A federal judge in the Northern District of Texas sentenced a Fort Worth couple this week for running a fraud conspiracy that took payments from dozens of families for custom home, architecture and interior design projects that were never finished. Retirees and near-retirees who fund a major home project out of savings or home equity are frequent targets in cases like this one, since a large deposit up front followed by slow, plausible-sounding delays can drain a project budget long before a homeowner realizes nothing is actually being built. The sentencing closes out a federal investigation into a Fort Worth design-and-build firm that prosecutors say collected installment payments across two dozen projects while the work stalled, and it comes with a pointed public warning from the U.S. Attorney’s office about contractors who treat client deposits as their own money.
How the Judge DFW Fraud Conspiracy Operated
Christopher Judge, 35, and his wife Raquelle Judge, 36, were the managing members of Judge DFW LLC, a company they used to falsely market themselves as providers of custom architecture, construction and interior design services across North Texas. According to the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Texas, the couple conspired from roughly August 2020 to January 2023 to defraud consumers across six counties in North Texas by offering below-market bids designed to win contracts, then inducing homeowners into design-and-build agreements they had no real intention of completing. Court documents say the Judges also falsely represented that Christopher Judge was a licensed architect, a credential that gave anxious homeowners a false sense of security about handing over installment payments for work that was months from breaking ground. More than 40 families across at least 24 separate projects were left with unfinished custom-home work and losses totaling about $4.2 million. Prosecutors say the couple commingled victims’ installment payments in Judge DFW’s primary operating account, routinely using money one family paid toward their project to cover expenses on a different, unrelated job, a pattern that let the business keep signing new contracts even as older ones stalled out.
Both Judges pleaded guilty in December 2025 to conspiracy to commit wire fraud.
Sentences, Restitution and Who Prosecuted the Case
Senior U.S. District Judge Terry R. Means sentenced Christopher Judge to 78 months in federal prison followed by two years of supervised release. Raquelle Judge received a one-month sentence. The court ordered the couple to pay $2,794,680.73 in restitution to their victims. “Fraudsters who exploit hard working families in the Northern District of Texas will face serious consequences,” U.S. Attorney Ryan Raybould said in announcing the sentence. “The Judges didn’t just abandon construction sites; their entire business model was built on lies and deceit. This kind of brazen fraud strikes at the heart of consumer trust, and our office will ensure that those who engage in such criminal conduct face justice.” The FBI’s Fort Worth Resident Agency and the Euless Police Department investigated the case, with assistance from the U.S. Secret Service, and Assistant U.S. Attorneys Mark McDonald and Laura Montes from the Fort Worth Division prosecuted it.
Verifying a Contractor Before Signing a Custom-Build Contract
The Federal Trade Commission recommends checking a contractor’s license status directly with the relevant state or local licensing board rather than taking a business card, website claim or verbal assurance at face value, since a faked or exaggerated credential, like the false architect claim prosecutors say Christopher Judge made, is a documented tactic in cases like this one. Homeowners are also advised to get written estimates from more than one firm, confirm the contractor carries insurance, and make sure permits are pulled before work begins rather than after a project has already fallen behind schedule.
The FTC’s guidance also flags payment structure as a warning sign worth watching closely: a contractor who wants full payment upfront, in cash, or before any material work has been delivered is asking a homeowner to absorb nearly all of the financial risk on a project that has not yet started. A written contract that spells out a payment schedule tied to specific, inspectable milestones gives a homeowner leverage to stop paying the moment work stalls, rather than discovering months later that a company has been juggling multiple clients’ deposits at once.
Why a Large Deposit Is the Riskiest Part of a Home Project
Fraud cases involving custom-home and renovation work tend to follow a similar shape: a company collects a substantial deposit or installment payment upfront, delivers some early-stage work or paperwork to appear legitimate, and then slows or stops as money runs out or gets diverted to cover another client’s project. Retirees financing a project from a lump sum of savings, a home-equity loan or a retirement account withdrawal are especially exposed, because the amount at risk in a single deposit can represent months or years of a fixed income, and there is often no employer or ongoing paycheck to absorb the loss. Spreading payments across verified project milestones, rather than a single large deposit, keeps more leverage with the homeowner if a contractor stops performing.
What Happens to Restitution After a Federal Sentencing
A restitution order is a legal obligation for the defendant to repay victims, but the amount actually recovered often depends on what assets remain and how long collection takes, and it can fall well short of a victim’s total loss. Families affected by a federal fraud case, including this one, can get information about the restitution and victim-notification process through the Victim Witness Assistance program run by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the district that prosecuted the case. Filing a complaint with the FBI or a state attorney general’s consumer protection division is also the standard first step for anyone who believes a contractor took a deposit without delivering the promised work, since it can trigger a broader investigation if other homeowners report the same company…