SPY -0.22%
BND -1.02%
QQQ -0.48%
DIA -0.42%
VNQ -1.18%
GLD -0.24%
BTC -1.53%
AAPL +5.16%
GOOGL +0.01%
NVDA -3.31%
MSFT +0.18%
META +5.55%
AMZN -0.11%
TSLA -0.79%
UBER -1.98%
GS -0.82%
BAC +0.48%
JPM +0.93%
BRK.A +1.08%
COST -0.57%
XOM +3.44%
BABA -3.20%
WMT +0.97%
SPCX -2.08%
DIS +1.37%
F -0.29%
  • Discounts and special offers
  • Subscriber-only articles and interviews
  • Breaking news and trending topics

Already a subscriber?

By signing up, you accept Moneywise's Terms of Use, Subscription Agreement, and Privacy Policy.

Not interested ?

Top Stories
couple and newman ABC 7 Chicago/YouTube

Texas wannabe influencers who stole millions from victims in home build fraud going to jail, ordered to pay back $2.8 million

A Texas couple who built a polished, fixer upper-style home-renovation brand has now been sentenced for defrauding more than 40 victims out of millions of dollars.

Christopher and Raquelle Judge, co-owners of Judge DFW LLC, pleaded guilty in December 2025 to conspiracy to commit wire fraud. On Sept. 1, Christopher was sentenced to six and a half years in federal prison, while Raquelle received one month. The couple was also ordered to pay nearly $2.8 million in restitution, which will be distributed among 20 affected families.

Advertisement

“The Judges didn’t just abandon construction sites; their entire business model was built on lies and deceit,” U.S. Attorney Ryan Raybould said in a statement. “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 money news that actually matters.

By signing up, you accept Moneywise Terms of Use, Subscription Agreement, and Privacy Policy.

The case may not be over yet. Christopher Judge filed a notice of appeal on Sept. 8, according to court records.

The pitch

“Are you ready to see your fixer upper?”

On the hit home-renovation show, that question usually came just before the big reveal: a dated house transformed into someone’s dream home. But prosecutors say the reveal for the Judges’ customers looked very different — unfinished houses, abandoned construction sites and families left with depleted savings and mortgages on homes they couldn’t live in.

Fort Worth homeowner Kristin Newman was one of the customers. She said Judge DFW initially felt “fresh” and “exciting,” with a polished media presence and an offer to handle everything from architecture and design to construction.

Prosecutors say that was part of the strategy. Christopher Judge falsely presented himself as a licensed architect and general contractor, while the couple offered prospective customers below-market bids.

Newman hired them but after spending thousands of dollars, she said work on her home moved slowly and concerns about the quality began to pile up. She eventually hired an independent inspector, who produced a roughly 100-page report outlining problems with the project.

Newman said that when she confronted the pair about the findings, Christopher started pulling away.

Advertisement

Must Read

Growing concerns

As Newman waited for her unfinished home to take shape, court records show money was flowing elsewhere. The couple spent tens of thousands of dollars on personal expenses, including roughly $82,000 at Amazon and $10,000 on cosmetic surgery.

Her experience is far from the only home-improvement dispute to land on regulators’ radar. The FTC’s Consumer Sentinel Network recorded 81,925 reports involving home improvement, repairs and solar projects in 2024.

Construction also ranked among the industries with the highest losses in a separate study of occupational fraud. The Association of Certified Fraud Examiners found construction cases carried a median loss of $250,000 — the fourth-highest among industries included in its 2024 report.

For Newman, the Judges’ sentencing closes at least one chapter of an ordeal that took a toll well beyond the construction site.

“It does close a chapter that has been painful, not just emotionally and financially, but it’s just been draining,” Newman told PEOPLE. “I don’t have to worry about them being out and maybe doing this to another person.”

The road ahead

For Newman and her family, the sentencing does not necessarily mean the financial damage is over.

Court records show the Newman family is entitled to about $175,000. But recovering it could be a long process: once the Judges leave prison, their required restitution payments can start at just $100 per month.

Advertisement

For homeowners, the case also offers a lesson in what to watch for before hiring a contractor.

A bid that comes in dramatically below competitors can be tempting, especially when renovation costs are already high, but it can also be a warning sign. Other red flags include demands for large upfront payments, vague contracts and resistance to independent inspections.

Homeowners should also verify licenses and credentials directly with the appropriate state or professional board rather than relying on a company’s website or social media presence. Homeowners can also tie payments to clearly defined construction milestones and ask for lien waivers showing subcontractors and suppliers have been paid.

And perhaps the simplest safeguard is to slow down: get multiple bids, check references and put costs, deadlines and payment schedules in writing.

As the Judge case shows, a polished online presence and the promise of a dream home are not the same thing as proof someone can actually build it.

You May Also Like

Share this:
Victoria Vesovski Senior Reporter

Victoria Vesovski is a Toronto-based staff reporter at Moneywise covering personal finance, lifestyle and trending news. She holds degrees from the University of Toronto and New York University, and her work has appeared on platforms including Yahoo Finance, MSN Money and Apple News.

more from Victoria Vesovski

Explore the latest

Disclaimer

The content provided on Moneywise is information to help users become financially literate. It is neither investment, tax nor legal advice, is not intended to be relied upon as a forecast, research or investment advice, and is not a recommendation, offer or solicitation to buy or sell any securities, enter into any loan, mortgage or insurance agreements or to adopt any investment strategy. Tax, investment and all other decisions should be made, as appropriate, only with guidance from a qualified professional. We make no representation or warranty of any kind, either express or implied, with respect to the data provided, the timeliness thereof, the results to be obtained by the use thereof or any other matter. Advertisers are not responsible for the content of this site, including any editorials or reviews that may appear on this site. For complete and current information on any advertiser product, please visit their website.

†Terms and Conditions apply.