Proposed Order — USA v. Ayvazyan et al (Dkt. 264.2)

Summary

A [Proposed] Order Continuing Trial Date and Findings Regarding Excludable Time Periods Pursuant to Speedy Trial Act, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on April 7, 2021 as Document 264-2 in United States of America v. Richard Ayvazyan, et al., Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW. It lists a proposed trial date for all defendants of 8/24/2021 at 8:30 AM. The proposed order recites the government’s ex parte application and the district’s General Orders and Chief Judge Orders on court operations, and would make findings excluding time under the Speedy Trial Act. It is 11 pages, presented by Assistant United States Attorneys Scott Paetty and Brian Faerstein and DOJ Trial Attorney Christopher Fenton, with a signature line for United States District Judge Stephen V. Wilson.

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Record facts

Full text

1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
TRACY L. WILKISON 
Acting United States Attorney 
BRANDON D. FOX 
Assistant United States Attorney 
Chief, Criminal Division 
SCOTT PAETTY (Cal. Bar No. 274719) 
BRIAN FAERSTEIN (Cal. Bar No. 274850) 
Assistant United States Attorneys 
Major Frauds/Environmental and Community Safety Crimes Sections 
1100/1300 United States Courthouse 
312 North Spring Street 
Los Angeles, California 90012 
Telephone: (213) 894-6527/3819 
Facsimile: (213) 894-6269/0141 
E-mail: 
Scott.Paetty@usdoj.gov/Brian.Faerstein@usdoj.gov 
 
DANIEL S. KAHN 
Acting Chief, Fraud Section 
Criminal Division, U.S. Department of Justice 
CHRISTOPHER FENTON 
Trial Attorney, Fraud Section 
Criminal Division, U.S. Department of Justice 
1400 New York Avenue NW, 3rd Floor 
Washington, DC 20530 
Telephone: (202) 320-0539 
Facsimile: (202) 514-0152 
 
E-mail: 
Christopher.Fenton@usdoj.gov 
 
Attorneys for Plaintiff 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 
 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
 
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 
 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 
 
 
 
Plaintiff, 
 
 
 
v. 
 
RICHARD AYVAZYAN, 
aka “Richard Avazian” and 
    “Iuliia Zhadko,” 
MARIETTA TERABELIAN, 
  aka “Marietta Abelian” and     
      “Viktoria Kauichko,” 
ARTUR AYVAZYAN, 
aka “Arthur Ayvazyan,” and 
TAMARA DADYAN, 
MANUK GRIGORYAN, 
  aka “Mike Grigoryan,” and 
      “Anton Kudiumov,” 
ARMAN HAYRAPETYAN, 
EDVARD PARONYAN, 
No. CR 20-579(A)-SVW 
[PROPOSED] ORDER CONTINUING  
TRIAL DATE AND FINDINGS 
REGARDING EXCLUDABLE TIME 
PERIODS PURSUANT TO SPEEDY TRIAL 
ACT 
[PROPOSED] TRIAL DATE (All 
Defendants): 
 
8/24/2021 at 8:30 AM 
 
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW     Document 264-2     Filed 04/07/21     Page 1 of 11   Page ID
#:2253

 
2 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
aka “Edvard Paronian” and 
    “Edward Paronyan,” and 
VAHE DADYAN, 
 
Defendants. 
Having considered the United States of America’s Ex Parte 
Application for Continuance of Trial Date and Findings of Excludable 
Time Pursuant to the Speedy Trial Act, which the Court incorporates 
into this Order, as well as the Central District of California’s 
General Orders Nos. 20-02, 20-03, 20-05, 20-08 Amended, 20-09, 20-
12, 20-15, and 21-03, Chief Judge Orders Nos. 20-042, 20-043, 20-
044, 20-078, 20-080, 20-097, 20-179, 20-186, 21-002, 21-031, and 
Notices of the Clerk including the Expiration of Continuity of 
Operations Plan and Phased Reopening of the Court, and good cause 
appearing, the Court hereby FINDS AS FOLLOWS: 
1. 
The original Indictment in this case was filed on 
November 17, 2020.   
2. 
Defendants Richard AYVAZYAN (“R. AYVAZYAN”) and 
Marietta TERABELIAN first appeared before a judicial officer of 
the Court in which the charges alleged in the original 
Indictment were pending on December 4, 2020.  The Speedy Trial 
Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 3161 and 3174(b), originally required that the 
trials of defendants R. AYVAZYAN and TERABELIAN commence on or 
before June 2, 2021.   
3. 
Defendants Artur AYVAZYAN (“A. AYVAZYAN”) and Tamara 
DADYAN (“T. DADYAN”) first appeared before a judicial officer of 
the Court in which the charges alleged in the original 
Indictment were pending on November 5, 2020, initially appearing 
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW     Document 264-2     Filed 04/07/21     Page 2 of 11   Page ID
#:2254

 
3 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
on a criminal complaint filed November 3, 2020.  The Speedy 
Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 3161 and 3174(b), originally required 
that the trials of defendants A. AYVAZYAN and T. DADYAN commence 
on or before May 16, 2021. 
4. 
On December 3 and 4, 2020, the Court set the case on 
the original Indictment against defendants R. AYVAZYAN, 
TERABELIAN, A. AYVAZYAN, and T. DADYAN for trial on January 12, 
2021.  On December 22, 2020, the Court continued the trial date 
as to defendants R. AYVAZYAN, TERABELIAN, A. AYVAZYAN, and T. 
DADYAN to May 4, 2021. 
5. 
The First Superseding Indictment was filed on March 
9, 2021, and unsealed March 11, 2021. 
6. 
Defendants Manuk GRIGORYAN, Edvard PARONYAN, and Vahe 
DADYAN (“V. DADYAN”) first appeared before a judicial officer of 
the Court in which the charges alleged in the First Superseding 
Indictment were pending on March 11, 2021.  The Speedy Trial 
Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 3161 and 3174(b), required that the trials of 
defendants GRIGORYAN, PARONYAN, and V. DADYAN commence on or 
before September 7, 2021.     
7. 
On March 11, 2021, the Court set a trial date of May 
4, 2021, as to defendants GRIGORYAN, PARONYAN, and V. DADYAN.   
8. 
Defendant ARMAN HAYRAPETYAN first appeared before a 
judicial officer of the Court in which the charges alleged in 
the First Superseding Indictment were pending on March 25, 2021.  
The Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3161, required that the trial 
of defendant HAYRAPETYAN commence on or before June 3, 2021.  
9. 
On March 25, 2021, the Court set a trial date of May 
18, 2021, as to defendant HAYRAPETYAN, who is detained pending 
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW     Document 264-2     Filed 04/07/21     Page 3 of 11   Page ID
#:2255

 
4 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
trial.  The other seven defendants currently are released on 
bond. 
10. 
As alleged in the First Superseding Indictment filed 
on March 9, 2021, defendants are charged with conspiracy to 
commit bank fraud and wire fraud, in violation 18 U.S.C. § 1349; 
wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343; bank fraud and 
attempted bank fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1344(2); and 
conspiracy to commit money laundering, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 
§ 1956(h).  Six of the defendants also are charged with 
aggravated identity theft, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 
§ 1028A(a)(1), and two of the defendants are charged with 
individual counts of concealment money laundering, in violation 
of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(1)(B)(i).  The government has already 
produced 17 volumes of discovery, including over 150,000 pages 
of loan files, bank records, information obtained from Internet 
Service Providers, and information obtained from state and 
federal government agencies, among other documents and records, 
as well as video and audio recordings and photographs.  The 
government has also made available for inspection the physical 
evidence seized pursuant to search warrants for seven 
properties.  The government estimates that its case-in-chief in 
this matter will last approximately 8-10 days.  All defendants 
are joined for trial and a severance has not been granted. 
11. 
There currently are six motions filed by defendants 
pending before the Court, including five motions to suppress 
evidence, which the government has opposed, and one motion to 
enforce the Court’s discovery order, which the government 
intends to oppose in a timely manner.    
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW     Document 264-2     Filed 04/07/21     Page 4 of 11   Page ID
#:2256

 
5 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
12. 
The Court has previously continued the trial date in 
this case from January 12, 2021, to May 4, 2021, and found the 
interim period to be excluded in computing the time within which 
the trial must commence, pursuant to the Speedy Trial Act. 
13. 
On March 13, 2020, following the President’s 
declaration of a national emergency in response to COVID-19, the 
Central District of California entered a General Order 
suspending jury selection and jury trials scheduled to begin 
before April 13, 2020.  C.D. Cal. General Order No. 20-02, In 
Re: Coronavirus Public Emergency, Order Concerning Jury Trials 
and Other Proceedings (Mar. 13, 2020).  Since then, the Court 
has issued numerous orders placing restrictions on criminal 
proceedings, including grand jury proceedings, in-person 
hearings, and the continued suspension of jury trials.  See, 
e.g., C.D. Cal. General Order No. 20-03, In Re: Coronavirus 
Public Emergency, Order Concerning Access to Court Facilities 
(Mar. 13, 2020); C.D. Cal. Order of the Chief Judge No. 20-042 
(Mar. 19, 2020) (“Continuing Operations Plan” or “COOP Plan”); 
C.D. Cal. Orders of the Chief Judge Nos. 20-043 (Mar. 29, 2020) 
and 20-044 (Mar. 31, 2020) (authorizing video appearances for 
certain hearings); see C.D. Cal. Order of the Chief Judge No. 
20-186 (Dec. 17, 2020) (“extend[ing] all findings and 
authorizations in Order of the Chief Judge No. 20-043 for an 
additional 90 days unless earlier terminated”).   
14. 
The COOP Plan ultimately expired on January 29, 2021, 
and the Court permitted the resumption of certain in-person 
hearings, but not jury trials “[u]ntil further notice,” 
beginning on February 1, 2021.  See C.D. Cal. Notice from the 
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW     Document 264-2     Filed 04/07/21     Page 5 of 11   Page ID
#:2257

 
6 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
Clerk, “Amended Expiration of Continuity of Operations Plan,” 
http://www.cacd.uscourts.gov/news/amended-expiration-continuity-
operations-plan (Feb. 2, 2021) (“COOP Expiration Notice”).  On 
March 19, 2021, the Court again relaxed some of its restrictions 
as part of its transition to Phase 2 of reopening, but again 
repeated that “no jury trials will be conducted in criminal 
cases” because of the risks associated with the COVID-19 
pandemic.  C.D. Cal. General Order 21-03 (Mar. 19, 2021). 
15. 
The Court’s orders were imposed based on (1) the 
California Governor’s declaration of a public-health emergency 
in response to the spread of COVID-19, as well as (2) the 
Centers for Disease Control’s (“CDC”) advice regarding reducing 
the possibility of exposure to the virus and slowing the spread 
of the disease.  See, e.g., General Order 20-02, at 1.  The 
Chief Judge has recognized that, during the COVID-19 crisis, 
gatherings should be limited to no more than 10 people and 
elderly and other vulnerable people should avoid person-to-
person contact.  See Order of the Chief Judge No. 20-042, at 1-
2.  The Court has more broadly recognized CDC guidance advising 
“precautions to reduce the possibility of exposure to the virus 
and slow the spread of the disease[.]”  General Order 20-09, at 
1. 
16. 
Consistent with this Court’s orders, the Judicial 
Council of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals declared an 
emergency in the Central District of California, pursuant to 18 
U.S.C. § 3174.  In re Approval of Judicial Emergency in the 
Central Dist. of Cal., 955 F.3d 1140 (9th Cir. 2020).  The 
Judicial Council’s order recognizes that “[t]he welfare of the 
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW     Document 264-2     Filed 04/07/21     Page 6 of 11   Page ID
#:2258

 
7 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
court, federal public defenders, CJA attorneys, U.S. Marshals 
Service, and defendants are placed at risk each time parties 
congregate in person for hearings and defendants are transported 
to and from the courthouse.”  Id. at 1144. 
17. 
Local and state governments have adopted similar 
policies.  On March 19, 2020, both Los Angeles Mayor Eric 
Garcetti and California Governor Gavin Newsom issued emergency 
orders requiring residents to “stay home,” subject to limited 
exceptions.  California Executive Order N-33-20 (March 19, 
2020); accord Safer at Home, Public Order Under City of Los 
Angeles Emergency Authority ¶ 1 (March 19, 2020).  Subject to 
similarly limited exceptions, all travel was prohibited.  Safer 
At Home ¶ 4.  Non-essential businesses requiring in-person 
attendance by workers were ordered to cease operations.  Id. 
¶ 2.  All schools in the Los Angeles Unified School District 
remain closed to in-person classes. 
18. 
On December 3, 2020, the Acting State Public Health 
Officer of the State of California issued a Regional Stay at 
Home Order based on the “unprecedented surge in the level of 
community spread of COVID-19.”  California Regional Stay at Home 
Order 12/03/2020 (Dec. 3, 2020).  That order went into effect on 
December 6, 2020 and restricted business and social activities.  
As the Chief Judge’s December 7, 2020 Order reactivating the 
COOP Plan recognized, ICU availability in the Southern 
California region, which includes the entire Central District, 
fell below 15% as soon as the Regional Stay at Home Order went 
into effect.  Order of the Chief Judge No. 20-179, at 2.  When 
the COOP Plan was extended on January 6, 2021, ICU availability 
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW     Document 264-2     Filed 04/07/21     Page 7 of 11   Page ID
#:2259

 
8 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
in the Southern California region was at 0.0%.  Order of the 
Chief Judge 21-002, at 1.  Although the Regional Stay at Home 
Order was lifted on January 25, 2021, ICU availability has 
increased, and case numbers have declined, COVID-19 remains 
extremely dangerous, and California counties remain subject to 
various restrictions. 
19. 
Based on these facts, the Court concluded that it was 
necessary to suspend criminal jury trials until further notice 
“in order to protect public health, and in order to reduce the 
size of public gatherings and reduce unnecessary travel.”  
General Order 20-09, at 1.  The Court found that “holding jury 
trials substantially increases the chances of transmitting the 
Coronavirus,” and it would thus “place prospective jurors, 
defendant, attorneys, and court personnel at unnecessary risk.”  
Id. at 3.  The Court concluded that suspending jury trials thus 
served the ends of justice and outweighed the interests of the 
public and defendants in a speedy trial.  Id.  The Central 
District of California has not yet made public protocols for 
safely conducting jury trials. 
20. 
Emergency proclamations, restrictions, and guidance 
change daily.  
21. 
 Given the grave public-health concerns discussed in 
the Court’s General Orders and the Chief Judge’s Orders and as 
described above, and given the facts set forth in the 
government’s Ex Parte Application (which the Court incorporates 
fully by reference), the ends of justice served by the 
continuance outweigh the best interest of the public and 
defendants in a speedy trial. 
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW     Document 264-2     Filed 04/07/21     Page 8 of 11   Page ID
#:2260

 
9 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
22. 
Failure to grant the continuance would be likely to 
make a continuation of the proceeding impossible or result in a 
miscarriage of justice.   
23. 
Failure to continue the trial in this case is also 
likely to put counsel, parties, witnesses, jurors, and Court 
personnel at unnecessary risk.   
24. 
Due to the restrictions imposed by current public-
health concerns--particularly given the designation of this case 
as complex based on the number of defendants--it is also 
unreasonable to expect adequate preparation for pretrial 
proceedings or for the trial itself within the Speedy Trial Act 
time limits.  Thus, denial of a continuance is likely to deny 
all counsel reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, 
taking into account the exercise of due diligence. 
25. 
Further, failure to continue this case will likely 
make its completion impossible due to public-health risks and 
concerns.  All outstanding jury summons in the Central District 
of California have been cancelled due to the ongoing coronavirus 
pandemic.  As outlined in the recent notice of the Clerk of 
Court regarding the phased re-opening of the Courts, “[t]he 
process for issuing jury summonses must begin seven weeks before 
jury trials can commence.”  Notice from the Clerk re Phased 
Reopening of the Court, effective March 22, 2021 (available at 
https://www.cacd.uscourts.gov/news/phased-reopening-court.)  
According to the Notice, the Court is not currently issuing jury 
summons in this District’s Eastern and Western Divisions, and 
does not anticipate doing so until approximately three weeks 
have passed since March 22, 2021.  Id. 
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW     Document 264-2     Filed 04/07/21     Page 9 of 11   Page ID
#:2261

 
10 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
26. 
The continuance is not based on congestion of the 
Court’s calendar, lack of diligent preparation on the part of 
the attorneys for the government or the defense, or failure on 
the part of the attorneys for the government to obtain available 
witnesses.  
27. 
Accordingly, the Court finds that there are facts 
that support a continuance of the trial date in this matter, and 
good cause for a finding of excludable time pursuant to the 
Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3161, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 
§§ 3161(h)(1)(D), (h)(6), (h)(7)(A), and (h)(7)(B)(i)-(ii), and 
3174(b). 
THEREFORE, FOR GOOD CAUSE SHOWN: 
1. 
The trial in this matter for all defendants is continued 
from May 4, 2021, to August 24, 2021, at 8:30 AM.   
2. 
The time period of May 4, 2021, to August 24, 2021, 
inclusive, is excluded in computing the time within which the trial 
must commence, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 3161(h)(1)(D), (h)(6), 
(h)(7)(A), and (h)(7)(B)(i)-(ii), and 3174(b).   
3. 
Defendants who are on pretrial release shall appear in 
Courtroom 10A of the Federal Courthouse, 350 West 1st Street, Los 
Angeles, California on August 24, 2021 at 8:30 AM. 
4. 
Nothing in this Order shall preclude a finding that other 
provisions of the Speedy Trial Act dictate that additional time 
periods are excluded from the period within which trial must 
commence.  Moreover, the same provisions and/or other provisions of 
the Speedy Trial Act may in the future authorize the exclusion of 
// 
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW     Document 264-2     Filed 04/07/21     Page 10 of 11   Page ID
#:2262

 
11 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
additional time periods from the period within which trial must 
commence. 
IT IS SO ORDERED. 
 
 
 
 
 
DATE 
 
HONORABLE STEPHEN V. WILSON 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 
 
Presented by: 
 
 
     /s/ 
SCOTT PAETTY 
BRIAN FAERSTEIN 
Assistant United States Attorneys 
CHRISTOPHER FENTON 
DOJ Trial Attorney 
 
 
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW     Document 264-2     Filed 04/07/21     Page 11 of 11   Page ID
#:2263

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.cacd.813904.264.2.pdf

Size

87,570 bytes

SHA-256

1cf4b3a6d813886e057b997e19d395112f407fe7891f7206c6bf94cde099089a

Our copy

gov.uscourts.cacd.813904.264.2.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)