The Scheme and the Blackmail Trigger
When Mitchell Green ("Green"), former Director of Brand Management for Curtis "50 Cent" Jackson's Sire Spirits, LLC ("Sire Spirits"), orchestrated a $2.2 million embezzlement scheme, it didn’t happen overnight. From June 2017 to February 2020, Green secretly arranged side agreements through his shell company, Q Branch Consulting, LLC, with two French suppliers, Champagne Castelnau and Raymond Ragnaud. These suppliers paid him kickbacks on champagne and cognac purchases. The kickbacks were funded by increased per‑bottle prices on nearly $15 million in inflated invoices paid by Sire Spirits, with $2,226,988 disguised as “agency fees” paid to Green’s company.1 Although Green was hired to secure the best deals for Sire Spirits, he exploited his position and funneled inflated payments into his own pockets.
The fraud remained undetected for years, which highlights the risks even trusted insiders can pose. What finally brought the scheme to light wasn’t an internal audit or vendor discrepancy. It was blackmail.
In February 2020, Green admitted to 50 Cent that he had been secretly receiving agency fees on Sire Spirits’ liquor purchases. He confessed only after an unidentified third party attempted to extort him by threatening to reveal the scheme.2 Following an internal investigation, Sire Spirits fired Green for cause and initiated arbitration against him in March 2020. The arbitrator awarded Sire Spirits $3.46 million in damages and ordered Green to pay an additional $2.73 million in attorneys’ fees, costs, and interest. The federal court confirmed the total judgment of $6,194,293.3
Green’s confession highlights a crucial lesson for all business owners: even long-tenured, high-level employees can perpetrate significant fraud when internal controls are lax. Without proactive audits, segregation of duties, and a sound vendor vetting process, organizations may not catch such schemes until irreparable damage is done.
The $6 Million Judgment and the Bankruptcy Twist
After securing the $6.19 million judgment, 50 Cent’s legal team began aggressive post-judgment collection efforts. Green, facing the prospect of his Westport, Connecticut home and other assets, filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy protection in March 2023 in an effort to discharge the debt and shield what he could from creditors.4 But Green's bankruptcy strategy was doomed from the start.
Because the debt arose from fraud and embezzlement, federal bankruptcy law treated it as nondischargeable.5 Although a debtor’s primary residence is often shielded to some extent in a Chapter 7 bankruptcy, that protection is not absolute.6 Federal bankruptcy law allows debtors to claim exemptions for certain property, including a homestead. The scope of protection depends largely on state law. When Green filed for bankruptcy, his $1 million home in Westport, Connecticut, could be protected only up to the amount allowed under Connecticut’s homestead exemption. This made state‑specific homestead rules a critical factor in determining how much of his property remained safe from 50 Cent’s collection efforts.
Connecticut vs. Florida Homestead Protection
As Green faced collection efforts on the $6.19 million judgment, he sought to protect his $1 million Westport, Connecticut home. But Connecticut’s homestead exemption, capped at $250,000, left most of his equity exposed. And because the judgment arose from fraud and embezzlement, debts that are nondischargeable in bankruptcy, federal law did not prevent 50 Cent’s legal team from pursuing the home to satisfy the balance.7
Since the debt stemmed from embezzlement and fraud, Green’s bankruptcy filing did not erase the liability. Moreover, Connecticut’s limited homestead exemption meant that 50 Cent’s legal team could pursue foreclosure to satisfy the judgment.
Unlike Connecticut, Florida’s Constitution provides an unlimited‑value homestead exemption that shields a primary residence from most creditor claims, making it a popular asset‑protection haven for celebrities and other high‑net‑worth individuals.8 However, even Florida courts have long recognized equitable exceptions where the homestead is acquired or improved with funds obtained through fraud or similar wrongdoing.9
Green’s situation illustrates that relying solely on state homestead exemptions for asset protection is dangerous, especially in states with modest or capped protections like Connecticut.
Could an Irrevocable Trust Have Helped Green?
Many clients wonder whether placing a home in an irrevocable trust could have protected it in such a case. The answer is nuanced. Had Green established a properly structured irrevocable trust years before the fraud (with arms-length funding, no retained control, and no badges of fraud), the trust may have shielded the home from creditor reach. But timing and intent are everything.
The Bankruptcy Code allows trustees to claw back fraudulent transfers made within 2 years of a bankruptcy filing.10 Connecticut’s Uniform Voidable Transactions Act adds a four‑year lookback for fraudulent transfers.11 Given the egregious nature of Green’s fraud and the timing of any hypothetical transfer, a court would likely void such a move, especially when “badges of fraud,” such as transfers to insiders, retaining possession, or making transfers after a judgment, are present.
Bottom line? Last-minute transfers to a trust to shield assets after liability arises are unlikely to succeed. Asset protection through trusts must be proactive, not reactive; and implemented long before any creditor threat emerges.
What This Teaches Business Owners About Fraud Prevention
The Sire Spirits–Mitchell Green debacle highlights critical gaps in internal controls that allowed a multimillion‑dollar scheme to go undetected for years. Robust vendor audit procedures could have flagged the inflated invoices and undisclosed kickbacks long before they reached such staggering amounts. Likewise, regular price benchmarking against industry norms would have revealed the excessive charges being passed along to Sire Spirits.12 Strengthening segregation of duties, ensuring that the individuals responsible for purchasing are not the same people approving payments, would have significantly reduced the opportunity for self‑dealing. Finally, implementing a strong whistleblower policy supported by an anonymous reporting mechanism could have encouraged employees or vendors to raise concerns earlier, potentially stopping the scheme in its tracks.
For business owners, the lesson is clear: segregation of duties must be reinforced by vigilant corporate governance and robust anti‑fraud safeguards. Even the strongest asset protection strategy will fail if weak internal controls give insiders free rein to siphon off company wealth.
Final Thoughts on Protecting What You’ve Built
This case is more than a headline‑grabbing scandal, it’s a stark reminder of how wealth can disappear, not only through market swings or economic downturns, but from within an organization itself. Fraud often takes root in the quiet gaps between trust and oversight, and once those cracks appear, even the most sophisticated asset‑protection structures can be rendered ineffective. That’s why true asset protection is never just a single tactic. It must be an integrated strategy that blends proactive legal planning with rigorous internal controls and a corporate culture that refuses to ignore early warning signs. The key is identifying and addressing vulnerabilities long before a crisis forces you to confront them the hard way.
1See Alexander Soule, CT Man Pleads Guilty in $2 Million Scheme Defrauding 50 Cent’s Business, CT Insider (Sept. 19, 2023), https://www.ctinsider.com/news/article/50-cent-green-westport-ct-sire-spirits-kickback-18375141.php (last visited Jul. 16, 2025); see also Sire Spirits, LLC v. Green, No. 21-cv-07343, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 101477 (S.D.N.Y. June 6, 2022).
2Sire Spirits, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 101477, at 3 (S.D.N.Y. June 6, 2022).
3Id. at 8.
4Cedric Thornton, 50 Cent’s Sire Spirits Granted Permission To Seize Former Employee’s House To Pay Down Debt, Black Enterprise (May 28, 2025), https://www.blackenterprise.com/50-cent-sire-spirits-seize-house/ (last visited Jul. 16, 2025).
5See 11 U.S.C. §§ 523(a)(2)(A), (a)(4); Cohen v. de la Cruz, 523 U.S. 213, 218–19 (1998) (holding that § 523(a)(2)(A) bars the discharge of all liability arising from fraud, including treble damages, attorneys’ fees, and costs); see also Grogan v. Garner, 498 U.S. 279, 287 (1991) (confirming that Congress intended debts for fraud to be excepted from discharge in bankruptcy).
6See 11 U.S.C. §§ 522(b)(1)–(3), (d)(1), (p)–(q); Owen v. Owen, 500 U.S. 305, 308 (1991) (explaining that a debtor’s ability to protect a homestead in bankruptcy depends on the scope of the exemption under applicable law); In re Hodes, 402 F.3d 1005, 1008 (10th Cir. 2005) (recognizing that the homestead exemption may be reduced or denied under federal or state law exceptions).
7Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 52‑352b(21) (providing a $250,000 homestead exemption); 11 U.S.C. §§ 523(a)(2)(A), (a)(4) (excepting from discharge debts for money obtained by fraud or embezzlement); In re Milazzo, 450 B.R. 363, 374 & n.12 (Bankr. D. Conn. 2011) (noting that Connecticut’s homestead exemption does not prevent a bankruptcy trustee from avoiding certain transactions involving a homestead).
8See Fla. Const. art. X, § 4, available at http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?submenu=3#A10S04 (last visited Jul. 17, 2025).
9See Jones v. Carpenter, 90 Fla. 407, 413–15, 106 So. 127, 129–30 (1925) (holding that the homestead exemption could not be used to protect property improved with embezzled funds).
1011 U.S.C. § 548.
11Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52‑552j(1) (providing that most fraudulent transfer actions must be brought within four years after the transfer or obligation, with a one‑year discovery rule extension).
12See U.S. Dep’t of Def., Off. of Inspector Gen., Fraud Detection Resources for Auditors: Fraud Red Flags and Indicators (n.d.), https://www.dodig.mil/Resources/Fraud-Detection-Resources/Fraud-Red-Flags/ (last visited July 17, 2025).
