Pandemic Darlings The pandemic economy, in original documents
Home Court filings USA v. Lorquet United States v. Andre Lorquet — S.D. Fla., No. 1:22-cr-20326-KMM Objections to Report and Recommendations 99 by Andre Lorquet — USA v. Lorquet (Dkt. 100, S.D. Fla.)

Court filing

Objections to Report and Recommendations 99 by Andre Lorquet — USA v. Lorquet (Dkt. 100, S.D. Fla.)

Filed December 22, 2023 in USA v. Lorquet; one of 145 filings from this case.

Record facts

CourtU.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida
Filed2023-12-22

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida · No. 1:22-cr-20326-KMM · Doc. 100 · 2023-12-22 · Docket on CourtListener

Full text

Page 1 of 5 
 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT  
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA  
 
CASE NO. 22-20326-CR-KMM 
 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,  
 
 
 
 
Plaintiff,  
 
 
 
 
 
 
v.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANDRE LORQUET  
 
 
  
 
 
Defendant. 
_____________________________/ 
DEFENDANT’S OBJECTIONS TO REPORT AND  
RECOMMENDATION TO DENY MOTION TO WITHDRAW GUILTY PLEA 
 
Defendant, Andre Lorquet, objects to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and 
Recommendation that his motion to withdraw guilty plea be denied.   
In his motion to withdraw his guilty plea, Mr. Lorquet averred that he pled 
guilty because he was under pressure from his lawyer and believed that his lawyer 
would not defend him at trial. ECF 85. He argued that he did not have the close 
assistance of counsel, who had pressured him to plead guilty, he was threatened, the 
expenditure of additional judicial resources would be measured and modest, and 
that the government would not be prejudiced. Id. Mr. Lorquet also testified at a 
hearing held by the Magistrate Judge. In objecting to the Magistrate Judge’s Report 
and Recommendation, Mr. Lorquet is entitled to de novo review. See 28 U.S.C. § 636. 
Indeed, he must object if he is to preserve appellate review. Aware of that fact, Mr. 
Lorquet instructed the undersigned counsel to object to the R&R.    
Case 1:22-cr-20326-KMM   Document 100   Entered on FLSD Docket 12/22/2023   Page 1 of 5

Page 2 of 5 
 
Mr. Lorquet objects to the Magistrate’s Judge’s findings and conclusions and 
restates and advances the facts and arguments that he made in his motion to 
withdraw his guilty plea.  ECF 85.  As he testified, he only pled guilty because he 
felt his back was against the wall.  His lawyer had abandoned him as far as he was 
concerned. And he had been threatened by people who did not want his trial to 
expose their involvement in the loan fraud scheme with which Mr. Lorquet was 
charged.  
Mr. Lorquet further avers that there is new evidence which seriously calls 
into question whether he committed aggravated identity pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 
1028A as charged in count 9.  The alleged victim of the alleged aggravated identity 
theft is an accountant named “CD” who owns a company called Evolve Financial 
Services.  The government’s evidence and theory of the case, as it relates to count 9, 
is that CD’s identity was used without her knowledge or involvement to submit false 
tax documents to the Small Business Administration (SBA) in connection with a 
fraudulent Covid-relief loan. See Indictment, count 9, ECF 1 (charging aggravated 
identity theft), and Factual Proffer, ECF 47 (stating that how CD’s name as tax 
preparer and electronic filing identification number were listed on IRS form1120 
submitted to the SBA).     
During an ongoing investigation into other fraudulent Covid-relief loans, the 
government recently uncovered evidence, which indicates that CD appears to have 
been involved in fraudulent Covid-relief loans like those at issue in the instance case. 
CD’s company Evolve Financial Services, it turns out, was paid tens of thousands of 
Case 1:22-cr-20326-KMM   Document 100   Entered on FLSD Docket 12/22/2023   Page 2 of 5

Page 3 of 5 
 
dollars from Covid-relief loan borrowers.  Attached as composite Exhibit “A” are 
redacted copies of some of those checks,1 which show highly suspicious payments to 
Evolve Financial Services. The following payments are shown in the checks attached 
as composite exhibit A: 
• May 19, 2020 ACH transfer to Evolve Financial Services of $178,258.   
• June 30, 2202 Check to Evolve Financial Services for $59,425. Check does 
identify the account holder and the subject line states “payment.” 
• June 1, 2020 Deposit to TD Bank Account Check Withdrawal of $8,800, 
$5,000 of which is Cashier’s Check to CD, personally.   
• July 1, 2020 Check to Evolve Financial Services for $63,750 from RBA 
Global, LLC 20401 NW 2nd Avenue, Ste 208, Miami Gardens Drive. 
• July 3, 2020 Check to Evolve Financial Services for $57,784 from 
Leveraged Investments, Inc., 8695 NW 24th Court Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 
33322. That address is in Sunrise rather than Ft. Lauderdale and Google 
Maps shows it is a humble single-family home in a residential 
neighborhood.  
The amounts of the checks and payments, which are for significant sums and do not 
look like they relate to any legitimate tax accounting services, makes it appear that 
CD was paid a cut of multiple borrowers’ fraudulent loans in exchange for having 
helped them obtain the loans.  
 
1 The government produced additional checks and documents, including $150,000 in multiple 
payments from a company to CD’s company, Evolve Financial Services. The PDF copies, however, 
were corrupted so that they could not be redacted and thus they are not included in the exhibit.    
Case 1:22-cr-20326-KMM   Document 100   Entered on FLSD Docket 12/22/2023   Page 3 of 5

Page 4 of 5 
 
This newly discovered Brady evidence seriously challenges the notion that 
anyone used CD’s identity without her involvement in the fraudulent loan as alleged 
in connection with the aggravated identity theft offense charged in count 9. As such, 
the new evidence provides a fair and just reason for withdrawal of the guilty plea to 
count 9.  See United States v. Garcia, 401 F.3d. 1011-1012 (9th Cir. 2005) (ruling that 
newly discovered evidence constituted “fair and just reason” permitting withdraw of 
guilty plea because it “could have plausibly motivated a reasonable person in 
Garcia’s position to have not pled guilty had he known about the evidence before 
pleading guilty.”) (Finding that district court improperly focused on the 
voluntariness of the plea and timing of motion to withdraw the plea.); Unted States 
v. Baptista, 738 Fed. App’x 384, 386 (9th Cir. 2018) (holding that in considering new 
evidence, “the district court should ask whether new evidence could have motivated 
the defendant to plead not guilty.”); United States v. Groll, 992 F.2d 755, 759-60 (7th 
Cir. 1993) (vacating district court’s refusal to permit withdrawal of guilty plea as 
abuse of discretion where presentence investigation report presented unrebutted 
evidence corroborating entrapment defense). It is difficult to believe that a tax 
preparer awash in proceeds from her “clients” fraudulent loans was somehow duped 
and victimized in connection with the use of her name and identity in the submission 
of the fraudulent tax documents tied to count 9 in this case. Had Mr. Lorquet known 
before he pled guilty that there existed evidence of numerous shady checks paid to 
CD’s company from which we can infer that she is a Covid-relief loan fraudster, he 
would not have pled guilty to count 9. 
Case 1:22-cr-20326-KMM   Document 100   Entered on FLSD Docket 12/22/2023   Page 4 of 5

Page 5 of 5 
 
In sum, Mr. Lorquet avers that the Magistrate Judge was wrong in 
recommending that his motion to withdraw his guilty plea be denied. And he further 
avers that the evidence discovered after he pled guilty, which shows that CD is more 
likely was a conspirator rather than a victim of identity theft, provides a fair and 
just reason for withdrawal of his guilty plea to the aggravated identity theft charge 
in count 9. 
 
 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 
 
I HEREBY CERTIFY that, on December 22, 2023, a true and correct copy of 
the foregoing has been furnished electronically via CMCEF to all counsel of record. 
Respectfully submitted,  
 
BELL ROSQUETE REYES ESTEBAN, PLLC 
Henry P. Bell 
Fla. Bar No. 090689 
999 Ponce De Leon Blvd.  
Suite 810 
Coral Gables, Florida 33134 
Telephone:  (305) 570-1610 
Facsimile:  (305) 570-1599 
Email: 
hbell@bresq.com  
Counsel to Andre Lorquet 
 
By: ____s/Henry P. Bell_____ 
Henry P. Bel 
 
CC: Andre Lorquet – FDC Miami 
Case 1:22-cr-20326-KMM   Document 100   Entered on FLSD Docket 12/22/2023   Page 5 of 5

File and source

File
gov.uscourts.flsd.616975.100.0.pdf
Size
217,397 bytes
SHA-256
b06a1ab6abe009d45f2502d5aad7562352f4fd159a967dda919ccd3bceabfebc
Our copy
gov.uscourts.flsd.616975.100.0.pdf
Original
PACER (login required)
Back to top