State Says Fiduciary Stole Millions From California Seniors While Courts and Regulators Missed Years of Red Flags

For more than six years, a Los Angeles-area fiduciary allegedly altered bank statements and falsified court reports to steal more than $6 million from elderly, vulnerable clients who couldn’t care for themselves, according to the California Attorney General’s Office. Prosecutors describe it as a “Ponzi-style” scheme — using money from one client’s accounts to cover what he’d already taken from another.

In May, state prosecutors charged Gregory Oveross and his accountant, Faranita L. Corvalan, with grand theft in what the AG’s office calls one of the largest fiduciary theft cases in California history. Both have pleaded not guilty and remain free on bond, awaiting trial.

But a review of court files and other public records shows the warning signs were there well before charges were filed — and that neither the courts nor the state agency responsible for licensing fiduciaries caught them in time, according to an investigation by CalMatters.

Advertisement

In one case cited by prosecutors, Oveross wrote himself 19 checks totaling $670,000 over a single year from one client’s accounts. State accounting forms require fiduciaries to list check numbers for every transaction — a safeguard lawmakers added in 2006 specifically so courts could catch missing or suspicious payments. Oveross left that section blank. Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Deborah L. Christian approved the accounting anyway.

“Not having check numbers would be a big red flag,” said Judge Sandra Bean, who oversees probate matters in Alameda County. “It’s all very practical. If something smells bad, it probably is.”

In another case, prosecutors say Oveross never paid out a $1.7 million inheritance to beneficiaries after the court appointed him to manage a deceased person’s estate. Court records show no follow-up hearing was ever scheduled to confirm the money had actually reached the heirs.

That gap exists because state law doesn’t require probate courts to automatically schedule such a review after ordering a final distribution of assets. Some counties do so as standard practice; others, including Sacramento, San Joaquin and Santa Clara, do not. Los Angeles County didn’t during the period when Oveross’s alleged thefts occurred. The court changed that policy in January 2026, according to court spokesperson Rob Oftring.

Records also show Oveross failed to disclose a pending misconduct complaint on his annual statement to the state’s Professional Fiduciaries Bureau. In both 2022 and 2023, Oveross left blank a question asking whether he had settled any complaints against him. The bureau renewed his license each year regardless.

A 2021 law signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom was supposed to close some of these gaps by requiring courts to notify the bureau whenever a judge sanctioned a fiduciary for licensing violations. But that provision never took effect because the Legislature never allocated funding for it.

The Professional Fiduciaries Bureau declined to answer questions about Oveross, citing the ongoing criminal case. More broadly, the bureau has said it relies on the courts to catch misconduct, while the courts often say they rely on the bureau — a circular arrangement that leaves few real checks in place.

The bureau itself was created two decades ago after a news investigation revealed judges were failing to stop fiduciary abuse and conflicts of interest. Yet the same patterns identified back then appear to be resurfacing.

The Breakdown

• Jean C. Elbert had dementia and lived far from most of her family. Her closest relative, her brother, was battling Alzheimer’s. The court appointed Oveross to manage her care and finances in August 2018.
• During the year Oveross managed Elbert’s conservatorship, prosecutors say he wrote himself 19 checks totaling $670,000 without disclosing them in his official accounting.
• After Elbert died in August 2019, Oveross reported $1.8 million remaining for her heirs and was ordered to distribute it. Prosecutors say he withheld $764,000 owed to Elbert’s brother.
• The brother’s son sued to recover the inheritance. An attorney discovered Oveross had drained money from the conservatorship and used funds from other clients’ accounts to eventually make good on the payment — the “Ponzi-style” pattern prosecutors describe.
• The two sides reached a settlement in May 2024. State records show Oveross never disclosed that settlement on his 2025 annual statement to the bureau, as required. In total, prosecutors say Oveross diverted $1.3 million in unauthorized payments from Elbert’s accounts.
• In a separate case involving the estate of Guadalupe Rodriguez Diaz, who died in 2019 leaving roughly $2 million, Oveross told the court $1.6 million remained for beneficiaries after settling debts. Prosecutors say he opened secondary accounts and funneled money to himself, Corvalan, and another trust under his control. Diaz’s heirs, according to prosecutors, never received any of the money owed to them.
• The criminal investigation began after Elbert’s nephew and another of Oveross’s clients filed complaints with the Professional Fiduciaries Bureau in 2023. A bureau investigator referred the matter to the California Department of Justice.
• Oveross continued working as a licensed fiduciary for more than two years while the investigation unfolded. His license was suspended less than two weeks after his arrest.

What This Means for You

If you’ve ever wondered whether the state agencies and courts voters fund through their tax dollars are actually protecting California’s most vulnerable residents, this case is a clear answer: the systems in place failed, repeatedly, for years. The Professional Fiduciaries Bureau was created two decades ago specifically to prevent exactly this kind of abuse, after earlier scandals showed judges weren’t catching it. Yet here we are again — a licensed professional allegedly stealing millions while courts approved incomplete paperwork and a state bureau renewed his license year after year despite red flags.

Governor Newsom signed a 2021 law that would have required courts to notify the bureau when judges disciplined fiduciaries, but it never took effect because the Legislature — the people you elect — never funded it. That’s a choice with consequences. These are not abstract failures. Jean Elbert’s family trusted the court to protect her. Guadalupe Rodriguez Diaz’s heirs were supposed to receive an inheritance. Instead, prosecutors say, Oveross spent it on himself.

When you vote for Governor, Attorney General, and state legislators, you’re voting for the people responsible for funding and enforcing the systems that are supposed to catch this before it happens — not years later, after millions are gone.

What to Watch

The criminal case against Oveross and Corvalan will proceed through the courts, but the larger question is whether California will actually fix the systems that failed here. A 2021 law already exists that would require courts to alert the Professional Fiduciaries Bureau when a judge sanctions a fiduciary — but it’s been sitting unfunded for five years. Why? Is it a budget priority, or isn’t it?

The AG’s arrest declaration described a “systematic and pervasive pattern of asset misappropriation, discrepancies, unauthorized fund diversions and non-compliance with probate court mandates.” If that pattern was systematic, how many other fiduciaries are operating under similar gaps in oversight right now? The bureau asked Oveross for a complete list of all cases in which he was serving as a fiduciary only after his arrest — information he was supposed to have reported accurately all along. That’s not oversight; that’s cleanup.

And here’s the harder question: when a system relies on self-reporting by the very people it’s supposed to be regulating, and the penalty for lying is “under penalty of perjury” on a form almost no one checks, what is that system really protecting? Oveross left questions blank on his annual filings in 2022 and 2023. The bureau renewed his license anyway. If the safeguards lawmakers put in place in 2006 — requiring check numbers — are optional in practice, what are they worth?

This isn’t a story about one bad actor. It’s a story about a system that keeps failing the people it was built to protect, and about elected officials who keep choosing not to fund the fixes that already exist.