Proposed Order — USA v. Ayvazyan et al (Dkt. 293.1)

Summary

A proposed Order Continuing Trial Date and Findings Regarding Excludable Time Periods Pursuant to Speedy Trial Act, Document 293-1, filed 04/22/21 in United States of America v. Richard Ayvazyan and others, No. CR 20-579(A)-SVW, in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. It lists a proposed trial date for all defendants of 06/15/2021 at 9:00 AM. The order would find that, given the COVID-19 public-health concerns, described in the Court's General Orders, the ends of justice served by the continuance outweigh the interest in a speedy trial. It would exclude the period from May 4, 2021 to June 15, 2021 under the Speedy Trial Act and require the government to produce witness and exhibit lists no later than June 1, 2021, with a signature line for the Honorable Stephen V. Wilson and the presenting Assistant United States Attorneys.

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): 
 
06/15/2021 at 9:00 AM 
 
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW     Document 293-1     Filed 04/22/21     Page 1 of 11   Page ID
#:2698

 
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. 
Pursuant to the Court’s scheduling notice filed April 16, 2021 
(ECF 284), and having considered the United States’ and defendants’ 
recent filings concerning the continuance of trial and the exclusion 
of time under the Speedy Trial Act in this proceeding (ECF 264, 267, 
269, 270, 271, 274, 275), the Central District of California’s 
General Orders Nos. 20-02, 20-03, 20-05, 20-08 Amended, 20-09, 20-
12, 20-15, 21-03, and 21-07, Chief Judge Orders Nos. 20-042, 20-043, 
20-044, 20-078, 20-080, 20-097, 20-179, 20-186, 21-002, 21-031, 
Notices of the Clerk including the Expiration of Continuity of 
Operations Plan and Phased Reopening of the Court, and guidance on 
Conducting Jury Trials During the COVID-19 Pandemic, and good cause 
appearing, the Court hereby FINDS AS FOLLOWS: 
 
The original Indictment in this case was filed on November 
17, 2020.   
 
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.   
 
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 on a criminal 
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW     Document 293-1     Filed 04/22/21     Page 2 of 11   Page ID
#:2699

 
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 
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. 
 
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. 
 
The First Superseding Indictment was filed on March 9, 
2021, and unsealed March 11, 2021. 
 
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.     
 
On March 11, 2021, the Court set a trial date of May 4, 
2021, as to defendants GRIGORYAN, PARONYAN, and V. DADYAN.   
 
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.  
 
On March 25, 2021, the Court set a trial date of May 18, 
2021, as to defendant HAYRAPETYAN, who is detained pending trial.  
The other seven defendants currently are released on bond. 
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW     Document 293-1     Filed 04/22/21     Page 3 of 11   Page ID
#:2700

 
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 
 
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 19 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. 
 
There currently are seven motions filed by defendants 
pending before the Court, including five motions to suppress 
evidence and two motions to dismiss the First Superseding Indictment 
with prejudice, all of which the government have opposed.   
 
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. 
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW     Document 293-1     Filed 04/22/21     Page 4 of 11   Page ID
#:2701

 
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 
 
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”).   
 
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 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 the Court’s reopening plan, but 
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW     Document 293-1     Filed 04/22/21     Page 5 of 11   Page ID
#:2702

 
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 
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). 
 
Most recently, on April 15, 2021, the Court entered 
General Order No. 21-07, effective April 19, 2021, ordering, among 
other things, that all divisions in the Central District of 
California would enter Phase 3 of the Court’s reopening plan and 
that jury trials would be permitted in criminal cases.  See C.D. 
Cal. General Order 21-07 (Apr. 15, 2021).  The Court further stated 
that, “[d]ue to the constraints on space and resources imposed by 
COVID-19 safety protocols, a limited number of jury trials will be 
permitted to proceed at a time” and, as a result, “the Court finds 
that any delays in conducting criminal jury trials that are 
attributable to the limitations caused by the Court’s COVID-19 
safety protocols serve the ends of justice and outweigh the 
interests of the public and the defendants in a speedy trial.”  Id.  
 
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 
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW     Document 293-1     Filed 04/22/21     Page 6 of 11   Page ID
#:2703

 
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 
possibility of exposure to the virus and slow the spread of the 
disease[.]”  General Order 20-09, at 1. 
 
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 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. 
 
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 were closed to in-person classes and have only recently 
started reopening with certain restrictions. 
 
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 
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW     Document 293-1     Filed 04/22/21     Page 7 of 11   Page ID
#:2704

 
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 
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 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. 
 
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.   
 
Given the grave public-health concerns discussed in the 
Court’s General Orders and the Chief Judge’s Orders and as described 
above, 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 293-1     Filed 04/22/21     Page 8 of 11   Page ID
#:2705

 
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 
 
Failure to grant the continuance would be likely to make a 
continuation of the proceeding impossible or result in a miscarriage 
of justice.   
 
Failure to continue the trial in this case is also likely 
to put counsel, parties, witnesses, jurors, and Court personnel at 
unnecessary risk.   
 
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. 
 
Further, failure to continue this case will likely make 
its completion impossible due to public-health risks and concerns.  
Jury summons for the Western Division of the Court will be issued 
starting April 19, 2021.  See C.D. Cal. General Order 21-07 (Apr. 
15, 2021).  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.)  Thus, a 
jury would not be available for trial in this proceeding on the 
current trial date of May 4, 2021. 
 
The continuance is not based on congestion of the Court’s 
calendar, lack of diligent preparation on the part of the attorneys 
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW     Document 293-1     Filed 04/22/21     Page 9 of 11   Page ID
#:2706

 
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 
for the government or the defense, or failure on the part of the 
attorneys for the government to obtain available witnesses.  
 
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. 
 Subject to Court procedures regarding the resumption of 
jury trials, the trial in this matter for all defendants is 
continued from May 4, 2021, to June 15, 2021, at 9:00 AM.   
2. 
The time period of May 4, 2021, to June 15, 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. 
The government shall produce its witness and exhibit lists 
at least two weeks prior to trial, but no later than June 1, 2021.  
Should trial be continued again, the deadline to produce witness and 
exhibit lists will also be continued to two weeks prior to the new 
trial date. 
4. 
Defendants who are on pretrial release shall appear in 
Courtroom 10A of the Federal Courthouse, 350 West 1st Street, Los 
Angeles, California on June 15, 2021 at 9:00 AM. 
5. 
Defendant ARMAN HAYRAPETYAN, who is detained pending 
trial, is ordered to be brought by the United States Marshals to 
Courtroom 10A of the Federal Courthouse, 350 West 1st Street, Los 
Angeles, California on June 15, 2021 at 9:00 AM. 
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW     Document 293-1     Filed 04/22/21     Page 10 of 11   Page ID
#:2707

 
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 
6. 
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  
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 293-1     Filed 04/22/21     Page 11 of 11   Page ID
#:2708

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.cacd.813904.293.1.pdf

Size

216,901 bytes

SHA-256

35c0136c48467466212db039e6e73d9d173f14264e098999af9b9ca8d8befaf3

Our copy

gov.uscourts.cacd.813904.293.1.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)