Minnesota jury – A seven-person jury in downtown Minneapolis found Chadwick Banken and several of his companies civilly liable for violating Minnesota’s Human Rights Act in a contract-for-deed scheme that targeted East African Muslim buyers with “sharia compliant” real estate
A courtroom in downtown Minneapolis heard eight hours of deliberations over two days, and when the jury came back Monday afternoon, it drew a hard line around a business model built to sound like faith and operate like a trap.
Chadwick Banken. a home seller and financier in Minnesota. was found civilly liable for violating state law in a scheme that targeted East African Muslims with deceptive real estate contracts marketed as “sharia compliant.” The case was brought by Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison’s office. alleging that Banken knowingly deceived home buyers through a complicated process known as “contract for deed.”.
Assistant Attorney General Karthik Raman laid out the state’s contention during opening arguments: Banken “exploited people’s willingness to sacrifice for this dream.” The state argued that the unusual contracts helped Banken and his companies reap massive sums of money while leaving customers financially ruined.
The jury’s decision came after a two-week trial in which the state’s lawyers focused on how contract-for-deed terms can shift risk onto buyers. Under the structure, homebuyers make payments directly to sellers over time. In Minnesota. the state’s complaint said. a rising market developed for those sales—and for many buyers in the state’s expansive Somali community. paying interest violates Islamic religious beliefs. For some. that pushed them toward investors like Banken. who buy houses and then resell them through contract-for-deed programs as a way to pursue “interest-free” homeownership.
But Ellison’s office argued that the “interest-free” promise did not match what customers actually got. Through the predatory deals described in the lawsuit. Banken sold homes to Muslim buyers at high markups and on worse terms than traditional home sales. luring customers with the promise of the American dream.
The jury found Banken and several companies civilly liable for violating the Minnesota Human Rights Act. It also found Banken violated the state Consumer Financial Protection Act on two counts. along with the Prevention of Consumer Fraud Act and the Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act. The last four verdicts are advisory, meaning a judge will make the final determination on those counts.
Monday’s decision does not end the case. The court will determine whether to order restitution for victims or assess other penalties, which could include up to $25,000 in fines per violation, along with surrendering profits.
What jurors heard was not just legal arguments about paperwork. It was the story of people who say they believed they were choosing a path consistent with their faith—and then discovered the structure was designed to break them.
During closing arguments last Thursday. Assistant Attorney General Mark Iris told jurors that Banken may not have wanted the deals to fail. but that he was “indifferent.” According to the state’s lawsuit. Banken hid the amount of interest in some cases. or he front-loaded it into abnormally high down payments. The state alleged that he used inflated home prices. confusing paperwork. and six-figure balloon payments due at the end of short contracts—steps meant to push buyers into default and allow him to retain ownership of the property.
In court, accounts described a financial reality that outpaced what buyers expected. One customer testified that he ended up homeless, living in his truck.
The jury heard testimony from Abdinoor Igal, 40, one of the customers who lost money through Banken’s program. A long-haul trucker who operates his own small business. Igal testified through a translator that a real estate agent told him he could purchase a no-interest home through Banken’s sharia-compliant program.
Igal said he put down $20,000 in 2022 to secure a house in suburban Lakeville, which he was originally told would cost about $638,000. When documents surfaced showing a price of $727,000, he said he had second thoughts—but he was told he would lose his down payment if he backed out.
Later, Igal testified, he learned that a large portion of his monthly payments was going toward interest. When he realized the deal he entered into was different from what he believed it was. Igal said he asked for an emergency meeting with Banken. saying he needed to sell the house immediately and back out.
”Put on the market as for sell,” Igal wrote in an email provided to the jury. “I don’t wanna be your slave.”
According to the lawsuit, unable to get out of the deal, he eventually walked away from the house after making $170,000 in payments. Igal testified to the damage that followed: he said he had to send his kids back to Africa while he rebuilt his savings.
“I lived in my truck for one year as a homeless person,” Igal told jurors.
After the verdict, Igal said he was “very happy” with the outcome.
“Me and my kids — we got justice at least,” he said.
Ellison described Banken’s contract-for-deed scheme as “one of the worst that I’ve seen.” The state presented evidence that Banken sold 160 homes using contracts for deed, targeting Muslims and buyers with poor credit, while marketing the arrangements as “creative financing.”
Banken’s defense painted a different picture. Throughout the trial. Banken’s lawyer. Jack Pierce. argued that Banken was an honest businessman offering alternative financing to people who couldn’t qualify for or objected to traditional avenues. Pierce said Banken purchased the houses his customers picked out. flipped them the same day. and charged a markup for profit.
“For some people it didn’t work out,” Pierce told jurors. “And that’s too bad. It’s unfortunate. That’s life. Sometimes things don’t work out.”
Pierce said Banken was not to blame for the failures and pointed instead to the role of customers’ realtors. He argued that realtors referred clients to his program, drew up the paperwork, and explained the terms, while Banken “only came in at the end of the process.”
Pierce also told jurors that prospective buyers approached Banken—not the other way around—and that Banken only offered a menu of options for customers to choose from. “Is that wrong?” Pierce asked the jury. “Are we going to punish somebody for providing the opportunity for someone else to buy a house in the option they wanted?”.
For the moment. the jury’s finding stands: a contract-for-deed system marketed as “sharia compliant” and built around vulnerable buyers has now been ruled to violate Minnesota’s Human Rights Act. with additional violations found in other consumer-protection statutes that will ultimately be decided by a judge.
The next phase will turn on what the court does with restitution, penalties, and the possibility of fines up to $25,000 per violation—an outcome that the families who testified say they need to match what happened when faith, paperwork, and finance collided in their lives.
Minnesota Keith Ellison Chadwick Banken contract for deed sharia compliant Minnesota Human Rights Act Consumer Financial Protection Act consumer fraud deceptive trade practices Hennepin County District Court restitution
So basically they used “sharia compliant” as marketing? Sounds shady.
I don’t even know what contract-for-deed is but if the buyers were being tricked then yeah that’s messed up. Also Ellison suing makes sense, he always goes after stuff like this.
Wait I thought sharia compliant meant it follows Islamic rules, not like a scam? How is that even legal. Maybe the jury just got the wrong idea because the title makes it sound like the whole religion was involved, not the guy doing contracts.
Eight hours of deliberations and they ‘drew a hard line’ like okay but what about the paperwork itself, who checks that? People hear “dream home” and sign anything, so I’m not surprised it turned into a trap. Contract for deed has always sounded like loophole stuff to me, but now they’re pinning it on sharia words which is… confusing. Sounds like whoever did the marketing knew what they were doing, though.