First Motion in Limine to Admit — USA v. Alexandra Acosta (Dkt. 38, S.D. Fla.)

Record facts

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida · No. 0:23-cr-60170-RNS · Doc. 38 · 2024-05-11 · Docket on CourtListener

Full text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 
 
CASE NO. 23-60170-CR-SCOLA 
 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 
 
 
 
 
v. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ALEXANDRA ACOSTA and 
VILSAINT ST LOUIS, 
 
 
 
       Defendants. 
                                                           / 
 
UNITED STATES’ MOTION IN LIMINE TO ADMIT  
INEXTRICABBLY INTERTWINED EVIDENCE OR, IN THE  
ALTERNATIVE, EVIDENCE OF OTHER CRIMES,  
WRONGS, OR ACTS, PURSUANT TO FED. R. EVID. 404(b)(2)  
 
Introduction 
 
“St Louis, Please do not bring up anything about my IRS case 
or the loan to my wife. She does not know about it and I don’t want 
to stress her out. Thanks!”  
 
02/16/21 Email from Defendant Alexandra Acosta (“Acosta”) to Defendant 
Vilsaint St Louis (“St Louis”) (emphasis added). 
 
 
At trial, the United States of America intends to introduce the following 
evidence: 
(1) 
Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) records, Acosta’s emails, and 
witness testimony about Acosta’s 2018, 2019, and 2020 tax returns and an IRS 
tax audit of Acosta’s 2018 and 2019 tax returns—which returns were prepared 
with the help of St Louis—resulting in a January 21, 2021 Report of Income Tax 
Examination Changes reflecting that Acosta owed the IRS $18,491.55—just two 
weeks before the Defendants fraudulently applied for a $20,180 Paycheck 
Protection Program (“PPP”) loan (collectively, the “IRS Evidence”);   
Case 0:23-cr-60170-RNS   Document 38   Entered on FLSD Docket 05/11/2024   Page 1 of 12

2 
 
(2) 
Documents and testimony about Section 3.16 of the Broward 
County Sheriff’s Office Policy Manual, titled “OFF-DUTY and EXTRA DUTY 
EMPLOYMENT,” including completed off-duty employment forms by Acosta in 
2016, 2017, and 2018, and the absence of completed forms for 2019, 2020, and 
2021 (collectively, the “BSO Policy Evidence”); and 
(3) 
Documents and testimony about Broward County civil case number 
CACE21-022582, related to Acosta’s dispute with a pool contractor, in which 
Acosta attached a copy of a $70,000 contract executed on June 2, 2020, for the 
construction of a pool that led to a counterclaim for $19,500 in unpaid labor that 
completed on June 30, 2021, i.e., during the alleged conspiracy to defraud the 
United States of $20,180 (collectively, the “Pool Evidence”); and 
 
The United States submits that the aforementioned evidence is 
inextricably intertwined with the charged crimes in that it relates to the chain of 
events explaining the context, motive, and set-up of the crime at issue—the 
fraudulent application for $20,180 PPP loan on February 1 through 4, 2021, and 
the fraudulent application for forgiveness of that loan on April 21, 2021. In the 
alternative, the IRS, BSO Policy, and Pool Evidence should be admitted under 
Rule 404(b) to prove motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, opportunity, 
and knowledge.   
Background 
 
The Superseding Indictment charges the Defendants with one count of 
conspiracy to defraud the United States, 18 U.S.C. § 371, two counts of false 
statements to the Small Business Administration (“SBA”), 18 U.S.C. § 645(a), 
Case 0:23-cr-60170-RNS   Document 38   Entered on FLSD Docket 05/11/2024   Page 2 of 12

3 
 
and one count of wire fraud, 18 U.S.C. § 1343, all in relation to a fraudulent 
Paycheck Protection Program (“PPP”) loan application and loan forgiveness 
application that were submitted to the Small Business Administration (“SBA”) 
through its approved lender and servicer. ECF No. 23. 
 
Defendant Acosta was a full-time Broward County Deputy Sheriff with 
$13,904 income as a real estate broker in 2019, $0 as a real estate broker in 
2020, and no income as a real estate broker in 2021 during the alleged 
conspiracy. 
 
Defendant St Louis was the Chief Executive Officer of Victory Tax Inc. and 
had prepared Acosta’s taxes for many years, including tax years 2018, 2019, 
2020, and 2021.  St Louis is scheduled to change his plea on May 14, 2024. ECF 
No. 33. 
 
On February 1, 2021, around 12 pm, Acosta and St Louis created an 
online application for a PPP loan. On February 3, 2021, Acosta and St Louis 
finalized the application for the maximum loan amount for a sole-proprietor 
under the PPP using materially1 false information about Acosta’s average 
monthly payroll, i.e., $8072 per month, and fraudulent representations about 
purpose of the loan, i.e., payroll costs, rent/mortgage interest, utilities, covered 
operations expenditures, covered property damage, covered supplier costs, and 
covered worker protection expenditures. The Defendants also submitted a false 
2019 Form 1099-MISC, Miscellaneous Income listing $103,255 in nonemployee 
 
1 Materiality is only required to prove Count 4—wire fraud. Counts 1–3 do not 
require materiality of the false statement. 
Case 0:23-cr-60170-RNS   Document 38   Entered on FLSD Docket 05/11/2024   Page 3 of 12

4 
 
compensation from payer, Valordog, LLC and a false 2019 IRS Form Schedule 
C-Profit or Loss From Business (Sole Proprietorship) listing a business name of 
Valordog, LLC and purported gross income of $103,255.   
 
The application was created electronically using Acosta’s Gmail account 
and signed through a DocuSign link sent to Acosta’s Gmail account. Copies of 
the loan application and promissory note were provided to Acosta’s Gmail 
account contemporaneously. As a result of the fraudulent representations in the 
application, the SBA and its approved lender approved and funded the maximum 
forgivable loan under the PPP program for a sole proprietor—i.e., $20,180. 
 
That same day, Acosta executed a $19,000 transfer of the loan proceeds 
into her Robinhood Markets, Inc. trading account. Ultimately, $10,000 cleared 
on February 10 and it was immediately used to purchase $8,000 in shares of 
one publicly traded stock.   
 
On April 21, 2021, Acosta provided St Louis with her personal Gmail login 
credentials to access the loan servicer’s online portal to apply for PPP loan 
forgiveness, i.e., that she used the loan on the qualified business expenses listed 
in the application for the loan—they were not.  On June 11, 2021, the SBA 
forgave the loan totaling $20,180 plus interest.  
Memorandum of Law 
A. 
The IRS, BSO Policy, and Pool Evidence is Inextricably 
Intertwined with the Charged Offenses 
 
Evidence of other bad acts is not extrinsic under Rule 404(b) if it: (1) arose 
out of the same transaction as the charged offense; (2) is necessary to complete 
the story of the crime; or (3) is inextricably linked with the charged offense. 
Case 0:23-cr-60170-RNS   Document 38   Entered on FLSD Docket 05/11/2024   Page 4 of 12

5 
 
United States v. Ellisor, 522 F.3d 1255, 1269 (11th Cir. 2008); United States v. 
Edouard, 485 F.3d 1324, 1344 (11th Cir. 2007) (“[E]vidence is inextricably 
intertwined with the evidence regarding the charged offense if it forms an 
‘integral and natural part of the witness’s accounts of the circumstances 
surrounding the offenses to which the defendant was indicted.’” (quoting United 
States v. Foster, 889 F.2d 1049, 1053 (11th Cir. 1989)); United States v. McClean, 
138 F.3d 1398, 1403 (11th Cir. 1998) (“Evidence, not part of the crime charged 
but pertaining to the chain of events explaining the context, motive and set-up 
of the crime, is properly admitted if it is linked in time and circumstances with 
the charged crime, or forms an integral and natural part of an account of the 
crime, or is necessary to complete the story of the crime for the jury.” (internal 
quotation marks omitted)). 
The IRS Evidence 
 
At trial, the United States will offer the IRS Evidence in the form of the 
certified 2018, 2019, and 2020 tax returns and the certified examination file for 
the 2018 and 2019 audit, email correspondence between Acosta and St Louis 
about the audit (referred to by Acosta as “the tax case”), and testimony.   
 
First, as to the 2018 through 2020 tax returns, these records are probative 
of Acosta’s real estate earnings in the relevant periods surrounding the 2019 
year that she relied on for her PPP loan and provide context to any purported 
operations as a real estate broker in 2020 and 2021 when she applied for the 
$20,180 PPP loan, which is also probative of whether she knew that she was not 
entitled to the $20,180 loan.   
Case 0:23-cr-60170-RNS   Document 38   Entered on FLSD Docket 05/11/2024   Page 5 of 12

6 
 
 
Second, as to the IRS audit of Acosta’s 2018 and 2019 tax returns, the 
evidence shows that the IRS contacted Acosta in December 2020 about the 
issues with her 2018 and 2019 tax returns. Acosta was interviewed on December 
17, 2020, via telephone. The IRS records reflect that Acosta said she makes an 
appointment with St Louis as her tax preparer and that she takes him her tax 
forms and some receipts for purchases, credit card statements, gas receipts, 
supplies for her home office, etc. for the Schedule C expenses. Acosta stated that 
she and St Louis figured out the expenses together. She stated that St Louis 
analyzed it pretty well because she is there for a while. She said that the figure 
she puts on the Schedule C is “pretty close to what she has in her head” and 
that she sat with St Louis for 2018 and 2019 returns. She said that St Louis 
went over the returns with her each year. After she explained some expenses on 
her 2018 Schedule C, Acosta reiterated that all figures and expenses on the 
Schedule C were information that she and St Louis came up with together—she 
did not leave it all to him.  
 
On January 21, 2021—about 11 days before the PPP loan application was 
started—the IRS provided Acosta and St Louis with an Examination Change 
Report that reflected $12,675.55 and $5,816.00 in taxes and penalties 
($18,491.55 total) owed by Acosta for overreporting business expenses in 2018 
and 2019 respectively. During the audit, the IRS interacted with both Acosta and 
St Louis as Acosta’s limited power of attorney to discuss those tax years.  
 
On February 1, 2021—the same day the PPP loan application was created 
on behalf of Acosta—Acosta and St Louis jointly spoke to the examiner about the 
Case 0:23-cr-60170-RNS   Document 38   Entered on FLSD Docket 05/11/2024   Page 6 of 12

7 
 
issues with Acosta’s 2018 and 2019 tax returns. The evidence also shows that 
the PPP application was created that same day with an Internet Protocol address 
associated with St Louis’s email victorytaxes@gmail.com. The audit remained 
open as Acosta tried to lower the liability and eliminate the penalties. On March 
29, 2021, before using St Louis to apply for forgiveness for the PPP loan by 
sending him her email login information, and in an attempt to eliminate the tax 
penalties assessed, Acosta sent the IRS a self-serving letter contradicting the 
information previously provided during her December 17, 2020 interview.  
Acosta stated that she did not know where St Louis got the figures in her 2018 
and 2019 returns and recanted her statement that she was with him in person 
those years to do her returns.   
 The timing of the IRS audit of Acosta’s 2018 and 2019 tax returns, which 
were prepared with her co-conspirator St Louis, is such that it established a 
clear motive for the defendants to seek a fraudulent loan. Indeed, the amount 
Acosta was told she owed was incredibly close to the amount Acosta would now 
get through the PPP program. Acosta herself linked the two actions together in 
an email to St Louis on February 16, 2021, wherein she stated: “St Louis, Please 
do not bring up anything about my IRS case or the loan to my wife. She does 
not know about it and I don’t want to stress her out. Thanks!” It is also probative 
of her plan, preparation, knowledge, intent, and opportunity to apply for the loan 
with St Louis.   
Furthermore, the IRS Evidence cuts against any potential good faith 
defense  as to intent to defraud because it strains credulity that during a period 
Case 0:23-cr-60170-RNS   Document 38   Entered on FLSD Docket 05/11/2024   Page 7 of 12

8 
 
where Acosta was being significantly challenged on the details of a formal 
submission to the United States with the help of St Louis, she would then blindly 
rely on St Louis on two more formal submissions to the United States regarding 
a $20,180 loan and a promissory note.  
The BSO Policy Evidence 
In pertinent part, the BSO Off-Duty Employment Policy requires all BSO 
employees to seek and receive BSO’s approval for any off-duty employment, 
including self-employment. This approval “sunset” every year and employees had 
to seek reapproval. Acosta completed the forms for 2016, 2017, and 2018, but 
not for 2019, 2020, or 2021. Evidence of her prior compliance and then cessation 
of reporting the employment is not offered to show that she violated a policy in 
2019, 2020, or 2021, rather, it is relevant evidence that the Court should admit 
at trial because it is probative of whether Acosta could have believed that she 
was entitled to the maximum PPP loan for a sole proprietor when she did not 
consider her outside employment significant enough to report as she had 
previously done, i.e., knowledge and intent. 
The United States does not intend to argue that Acosta violated the BSO 
Off-Duty Employment Policy by not reporting off-duty employment for the year 
2019, 2020, or 2021; rather, the United States will argue that Acosta did not 
report any off-duty employment to BSO for those years because Acosta knew 
that real estate side hustle was de minimis, i.e., not worth reporting as off-duty 
employment, and thus, Acosta knew she was not entitled to a $20,180, forgivable 
PPP loan. 
Case 0:23-cr-60170-RNS   Document 38   Entered on FLSD Docket 05/11/2024   Page 8 of 12

9 
 
Finally, to the extent that Defendant should have sought and received 
BSO’s approval for off-duty employment pursuant to the BSO Off-Duty 
Employment Policy because Defendant made a couple of real-estate transactions 
in 2019, the United States will not argue that such a policy violation is evidence 
tending to show that Defendant breaks rules. In fact, the United States will argue 
that she effectively did not break the rules because she knew she wasn’t doing 
anything with real estate worth reporting.   
The Pool Evidence 
 
The Pool Evidence is primarily the existence of a large, $70,000 home-
improvement expenditure during the relevant period that was funded by a bank 
loan, the existence of which is augmented by the outstanding balance of $19,500 
that is alleged to have remained unpaid to the contractor as of June 2021—an 
amount that is almost equal to the IRS levy and the PPP loan. The evidence is 
not offered not to show that Acosta has been sued, or that she is the type of 
person who would breach a contract and not pay someone for work, it is offered 
as probative of Acosta’s motive to defraud because Acosta was dealing with a 
large outstanding expenditure when she applied for the PPP loan in addition to 
the tax liability and at the time she applied for loan forgiveness. 
B. 
In the Alternative, the IRS, BSO Policy, and Pool Evidence is 
Admissible Under Fed. R. Evid. 404(b)(2) 
 
 
To the extent not admitted as necessary to complete the story of the crime 
and inextricably intertwined, the IRS, BSO Policy, and Pool Evidence is 
admissible under Rule 404(b)(2). Rule 404(b) provides that “[e]vidence of other 
crimes, wrongs, or acts” may be admitted “as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, 
Case 0:23-cr-60170-RNS   Document 38   Entered on FLSD Docket 05/11/2024   Page 9 of 12

10 
 
preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident” with 
respect to the charged offense. Fed. R. Evid. 404(b)(2). Rule 404(b) is a rule of 
“inclusion which allows [extrinsic] evidence unless it tends to prove only criminal 
propensity.” See United States v. Stephens, 365 F.3d 967, 975 (11th Cir. 2004) 
(quoting United States v. Cohen, 888 F.2d 770, 776 (11th Cir. 1989) (internal 
quotations omitted)); United States v. Jernigan, 341 F.3d 1273, 1280 (11th Cir. 
2003) (“Rule 404(b) is a rule of inclusion, and . . . accordingly 404(b) evidence, 
like other relevant evidence, should not be lightly excluded when it is central to 
the prosecution’s case.”). Rule 404(b) evidence is not limited to criminal 
convictions, but can consist of uncharged crimes, wrongs, or other acts. Indeed, 
even evidence of an act for which a defendant was previously acquitted can be 
admitted under Rule 404(b). See Dowling v. United States, 493 U.S. 342, 348–49 
(1990); United States v. Culver, 598 F.3d 740, 748–49 (11th Cir. 2010).  
A district court wields considerable discretion in deciding whether to admit 
other crimes, wrongs, or other acts evidence under Rule 404(b).  United States v. 
Hicks, 798 F.2d 446, 451 (11th Cir. 1986). The test for admissibility of Rule 
404(b) evidence is as follows: (1) the evidence must be relevant to an issue other 
than the defendant’s character; (2) the act must be established by sufficient proof 
to permit a jury finding that the defendant committed the extrinsic act; and (3) 
the probative value of the evidence must not be substantially outweighed by its 
undue prejudice under Rule 403.  United States v. Miller, 959 F.2d 1535, 1538 
(11th Cir. 1992) (en banc); see also United States v. Mills, 138 F.3d 928 (11th 
Cir. 1998).   
Case 0:23-cr-60170-RNS   Document 38   Entered on FLSD Docket 05/11/2024   Page 10 of 12

11 
 
As addressed in the prior section, the IRS, BSO Policy, and Pool Evidence 
is relevant as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, and 
knowledge with respect to the charged conduct.   
Second, there can be no dispute that the IRS, BSO Policy, and Pool 
Evidence adequately support a jury finding consistent with what it is being 
offered to show, i.e., (1) Acosta had a substantial tax liability that gave her motive 
to lie for $20,180 and that the same person with whom she is charged with 
conspiring was also responsible for her tax liability; (2) Acosta did not file off-
duty employment disclosures for 2019, 2020, 2021, which shows she did not 
believe her side-hustle was substantial enough to warrant disclosure and thus 
should not have warranted the maximum, $20,180 in forgivable loans from the 
SBA; and (3) she had a substantial financial undertaking during the same period 
that she was hit with the tax liability and she had an outstanding balance on the 
pool contract that is almost the same amount as the PPP loan.    
Third, the probative value of the IRS, BSO Policy, and Pool Evidence is not 
substantially outweighed by its undue prejudice under Rule 403. This evidence 
is highly probative for the purpose for which the United States seeks its 
admission (i.e., to show motive, intent, knowledge, opportunity, preparation, and 
plan). The BSO Policy Evidence is not unduly prejudicial and will not be offered 
or argued as some basis to show that Acosta breaks rules. The Pool Evidence 
could carry slight prejudice as to the dispute portion with a contractor, but it 
does not outweigh the probative value of the motive for her to need the fraudulent 
loan. And though the existence of an IRS audit could be cast as prejudicial, here, 
Case 0:23-cr-60170-RNS   Document 38   Entered on FLSD Docket 05/11/2024   Page 11 of 12

12 
 
the timing, impact, and parties involved in that audit are so probative of the 
motive, knowledge, opportunity, intent, preparation, and plan in this case that 
any prejudice does not substantially outweigh the probative value. Accordingly, 
this Court should permit the IRS, BSO Policy, and Pool evidence to be introduced 
in the United States’ case in chief.    
Certificate Pursuant to Local Rule 88.9 
 
Pursuant to Local Rule 88.9, undersigned counsel met and conferred in 
good faith with counsel of record for Defendant Alexandra Acosta, Attorney Brian 
Silber, via Microsoft Teams on May 1, 2024, and via telephone on May 6, 2024, 
to resolve the issues raised in this Motion but the parties were unable to do so.   
Conclusion 
The United States submits that the IRS, BSO Policy, and Pool Evidence is 
admissible as inextricably intertwined with the charged offenses, or, in the 
alternative, pursuant to Rule 404(b)(2) as prior uncharged crimes, wrongs, and 
acts relevant to prove motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, and 
knowledge.  
Respectfully submitted, 
 
    
MARKENZY LAPOINTE 
  
 
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY 
 
 
BY:      Trevor C. Jones 
TREVOR C. JONES 
Assistant United States Attorney 
Fla. Bar No. 0092793 
500 E. Broward Blvd., 7th Floor 
 
Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33394 
Tel: (786) 564-9109 
Trevor.Jones@usdoj.gov  
 
Case 0:23-cr-60170-RNS   Document 38   Entered on FLSD Docket 05/11/2024   Page 12 of 12

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.flsd.654235.38.0.pdf

Size

180,601 bytes

SHA-256

9bea533f9e7f1808b4d5bda815a1ced2efbc7803a812f9f9a6b11db97c9b9287

Our copy

gov.uscourts.flsd.654235.38.0.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)