Senator Adam Schiff is under scrutiny following allegations of mortgage fraud, with experts noting such cases are often clear-cut and hard to defend. Schiff, a Democrat from California, has been referred to the Justice Department over claims that he falsely declared “primary” residence status in both California and Maryland to gain financial advantages. Financial crimes experts warn that if charged, he could face serious penalties, including fines and restitution, due to the strength of the documentation typically involved in such cases.

The allegations focus on Schiff’s designation of a home in Potomac, Maryland—owned with his wife—as their primary residence from 2013 to 2019. This status reportedly lowered their mortgage payments. However, as a sitting congressman from California during that time, his legal residence should have been within that state. Simultaneously, Schiff claimed his Burbank, California, home as his primary residence to qualify for a $7,000 tax exemption.

Borrowers often receive better mortgage rates when designating a property as a primary residence because it’s viewed as less risky by lenders. Schiff has defended his actions, stating both lenders were aware he lived in both properties year-round and that neither was a vacation home. Nevertheless, his dual claims have raised legal red flags, especially in light of his own past criticisms of political opponents for similar behavior.

This investigation comes after Schiff vocally supported legal action against Donald Trump, labeling him dishonest and accusing him of undermining the rule of law. Trump responded by accusing Schiff of being a “scam artist,” citing findings from Fannie Mae’s Financial Crimes Division and claiming Schiff manipulated his mortgage designations to secure favorable terms.

Legal experts suggest that if charges are filed, the case may not proceed to trial. Instead, it could end in a plea deal, as financial records may clearly establish whether Schiff knowingly misrepresented his primary residence. If so, the outcome would likely involve fines or restitution rather than imprisonment.