uscourts.gand.188156.51.0.pdf) (gov.uscourts.gand.188156.51.0.pdf). These red flags led the Chrisleys to investigate Braddock’s activities. They later alleged in court that Braddock abused his control of CAM’s finances to steal money. According to Julie Chrisley’s civil complaint, Braddock and CAM’s finance chief Alina Clerie conspired to divert funds owed to real estate agents and Fannie Mae by marking checks as paid but never mailing them, then “skim[ming] the ‘excess’ money” for personal use (gov.uscourts.gand.188156.51.0.pdf) (gov.uscourts.gand.188156.51.0.pdf). From 2009–2012, Braddock allegedly wired over $1.4 million of CAM’s money into his own company (Key Asset Solutions LLC) and paid Clerie an extra $95,000 “reward” for helping him, all hidden from the Chrisleys (gov.uscourts.gand.188156.51.0.pdf) (gov.uscourts.gand.188156.51.0.pdf). These claims paint Braddock not just as a disloyal employee, but as the mastermind of a fraudulent enterprise within CAM’s operations.

2. The Alleged Braddock–Todd Chrisley Affair and Its Impact

One of the most sensational twists in this saga is the alleged affair between Mark Braddock and Todd Chrisley. During the Chrisleys’ 2022 federal fraud trial, Braddock testified under oath that he and Todd had an “intimate” personal relationship for about a year in the early 2000s (Todd Chrisley Paid a Blackmailer $38,000 to Keep His Affair a Secret: Witness – Business Insider). After the romantic relationship ended, Braddock said, he and Todd maintained a close “brotherhood” friendship and business partnership until their eventual falling-out in 2012 (Todd Chrisley Paid a Blackmailer $38,000 to Keep His Affair a Secret: Witness – Business Insider). This disclosure shocked many, as Todd Chrisley had cultivated an image as a straight, family-oriented reality TV patriarch.

Braddock’s Motive to Commit Fraud: Braddock testified that his loyalty and feelings toward Todd influenced his willingness to partake in fraudulent schemes on the Chrisleys’ behalf (Todd Chrisley Paid a Blackmailer $38,000 to Keep His Affair a Secret: Witness – Business Insider) (Todd Chrisley Paid a Blackmailer $38,000 to Keep His Affair a Secret: Witness – Business Insider). In court he admitted he “would do whatever [Todd] needed to get done,” implying that the affair (and lingering emotional bond) led him to bend rules for Todd (Todd and Julie Chrisley Trial: the 9 Biggest Bombshells – Business Insider) (Todd and Julie Chrisley Trial: the 9 Biggest Bombshells – Business Insider). Notably, Braddock was a cooperating government witness (granted immunity), and he confessed to creating fake documents and impersonating Todd on phone calls and emails to help the Chrisleys obtain loans (Todd Chrisley Paid a Blackmailer $38,000 to Keep His Affair a Secret: Witness – Business Insider) (Todd Chrisley Paid a Blackmailer $38,000 to Keep His Affair a Secret: Witness – Business Insider). According to Braddock, the secret nature of their relationship also became a vulnerability: an anonymous blackmailer emerged, threatening to expose both the fraud and the affair. Braddock told the jury that he and Todd received text messages saying “pay cash and we’ll shut up,” which led Braddock to withdraw four payments of $9,500 each from CAM’s bank account as hush money (Todd and Julie Chrisley Trial: the 9 Biggest Bombshells – Business Insider) (Todd and Julie Chrisley Trial: the 9 Biggest Bombshells – Business Insider). He testified that he met Todd in a parking garage and handed over about $38,000 in cash “in a little bag” to pay off the blackmailer (Todd and Julie Chrisley Trial: the 9 Biggest Bombshells – Business Insider). (Those withdrawals – just under $10k each – were structured deliberately to avoid banking reports (gov.uscourts.gand.188156.51.0.pdf) (gov.uscourts.gand.188156.51.0.pdf).)

Todd Chrisley vehemently deniesany affair. After Braddock’s testimony went public, Todd blasted the claims as “ridiculous”and even insulted Braddock’s appearance. On his podcast, Todd said “out of all these 54 years, for me to finally be accused of being with a man, it would be someone who looked like Mark Braddock,” deriding Braddock as a “toad”who he’d never romantically engage with (Todd Chrisley Denies He Had an Affair With Business Partner – Business Insider) (Todd Chrisley Denies He Had an Affair With Business Partner – Business Insider). Todd framed Braddock’s story as a lie from an embittered ex-associate obsessed with him. Indeed, the defense at trial argued Braddock was “obsessed”with Todd and had fabricated the affair and committed fraud on his own (Todd and Julie Chrisley’s Federal Fraud Trial: Everything to Know) (Todd and Julie Chrisley’s Federal Fraud Trial: Everything to Know). In the end, however, the jury found Braddock’s testimony credible enough to help convict the Chrisleys. The affair allegations, true or not, added a tabloid-worthy dimension to the case – but more importantly, they offered an explanation (Braddock’s supposed devotion to Todd) for why Braddock would risk committing fraud and then turning on the Chrisleys so dramatically.

3. The Chrisleys’ Federal Fraud Trial and Convictions

Todd and Julie Chrisley’s legal troubles culminated in a high-profile federal trial in Atlanta in May 2022. The couple – famous from the USA Network reality show “Chrisley Knows Best”– were indicted in August 2019 on a slew of financial crimes. A grand jury charged them with 12 counts including conspiracy to commit bank fraud, bank fraud, wire fraud, tax evasion, and conspiracy to defraud the United States (Todd and Julie Chrisley’s Federal Fraud Trial: Everything to Know) (Todd and Julie Chrisley’s Federal Fraud Trial: Everything to Know). Prosecutors accused the Chrisleys of orchestrating a years-long scheme to defraud banks out of tens of millions of dollars in loans, while also evading federal taxes and hiding income.

Charges and Scheme: The indictment and trial evidence painted the Chrisleys as living far beyond their means and lying to banks to sustain it. From roughly 2007 through 2012, Todd, Julie, and Braddock (their business partner at the time) obtained approximately $30–36 million in loans by submitting false personal financial statements (Why Todd and Julie Chrisley are in prison) (Why Todd and Julie Chrisley are in prison). They inflated their net worth and income – for example, claiming to have $4 million in a Merrill Lynch account when in reality they had just $17,000 (Why Todd and Julie Chrisley are in prison) (Why Todd and Julie Chrisley are in prison). When banks began to catch on and demand repayment, the Chrisleys filed bankruptcy (in 2012) to discharge over $20 million in loan debt, essentially walking away from the fraud (Todd Chrisley Paid a Blackmailer $38,000 to Keep His Affair a Secret: Witness – Business Insider) (Todd Chrisley Paid a Blackmailer $38,000 to Keep His Affair a Secret: Witness – Business Insider). Yet the spending didn’t stop. By 2014, the Chrisleys landed their reality TV show, and according to prosecutors they then funneled their TV income into a corporate bank account (7C’s Productions, owned by Julie) to shield it from the IRS (Why Todd and Julie Chrisley are in prison) (Why Todd and Julie Chrisley are in prison). Todd owed the IRS over $500,000 in back taxes from 2009, and the government argued the Chrisleys were intent on hiding money to avoid paying that tax bill (Why Todd and Julie Chrisley are in prison) (Why Todd and Julie Chrisley are in prison). In fact, the couple failed to file tax returns or pay taxes for multiple years during their TV fame, only submitting late returns once they learned of the federal investigation in 2018 (Why Todd and Julie Chrisley are in prison). This combination of bank fraud and tax evasion set the stage for a serious criminal case.

Key Evidence at Trial: Over nearly three weeks of testimony in spring 2022, federal prosecutors presented extensive evidence of the Chrisleys’ fraud. Some of the most damning revelations included:

In June 2022, the jury returned a unanimous guilty verdict on all counts against both Todd and Julie Chrisley (Todd and Julie Chrisley’s Federal Fraud Trial: Everything to Know). They were convicted of conspiracy to commit bank fraud, bank fraud, conspiracy to defraud the United States (tax fraud), and tax evasion. Julie was additionally found guilty of wire fraud and obstruction of justice (for her role in falsifying documents and concealing information) (Why Todd and Julie Chrisley are in prison) (Why Todd and Julie Chrisley are in prison). The verdict made clear the jury did not buy the defense theory that Mark Braddock alone was responsible – in fact, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals later noted that “Evidence showed the [Chrisleys] intended to mislead the banks,” and that both Todd and Julie knowingly participated despite their attempts to pin everything on Braddock (Why Todd and Julie Chrisley are in prison) (Why Todd and Julie Chrisley are in prison).

Sentencing and Fallout: In November 2022, U.S. District Judge Eleanor Ross sentenced Todd Chrisley to 12 years in federal prison, and Julie Chrisley to 7 years, with each also ordered to serve 16 months of supervised probation after release (Todd and Julie Chrisley’s Federal Fraud Trial: Everything to Know). The judge additionally imposed a hefty financial penalty: the Chrisleys were held jointly liable for $17.2 million in restitution to the banks they defrauded (Why Todd and Julie Chrisley are in prison). They were also ordered to forfeit a matching $17.2 million sum as ill-gotten gains (Why Todd and Julie Chrisley are in prison). (In essence, this doubles up the financial judgment, ensuring they repay the fraud’s victims and face punishment in assets as well.) The Chrisleys began their prison terms on January 17, 2023, reporting to federal facilities in Florida (Todd and Julie Chrisley’s Federal Fraud Trial: Everything to Know).

Both have appealed their convictions. In 2024, the Eleventh Circuit upheld the guilty verdicts but ordered a resentencing for Julie on a technical issue about the timing of her involvement (Why Todd and Julie Chrisley are in prison). (The appellate court found that while there was ample evidence Julie took part in the bank fraud from 2007 onward, it was unclear if she joined the conspiracy at its very start in 2006, which could affect the calculation of her guidelines sentence (Why Todd and Julie Chrisley are in prison).) As of this report, Julie Chrisley’s 7-year sentence was reaffirmed by the trial judge on remand, and both she and Todd remain incarcerated. The federal fraud trial revealed not only lurid details about an alleged affair and extravagant spending, but it drove home the legal repercussions: substantial prison time, massive financial restitution, and a fallen reality TV empire.

(Todd and Julie Chrisley: Federal court orders lawyers to turn over money | FOX 5 Atlanta) Todd and Julie Chrisley in happier times (before their convictions). The couple was found guilty on all counts after a three-week trial, with prosecutors exposing years of bank fraud and tax evasion (Todd and Julie Chrisley’s Federal Fraud Trial: Everything to Know) (Why Todd and Julie Chrisley are in prison). Todd received 12 years and Julie 7 years in prison, along with a joint $17.2 million restitution order (Why Todd and Julie Chrisley are in prison).

4. Julie Chrisley’s Civil Lawsuit Against Mark Braddock

Long before the federal indictment, Julie Chrisley tried to fight back against Mark Braddock through a civil lawsuit – a battle that ultimately backfired for her. In October 2012, Julie (as majority owner of CAM) filed a racketeering and fraud suit against Braddock in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia (gov.uscourts.gand.188156.128.0.pdf) (gov.uscourts.gand.188156.128.0.pdf). She alleged that Braddock, along with Alina Clerie (CAM’s former finance VP) and several of Braddock’s affiliated companies, had engaged in a pattern of fraud and other illegal conduct that injured her and CAM. The complaint (later amended twice) laid out a dramatic tale of corporate betrayal: Braddock was accused of diverting company funds, defrauding their biggest client (Fannie Mae), and even hacking into the Chrisleys’ personal bank accounts.

Claims and Allegations: In her federal lawsuit, Julie claimed Braddock and Clerie conspired to enrich themselves at CAM’s and her expense. Many of the allegations mirrored what was later revealed in the criminal case (though at the time, Julie cast herself as an unwitting victim of Braddock’s actions). Key accusations included:

  • Fraud on Fannie Mae: Julie asserted that Braddock and      Clerie rigged CAM’s accounting to embezzle Fannie Mae “571 reimbursement”      funds (the same scheme described earlier). They allegedly falsified      records to show commissions had been paid to real estate agents, inducing      Fannie Mae to wire CAM the reimbursement money – but then never actually      mailed the checks to the agents (gov.uscourts.gand.188156.51.0.pdf)      (gov.uscourts.gand.188156.51.0.pdf).      By holding those un-cashed checks, Braddock could “skim” hundreds      of thousands of dollars. Julie’s complaint cited an internal discovery of boxes      of unmailed checks totaling roughly $800,000 in owed      commissions that had been kept off the books (gov.uscourts.gand.188156.51.0.pdf)      (gov.uscourts.gand.188156.51.0.pdf).      Braddock was accused of covering up this fraud by having CAM’s IT      consultant alter check images to look “cancelled” for a 2012 Fannie Mae      audit (gov.uscourts.gand.188156.51.0.pdf)      (gov.uscourts.gand.188156.51.0.pdf).      When Fannie Mae auditors asked to see proof of payments, Braddock and      Clerie presented doctored checks to pretend the agents had been paid (gov.uscourts.gand.188156.51.0.pdf)      (gov.uscourts.gand.188156.51.0.pdf).      This deceit, once uncovered, was devastating: Fannie Mae terminated its      contract with CAM in mid-2012, which was essentially a death blow since      Fannie was CAM’s sole major client (gov.uscourts.gand.188156.51.0.pdf)      (gov.uscourts.gand.188156.51.0.pdf).      CAM collapsed into receivership and bankruptcy, an outcome Julie squarely      blamed on Braddock’s fraud.
  • Diversion of CAM Funds: Julie further alleged that      Braddock outright stole money from CAM’s bank accounts once the company      was failing. Notably, just days after CAM lost the Fannie Mae account in      June 2012, Braddock made four separate cash withdrawals of $9,500      (totaling $38,000) from CAM’s Chase bank account (gov.uscourts.gand.188156.51.0.pdf)      (gov.uscourts.gand.188156.51.0.pdf).      He then, a few days later, initiated two electronic transfers of $9,500      each out of the CAM account (gov.uscourts.gand.188156.51.0.pdf)      (gov.uscourts.gand.188156.51.0.pdf).      The complaint pointed out the suspicious $9,500 amounts – just under the      $10,000 threshold that triggers federal currency reporting – implying      Braddock was trying to fly under the radar (gov.uscourts.gand.188156.51.0.pdf)      (gov.uscourts.gand.188156.51.0.pdf).      Julie stated these withdrawals were “under false pretenses” and not      for any legitimate CAM business, but purely to divert funds for Braddock’s      personal use (with Clerie’s help) (gov.uscourts.gand.188156.51.0.pdf)      (gov.uscourts.gand.188156.51.0.pdf).      Essentially, as CAM floundered, Braddock allegedly looted the company      coffers. Julie counted this as both a fraud against the bank (by sneaking      around reporting laws) and a theft from her as owner (since any remaining      CAM funds were partly hers) (gov.uscourts.gand.188156.51.0.pdf)      (gov.uscourts.gand.188156.51.0.pdf).
  • Self-Dealing via Shell Companies: The suit also highlighted how      Braddock and Clerie used their own entities to funnel money out of CAM.      Braddock’s company Key Asset Solutions, LLC was ostensibly created      to receive his share of CAM profits, but Julie said it became a vehicle to      receive illicit transfers of CAM money beyond his entitled share (gov.uscourts.gand.188156.51.0.pdf)      (gov.uscourts.gand.188156.51.0.pdf).      Likewise, Clerie had a side company, ARC Auto Brokers, that received wire      transfers from CAM as a secret payoff for her role in the schemes (gov.uscourts.gand.188156.51.0.pdf)      (gov.uscourts.gand.188156.51.0.pdf).      According to the complaint, between 2009 and 2012 Braddock siphoned about $1.4      million in unauthorized payments to himself (mostly via Key Asset      Solutions) and paid Clerie roughly $95,000 extra (including $26k      funneled to her ARC Auto Brokers LLC) as hush money (gov.uscourts.gand.188156.51.0.pdf)      (gov.uscourts.gand.188156.51.0.pdf).      All of this was done without Julie’s knowledge, she claimed, constituting      fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, and even violations of federal      racketeering (RICO) laws.
  • Unlawful Access and “Hacking”: One particularly explosive      allegation was that Braddock and his associates had illegally accessed      the Chrisleys’ private financial accounts. Julie’s lawsuit accused      Braddock and his then-attorney, Kimberly Childs, of obtaining bank records      they had no right to see. In a prior state court fight, Braddock’s side      had somehow produced an email notification from Chase Bank about a loan      payment from a “receiver’s account” that was supposed to be      confidential (gov.uscourts.gand.188156.104.0.pdf)      (gov.uscourts.gand.188156.104.0.pdf),      as well as a copy of a check written by the Chrisleys to their own lawyer      (gov.uscourts.gand.188156.104.0.pdf)      (gov.uscourts.gand.188156.104.0.pdf).      Julie argued these documents could only have been acquired by sneaking      into CAM’s dedicated receivership bank account, which Braddock was not      authorized to access (gov.uscourts.gand.188156.104.0.pdf)      (gov.uscourts.gand.188156.104.0.pdf).      This led her to include attorney Childs as a defendant in the federal      case, accusing them of computer fraud and bank fraud for “unlawfully      accessing Plaintiffs’ private and protected bank accounts” (gov.uscourts.gand.188156.104.0.pdf)      (gov.uscourts.gand.188156.104.0.pdf).      The charge was serious – essentially accusing Braddock of hacking or using      inside connections to spy on the Chrisleys’ finances.

Julie Chrisley’s civil case sought damages for fraud, RICO violations (which allow triple damages), and other wrongs. However, the legal battle quickly became heated and convoluted.Braddock and the other defendants (Clerie, etc.) vehemently denied the claims and moved to dismiss the suit as baseless. They portrayed the lawsuit as a tactical ploy by the Chrisleys to shift blame for CAM’s failure. The case’s procedural history was tumultuous: Julie’s side had to amend the complaint multiple times to address deficiencies (gov.uscourts.gand.188156.128.0.pdf) (gov.uscourts.gand.188156.128.0.pdf). Several initial defendants (including Braddock’s wife and attorney Childs) were dropped along the way. Julie also went through multiple sets of lawyers, hinting at trouble behind the scenes. Her original counsel – the Thompson Law Group – attempted to withdraw in late 2012 amid infighting over strategy, but a judge initially denied that withdrawal to prevent delay (gov.uscourts.gand.188156.128.0.pdf) (gov.uscourts.gand.188156.128.0.pdf). In 2013, after the second amended complaint was filed, Julie brought in a new team of attorneys (Federal & Hasson), only to have them withdraw by January 2014, leaving Julie to proceed pro se (representing herself) unless she hired yet another lawyer (gov.uscourts.gand.188156.125.0.pdf) (gov.uscourts.gand.188156.125.0.pdf). This revolving door of attorneys suggested that Julie’s case was on shaky footing.

Outcome – Dismissal and Judgments: Ultimately, Julie Chrisley’s lawsuit did not achieve the justice she sought. In January 2014, U.S. District Judge Charles Pannell Jr. ruled on a stack of defense motions and dismissed the case in its entirety (gov.uscourts.gand.188156.128.0.pdf) (gov.uscourts.gand.188156.128.0.pdf). The court granted Braddock and his co-defendants’ motions to dismiss, finding that even after amendments, Julie’s complaint failed to state a viable legal claim under the stringent standards of federal court (gov.uscourts.gand.188156.119.0.pdf) (gov.uscourts.gand.188156.119.0.pdf). In short, the judge was not convinced that Julie had the evidence or law on her side to label Braddock’s actions as racketeering or fraud (at least not in a way that could survive a motion to dismiss). The dismissal meant Julie was left with no civil recovery from Braddock – and, adding insult to injury, she became entangled in more legal woes as a result of this failed lawsuit (discussed below in sections 6 and 7).

It’s worth noting that some of Julie’s allegations may well have been true (the Fannie Mae reimbursement scheme didoccur, as Braddock later admitted in the criminal trial). But her 2012 lawsuit was perhaps premature or strategically flawed. At that time, the Chrisleys themselves were under scrutiny (they would be indicted for fraud just a few years later), and accusing Braddock of sole responsibility may have been viewed skeptically. The collapse of her civil case foreshadowed that the full story was more complicated – and indeed, by 2022 it was clear that both sides (Braddock and the Chrisleys) had dirty hands in various fraudulent ventures.

5. Fraudulent Financial Transactions Uncovered

The tangled web of fraud involving Mark Braddock and the Chrisleys featured many questionable financial transactions. Forensic accounting in both the civil and criminal cases revealed how money was moved in illicit ways – from phony checks at CAM to loans funneled into personal accounts. Here we break down two categories of fraudulent transactions: those Braddock executed at CAM (allegedly behind the Chrisleys’ backs), and those the Chrisleys themselves executed as part of their bank fraud scheme.

  • Braddock’s CAM Schemes      (2010–2012): As detailed earlier, Braddock and Clerie manipulated CAM’s internal      finances to siphon off funds. A prime example was the handling of Fannie      Mae’s “571” reimbursements. Normally, CAM would receive reimbursement      funds from Fannie Mae and pass them through to the realtors who incurred      the expenses. Instead, at Braddock’s direction, Clerie would mark      in CAM’s books that these commission checks to agents had been issued, but      then hold the physical checks instead of sending them out (gov.uscourts.gand.188156.51.0.pdf)      (gov.uscourts.gand.188156.51.0.pdf).      CAM’s accounting records would show the payments as if made, while in      reality the money remained in CAM’s account. Braddock could then quietly      transfer this excess cash elsewhere. By late 2011, unpaid agents      all over the country were complaining about missing commissions (gov.uscourts.gand.188156.51.0.pdf)      (gov.uscourts.gand.188156.51.0.pdf).      To cover their tracks during the March 2012 audit, Braddock enlisted an IT      worker to forge the appearance of cancelled checks, so it looked      like the agent payments had cleared the bank when they had not (gov.uscourts.gand.188156.51.0.pdf)      (gov.uscourts.gand.188156.51.0.pdf).      This was a high-tech form of check fraud and evidence tampering. Another      shady transaction was Braddock’s series of $9,500 cash withdrawals in June      2012 mentioned above – a clear attempt to evade reporting rules while      emptying CAM’s account (gov.uscourts.gand.188156.51.0.pdf)      (gov.uscourts.gand.188156.51.0.pdf).      And there were outright wires: for instance, in the civil suit it’s noted      that Braddock directed Clerie to wire CAM funds to ARC Auto Brokers      (Clerie’s side company) as a kickback for her assistance (gov.uscourts.gand.188156.51.0.pdf)      (gov.uscourts.gand.188156.51.0.pdf).      Similarly, funds were wired to Braddock’s Key Asset Solutions account for      his personal use (gov.uscourts.gand.188156.51.0.pdf)      (gov.uscourts.gand.188156.51.0.pdf).      Each of these transactions was fraudulent either in source or in the      deception around it. If Julie’s claims are credited, Braddock effectively      treated CAM’s bank account as his piggy bank – writing checks or wiring      money to entities he controlled (or stuffing cash in bags) without the      Chrisleys’ permission. Legally, such actions could constitute bank fraud,      wire fraud, and embezzlement, all of which were in fact among the claims      Julie brought (and which mirror some federal charges Braddock would have      faced if he hadn’t been immunized).
  • Chrisley Financial Fraud      (2007–2012): On the other side of the coin, Todd and Julie Chrisley orchestrated      their own series of dubious transactions during the same period, which      became evidence in their criminal case. One major thread was how fraudulently      obtained loan money flowed into Julie’s personal orbit. As the      appellate court later summarized, two of the fraudulent loans taken      out in 2007–08 went directly to Julie’s company, Select Real Estate      Holdings (Why      Todd and Julie Chrisley are in prison) (Why      Todd and Julie Chrisley are in prison). In other words, the Chrisleys      didn’t just lie to banks to get loans – they then steered some of those      loan proceeds into an entity under Julie’s control (rather than using them      for the stated business purposes). Additionally, at least $35,000 of one false      loan was traced into a bank account that Julie managed (United      States v. Tarantino, No. 22-14074 | Casetext Search + Citator). For      prosecutors, this was smoking-gun evidence that Julie personally      benefited from the fraud and helped conceal the money’s trail. Other      checks and payments were used to perpetuate the scheme: Braddock testified      that Julie earned her “ass on fire” nickname by scrambling to write      checks to pay off overdue loans when needed (Why      Todd and Julie Chrisley are in prison). Those frantic payments (likely      drawn from new loan money or other accounts) would temporarily keep      default at bay, thus prolonging the fraud. Moreover, when the Chrisleys      started using 7C’s Productions for their TV income, that account      essentially became a slush fund for personal expenses – checks from 7C’s      paid for everything from luxury purchases to everyday bills, all while      Todd and Julie told their accountant to lie to the IRS about their income      (Why      Todd and Julie Chrisley are in prison) (Why      Todd and Julie Chrisley are in prison). One particularly brazen      maneuver was how Julie transferred the entire 7C’s bank account into      her mother-in-law’s name the day after the IRS subpoenaed their      records (Why      Todd and Julie Chrisley are in prison) (Why      Todd and Julie Chrisley are in prison). That effectively was a      transfer of a sizable sum via check or wire to Faye Chrisley, done purely      to obstruct the IRS. It doesn’t get more blatant: moving money after a      federal inquiry is a textbook “badge of fraud.” Julie also submitted a      false document (through their accountant Tarantino) to federal agents      claiming their corporate account had no activity, when in fact they had      just shifted all the money to a new account – another deceptive      transaction that underpinned her obstruction of justice charge (Why      Todd and Julie Chrisley are in prison) (Why      Todd and Julie Chrisley are in prison).

In summary, the forensic trail uncovered checks written from Chrisley Asset Management to entities that shouldn’t have received them, wires and withdrawals benefiting Braddock and Clerie on the one hand, and checks and transfers benefiting the Chrisleys on the other. Both the civil and criminal cases reveal a pattern of paper chicanery: fake checks, held checks, post-dated checks, and re-routed funds. These transactions had major legal ramifications. For Braddock, they formed the basis of Julie’s RICO allegations (and would have likely led to his prosecution if he hadn’t turned state’s evidence). For Julie, the fact that her name was on bank accounts that received stolen loan money helped convince the jury that she was a culpable conspirator, not an innocent spouse (United States v. Tarantino, No. 22-14074 | Casetext Search + Citator). Financial records seldom lie, and here they told a story of complicity by everyone involved.

6. Sanctions Against Julie Chrisley’s Attorney

Julie’s civil lawsuit against Braddock not only failed – it boomeranged into sanctions against her own legal team. Early in that case, Braddock’s attorney, Kimberly Childs, took the offensive by filing a motion for Rule 11 sanctions, accusing Julie and her lawyers of making false and frivolous accusations. Childs was particularly incensed that Julie’s complaint had named her (Childs) as a defendant, alleging that Childs helped Braddock illegally access bank records (gov.uscourts.gand.188156.126.0.pdf) (gov.uscourts.gand.188156.126.0.pdf). From Childs’ perspective, this claim was baseless and defamatory, and she sought to penalize the Chrisley side for it.

After extensive briefs and even a hearing, Judge Pannell agreed that sanctions were warranted – but he targeted Julie’s attorneys rather than Julie personally. In an order dated January 21, 2014, the court found that Robert T. Thompson Jr. and his firm (The Thompson Law Group), who had drafted the initial complaint, had acted improperly by suing Childs without solid evidence (gov.uscourts.gand.188156.126.0.pdf) (gov.uscourts.gand.188156.126.0.pdf). The judge’s ruling noted that “serious claims were made against Childs without a proper basis,” calling the conduct of Thompson and his firm “reprehensible” (gov.uscourts.gand.188156.126.0.pdf) (gov.uscourts.gand.188156.126.0.pdf). Under Rule 11 (which polices frivolous or bad-faith filings), the court held the Chrisley legal team accountable for wasting everyone’s time with allegations that lacked support.

As a penalty, Judge Pannell ordered Thompson and the Thompson Law Group to pay all of Attorney Childs’ legal fees and costs incurred in responding to those allegations (gov.uscourts.gand.188156.126.0.pdf) (gov.uscourts.gand.188156.126.0.pdf). That amounted to $27,791.63 in sanctions (gov.uscourts.gand.188156.126.0.pdf). The judge explicitly decided “there is not a sufficient basis to impose Rule 11 sanctions against [Julie] Chrisley” herself (gov.uscourts.gand.188156.126.0.pdf) (gov.uscourts.gand.188156.126.0.pdf), effectively putting the blame on her counsel. In imposing nearly $28,000 in monetary sanctions, the court wanted to deter such conduct and compensate Childs for the unnecessary trouble. The order directed the Clerk of Court to enter a judgment against Thompson and his firm for the $27,791.63 (gov.uscourts.gand.188156.126.0.pdf).

These sanctions had significant ramifications. First, they caused a rift between Julie and her original lawyers – Thompson’s firm moved to withdraw from the case not long after Childs first sought sanctions (likely due to conflict or fear of liability). The judge initially forced them to stay on until replacement counsel was found (gov.uscourts.gand.188156.128.0.pdf) (gov.uscourts.gand.188156.128.0.pdf), but eventually they were allowed to exit. By the time the sanctions were imposed, Thompson was no longer representing Julie, but he and his firm now had their own judgment to pay. Second, the sanction outcome vindicated Kimberly Childs; it signaled the court’s agreement that including her as a defendant was improper. This undoubtedly undermined Julie’s overall case narrative (since a key accusation – the “hacking” claim – was essentially discredited). Finally, the sanctions served as a cautionary tale: even as a plaintiff, one must have evidence before leveling serious fraud allegations against opposing counsel. The legal effect was that Julie’s side was financially penalized and publicly chastised, which may have weakened her bargaining position and credibility in any continued litigation.

The sanctions saga shows that the civil case devolved into side-skirmishes – the original issues (Braddock’s misdeeds) got overshadowed by fights over litigation tactics. It also highlights the perils of overzealous lawyering. By overreaching (naming an opposing lawyer in a RICO suit without smoking-gun proof), Julie’s team opened themselves up to this rebuke. In the end, Thompson’s firm had to swallow the cost – effectively paying the opponent’s attorney bills. This rare step of sanctioning counsel underscores how contentious and bitter the Chrisley-Braddock feud had become, even before the feds ever brought charges.

7. Garnishment of Julie Chrisley’s Assets and Ongoing Enforcement

Julie Chrisley Hit with Large Garnishment Order in Favor of Mark Braddock

Julie Chrisley, already serving time for federal fraud convictions, has now been hit with a significant garnishment order in favor of her former business associate-turned-rival, Mark Braddock. The latest court documents, including an Affidavit of Garnishment filed in the State Court of DeKalb County, Georgia, reveal that Braddock successfully secured a financial judgment against Julie Chrisley and has begun enforcing collection through garnishment.

Breakdown of the Garnishment Judgment

The garnishment order, which stems from a previous civil judgment, demands payment from Julie Chrisley to Mark Braddock, totaling:

  • $112,146.27 in attorney’s fees
  • Additional accrued interest      and court costs
  • Possible ongoing collection      efforts to seize further assets

This judgment traces back to a 2015 court order in which Braddock was awarded compensation following the failed civil lawsuit that Julie Chrisley filed against him. That lawsuit, which accused Braddock of fraud and misconduct related to Chrisley Asset Management (CAM), was ultimately dismissed. Not only did Julie lose that case, but she was also ordered to pay legal fees incurred by Braddock as a result of litigation deemed meritless by the court.

Legal Fallout: How Julie Chrisley’s Case Backfired

Julie originally sued Braddock in 2012, alleging he had defrauded CAM, misappropriated funds, and accessed confidential financial records illegally. However, after years of legal maneuvering, her case collapsed. Not only was Braddock dismissed from the lawsuit, but Julie was left liable for his legal fees. The final judgment against her was issued in 2015, but enforcement actions—such as garnishment—only became active recently as Braddock pursued collection.

Now, nearly a decade later, the court has authorized Braddock to collect the debt through wage and asset garnishment, meaning funds could be directly seized from Julie Chrisley’s accounts or future earnings.

How the Garnishment Works

The garnishment order operates under O.C.G.A. § 18-4-89, allowing Braddock to pursue assets held by third parties on behalf of Julie Chrisley. This means any wages, bank accounts, or future income sources could be legally intercepted to pay the judgment.

The garnishment affidavit certifies that no agreement was made to satisfy the judgment voluntarily, and as a result, court-ordered collection is proceeding.

What This Means for Julie Chrisley

This garnishment compounds Julie’s ongoing financial woes, which already include:

  • $17.2 million in federal      restitution owed from her fraud conviction
  • The forfeiture of property and      other assets
  • Long-term financial monitoring by      the government
  • Her failed civil litigation     now coming back to haunt her

Given that both Julie and her husband Todd are currently serving prison sentences for financial crimes, it remains unclear how Braddock will be able to collect unless additional assets—such as real estate, business interests, or future earnings—become available.

Conclusion

Julie Chrisley’s financial downfall continues, with the court now enforcing this large garnishment order in favor of Mark Braddock. What started as a lawsuit against Braddock in 2012 has boomeranged into a financial nightmare for Julie, with debts piling up on both civil and criminal fronts. Braddock, once her trusted business partner and alleged co-conspirator, has legally outmaneuvered her—first by avoiding criminal prosecution and now by securing a court-enforced payout from Julie Chrisley’s remaining assets.

This garnishment marks yet another costly chapter in the downfall of the Chrisleys, proving that even after conviction, the legal consequences of their fraudulent financial dealings continue to mount.

Even after the trials and lawsuits, the legal repercussions for Julie Chrisley continue in the form of aggressive collection efforts against her assets. Winning a judgment is one thing; getting the money is another – and courts have not hesitated to pursue the Chrisleys’ resources to satisfy the debts and penalties from their cases.

In the civil arena, once Judge Pannell issued the $27,791.63 sanction judgment in favor of Kimberly Childs, that amount became immediately payable by Julie’s former attorneys (Thompson Law Group). It’s unclear if Thompson’s firm paid the sanction out-of-pocket or if arrangements were made, but what’s evident is that by 2024 the government was treating even that sanction fund as fair game in collecting from the Chrisleys. \ Julie and Todd Chrisley jointly owe $17.2 million in restitution to the victims of their bank fraud (Why Todd and Julie Chrisley are in prison). The Department of Justice can enforce restitution like any judgment – through liens, garnishments, and seizures of assets. While in prison, the Chrisleys have limited means, but any future income (say from media deals, book deals, or even wages earned in prison jobs) can be subject to garnishment. The federal government will likely pursue any accessible assets, given the size of the award. This could include garnishing bank accounts, seizing property, or taking a portion of any trust or estate. Notably, Todd and Julie have also lost their home in Nashville to foreclosure, and other properties have been on the line, indicating their finances are in shambles.

Julie Chrisley’s current financial status is precarious. Court records from 2014 showed she filed an affidavit of poverty during her civil case, claiming she was unable to afford a supersedeas bond to appeal Judge Pannell’s dismissal (todd-chrisley-government-sentencing.pdf). (A supersedeas bond is often required to delay enforcement of a judgment on appeal; her filing suggests she couldn’t pay and was effectively insolvent even then.) Although the family later enjoyed reality TV paychecks, those have been eclipsed by legal debts. Now, with both Chrisleys in federal custody and their show canceled, their income is essentially nil, and garnishment ordersensure that any windfall will go straight to creditors or the government.

The ongoing garnishment of Julie’s assets underscores a critical point: the consequences of fraud extend far beyond conviction. The Chrisleys are not only serving prison time; they are also financially ruined, with the government actively clawing back every dollar possible. For Julie, this means that even while she’s behind bars, her past is catching up to her checkbook. The garnishment order in 2024 – grabbing a relatively small sum from a lawyer’s trust – signals that no asset is too small to pursue. It serves as a warning that the legal system will continue to hound the Chrisleys until their debts, however large, are paid or otherwise resolved. In high-profile fraud cases, justice isn’t fully done at sentencing; it continues in the form of relentless enforcement and monitoring of the defendants’ financial dealings for years to come.

Conclusion: Legal Ramifications and Lessons

The intertwined stories of Mark Braddock and Todd and Julie Chrisley form a cautionary tale of fraud fueled by greed, betrayal, and even personal entanglement. Braddock’s deep involvement in Chrisley Asset Management gave him the means to perpetrate fraud – but also ultimately made him a star witness who helped bring the Chrisleys down. The Chrisleys, for their part, transitioned from reality TV darlings to convicted felons, in large part due to paper trails and testimony that exposed long-term dishonesty in their business dealings. Julie Chrisley’s attempt to use the courts to punish Braddock shows how complex such battles can become: her civil case collapsed under procedural issues and led to rare sanctions against her own lawyers, illustrating that coming to court with unclean hands (or insufficient evidence) can boomerang badly.

In the end, all parties suffered legal consequences. Braddock avoided prosecution but lives with infamy (and likely personal turmoil from airing the affair allegation). Todd and Julie Chrisley are imprisoned and millions of dollars in debt, their public image shattered. Julie in particular faces the dual defeat of losing her civil fight against Braddock and then being proven a fraudster herself in criminal court. The legal ramifications span criminal liability (fraud convictions and prison), civil liability (judgments and legal fees), and financial devastation (restitution and asset garnishment). This saga reinforces several key lessons: frauds often unravel from within, with insiders like Braddock turning into witnesses; the legal system will dig into the details (every check, every email) to find the truth; and attempts to shift blame in court can fail if the evidence shows everyone was in the wrong.

Ultimately, the Braddock–Chrisley affair – both the literal alleged affair and the broader entanglement – demonstrates that in the eyes of the law, celebrity and subterfuge are no match for hard evidence and diligent prosecution. The ongoing garnishment of Julie Chrisley’s assets is a stark reminder that justice seeks to make victims whole and deter future wrongdoing, long after the headlines fade. The courts have sent a clear message: those who engage in fraud, no matter how cleverly or for how long, will face accountability – financially, legally, and publicly.

Sources:

  • Categories

Related Blog

Load More

Subscribe Today!

links

Categories

Contact Info

© CopyRight chrisleyknowsprison.com 2025 | All rights reserved
Facebook X-twitter Linkedin Instagram
Scroll to Top