Miami doctor Armando Valdes didn’t just lose his freedom last week when he was sentenced to federal prison after a six-year healthcare fraud run through a West Miami-Dade office — he lost his house, four other houses or condominiums in South Florida and an empty lot adjacent to one of the houses.
READ MORE: Miami doctor living luxurious lifestyle gets 5 years in $38 million healthcare fraud
While Valdes, 63, does his time in federal prison, the above residential real estate will be sold as property bought with the $38 million he made while ripping off United Healthcare and Blue Cross Blue Shield through Gasiel Medical Services. State records say Gasiel listed Hilario Isaba as president, but it was owned and operated by Valdes. Isaba has not been charged.
Here are the properties Valdes gave up as part of pleading guilty to one count of health care fraud with information from public property records.
▪ Sabbia Beach Condominium, 730 N. Ocean Blvd., No. 505, Pompano Beach: Built in 2019, open for occupancy in 2020, three bedrooms, three bathrooms, , 1,830 sq. feet, bought for $1.2 million in January 2020 by listed owners Armando Valdes and Sabrina Olga Silva.
▪ Aventura Park Square Residences, 2960 NE 207th St., No. 1114: Built in 2018, one bedroom, two bathrooms, 868 sq. feet, bought for $562,000 on Sept. 20, 2018 by listed owner Armando Alexander Valdes.
▪ Place at Corkscrew development, 19302 Elston Wy., Estero: Built in 2020, four bedrooms, two bathrooms, 2,251 sq. ft., bought for $395,000, Dec. 1, 2020 by listed owner Armando Valdes.
▪ 3574 Lakeview Dr., Sebring: Built in 2004, four bedrooms, 3,633 sq. feet, bought for $355,000 on March 12, 2019 by listed owners Armando Valdes and Armando Alexander Valdes. 3566 Lakeview Dr. is the empty lot next door.
▪ 15618 SW 14th St., West Miami-Dade: Built in 2003, four bedrooms, three bathrooms, 6,000 sq. ft. total area, 3,480 sq. ft. living area, bought for $359,490 on Jan. 30, 2004 by listed owner Armando Valdes.
This is the home on which Valdes claimed a homestead exemption and was listed in the forfeiture agreement as “substitute property” because, the forfeiture agreement said, “other directly forfeitable property cannot be located upon the exercise of due diligence; has been transferred, sold to or deposited with a third party; has been placed beyond the jurisdiction of the Court; has been substantially diminished in value; or has been commingled with other property which cannot be divided without difficulty.”
This story was originally published August 7, 2022 12:38 PM.