Fumo's daughter accuses him of raiding family trust fund
PHILADELPHIA — A once-powerful Pennsylvania lawmaker, Vincent Fumo is set to leave prison next month, but his legal woes still mount as his children accuse him of raiding a family trust fund.
Fumo, 70, netted more than $13 million from a family bank, and made millions more as a lawyer and state senator. He's finishing a five-year prison term for using the state senate and two charities as private piggy banks, to the tune of $4.2 million.
Fumo's assets have dwindled since the days when he jet set among his four homes, including a 33-room Philadelphia mansion with a basement shooting range.
His expenses in recent years have included $4 million for defense lawyers, $4 million restitution and $3 million in back taxes and fines. That explains why the dapper Mensa member, now in federal prison in Kentucky, sought a loan from a trust he created for two of his children.
Vincent E. Fumo, 44, and Allison Fumo, 23, agreed to loan their father $1.4 million from the $2.5 million trust. But in an October legal filing, she accused her father of switching the short-term loan to a low-interest note due in 2040, and she complained that he named his fiancee's brother-in-law, a turnpike maintenance worker, to be her trustee.
“I don't trust my father, unfortunately,” Allison Fumo testified this week in Philadelphia Orphan's Court.
Both Allison Fumo and her brother supported him at his five-month trial, although she was a college student and came to court less often. She has since graduated from the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School of Business, and works in accounting.
“This is the type of thing that a daughter should never have to go through,” lawyer Bill Heymon argued Friday to Judge Joseph D. O'Keefe. In angry letters from prison, Fumo pledged “to completely waste the trust to his daughter's detriment if he doesn't have control,” Heymon said.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.