Legal representatives for Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook have issued a forceful rebuttal against allegations of mortgage fraud, characterizing the case as unfounded and politically motivated. In a detailed letter to the Justice Department, Cook’s attorney outlined her defense, arguing that administrative discrepancies have been misrepresented as criminal intent.
The controversy centers on loan documentation for three properties: a primary residence in Ann Arbor, Michigan; a condominium in Atlanta, Georgia; and a home in Cambridge, Massachusetts. The defense asserts that Cook’s primary residence has consistently been in Ann Arbor, where she has been a university professor since 2005 and plans to return after her term at the Federal Reserve.
Regarding the Atlanta property, purchased to be near family, the legal team acknowledges a single, isolated notation on a mortgage application incorrectly listing it as a primary residence. They contend this was an inadvertent error, noting that all other loan documents and annual financial disclosures accurately classified the condo as a secondary or personal residence. For the Cambridge property, acquired prior to her move to Michigan, documentation has consistently listed it as a second home and rental investment.
A central pillar of the defense challenges the impartiality of the investigation. The letter specifically criticizes the director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, a political appointee, for allegedly using his office to target political opponents of the previous administration. It notes that similar discrepancies in mortgage documents among senior officials of that same administration were not pursued with comparable vigor.
The legal filing argues that to prove criminal fraud, prosecutors must demonstrate a deliberate intent to deceive lenders for financial gain. Cook’s attorneys maintain that the complete record of her loan materials shows no such intent, as the intended use of each property was transparently communicated across the totality of her financial paperwork.
The case, which previously led to Cook’s temporary removal from the Federal Reserve Board before a Supreme Court reinstatement, is scheduled for arguments before the high court in January. The defense’s newly publicized letter frames the legal battle not merely as a technical dispute over property classifications, but as a selective enforcement action with underlying political dimensions.