NOTICE OF MOTION AND Third MOTION in Limine to Exclude Evidence Or Argument That… — USA v. Ayvazyan et al (Dkt. 390)

Summary

The Government's Motion in Limine #3 to Exclude Evidence or Argument That October 19-20, 2020 Miami Border Stop and November 5, 2020 Premises Searches Were Unlawful, Document 390 filed 05/31/21 in United States of America v. Richard Ayvazyan et al., No. CR 20-579(A)-SVW, in the Central District of California. The notice sets a hearing date of June 14, 2021 before the Hon. Stephen V. Wilson. The government says the defendants are charged with thirty-three felony counts arising out of an alleged fraudulent scheme to steal and launder tens of millions of dollars from federally funded COVID-19 disaster relief programs. It seeks to exclude evidence and argument at trial, including on cross examination of government witnesses, that the border stop or the residence searches were unlawful. The motion is dated May 31, 2021.

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 
SCOTT M. GARRINGER 
Assistant United States Attorney 
Chief, Criminal Division 
SCOTT PAETTY (Cal. Bar No. 274719) 
CATHERINE AHN (Cal. Bar No. 248286) 
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) 894-6527/2424/3819 
Facsimile: (213) 894-6269/0141 
E-mail: 
Scott.Paetty@usdoj.gov 
 
Catherine.S.Ahn@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 
No. CR 20-579(A)-SVW 
GOVERNMENT’S MOTION IN LIMINE #3 
TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE OR ARGUMENT 
THAT OCTOBER 19-20, 2020 MIAMI 
BORDER STOP AND NOVEMBER 5, 2020 
PREMISES SEARCHES WERE UNLAWFUL  
Hearing Date: June 14, 2021 
Hearing Time: 1:30 p.m. 
Location: 
Courtroom of the 
Hon. Stephen V. 
Wilson  
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW     Document 390     Filed 05/31/21     Page 1 of 12   Page ID
#:4027

 
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
      “Anton Kudiumov,” 
ARMAN HAYRAPETYAN, 
EDVARD PARONYAN, 
aka “Edvard Paronian” and 
    “Edward Paronyan,” and 
VAHE DADYAN, 
 
Defendants. 
 
Plaintiff United States of America, by and through its counsel 
of record, the Acting United States Attorney for the Central District 
of California, Assistant United States Attorneys Scott Paetty, 
Catherine S. Ahn, and Brian Faerstein, and Department of Justice 
Trial Attorney Christopher Fenton, hereby files this motion in limine 
seeking to exclude evidence and arguments, including on cross 
examination of government witnesses, that the border stop on October 
19-20, 2020 at the Miami International Airport and the premises 
searches conducted on November 5, 2020 were unlawful.  This motion is 
brought pursuant to Rules 401, 402, and 403 of the Federal Rules of 
Evidence and is based upon the attached memorandum of points and 
// 
 
 
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW     Document 390     Filed 05/31/21     Page 2 of 12   Page ID
#:4028

 
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
authorities, the files and records in this case, and such further 
evidence and argument as the Court may permit. 
Dated: May 31, 2021 
Respectfully submitted, 
 
TRACY L. WILKISON 
Acting United States Attorney 
 
SCOTT M. GARRINGER 
Assistant United States Attorney 
Chief, Criminal Division 
 
 
      /s/ 
 
SCOTT PAETTY 
CATHERINE S. AHN 
BRIAN FAERSTEIN 
Assistant United States Attorneys 
CHRISTOPHER FENTON 
Department of Justice Trial Attorney 
 
 
Attorneys for Plaintiff 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 
 
 
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW     Document 390     Filed 05/31/21     Page 3 of 12   Page ID
#:4029

 
 
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
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 
I. 
INTRODUCTION 
Defendants Richard Ayvazyan (“R. Avazyan”), Marietta Terabelian, 
Artur Ayvazyan (“A. Ayvazyan”), and Tamara Dadyan (“T. Dadyan”) 
(collectively, “defendants”), along with four other coconspirators, 
are charged with thirty-three felony counts arising out of their 
alleged fraudulent scheme to steal and launder tens of millions of 
dollars from federally funded COVID-19 disaster relief programs.1  
Certain of the evidence that the government intends to introduce at 
trial was collected from defendants on October 19-20, 2020, during a 
border stop in Miami, and on November 5, 2020, during the execution 
of search warrants at defendants’ homes, including a mansion 
purchased using proceeds of the alleged fraud.   
The government hereby moves to exclude evidence and argument at 
trial that the border stop or the residence searches were unlawful or 
that the manner in which law enforcement agents engaged in the border 
stop or residence searches violated defendants’ constitutional 
rights.  Specifically, based on numerous pre-trial filings by 
defendants, the government believes that defendants may seek to 
introduce evidence, cross-examine government witnesses, and raise 
arguments before the jury regarding the circumstances surrounding 
their detention and interrogation in Miami and the efforts that law 
enforcement took to secure their residences in executing the 
searches.  For example, defendants may seek to argue to the jury that 
the government improperly detained and questioned them in Miami and 
                     
1 The facts underlying the charges in this case are summarized 
in the Government’s Motion in Limine No. 2 (ECF 384) and are 
incorporated by reference herein.  
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW     Document 390     Filed 05/31/21     Page 4 of 12   Page ID
#:4030

 
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
conducted unreasonable searches at their residences.  Such evidence 
and argument is irrelevant to the issues at trial under Rules 401 and 
402 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, and any limited probative value 
(of which there is none) is substantially outweighed by the danger of 
numerous concerns under Rule 403.  
II. 
STATEMENT OF FACTS 
During a secondary screening stop at the Miami International 
Airport in October 2020, Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) 
Officers conducted a search of defendant R. Ayvazyan’s and defendant 
Terabelian’s belongings as they returned from a luxury vacation in 
Turks and Caicos and found: (i) in defendant Terabelian’s luggage, a 
physical credit card in the name of “Viktoria Kauichko;” and (ii) in 
defendant R. Ayvazyan’s belongings, one physical credit card in the 
name of “Runyan Tax Services/Viktoria Kauichko,” and four physical 
credit cards in the name of “Iuliia Zhadko,” including cards 
associated with “Top Quality Contracting” and “Turing Info 
Solutions.”  (ECF 152 at 3.)  These physical credit cards provide 
significant links between these defendants and the aliases and 
companies that they and their coconspirators used to apply for and 
launder proceeds of the Paycheck Protection Program (“PPP”) and 
Economic Injury Disaster Loan program (“EIDL”) in furtherance of the 
loan fraud conspiracy in which they participated.   
During a subsequent search, pursuant to a federal search 
warrant, in November 2020 of a mansion on Topeka Drive in Tarzana, 
California (the “Topeka Residence”), which defendants R. Ayvazyan and 
Terabelian purchased using proceeds of the alleged conspiracy law 
enforcement discovered additional evidence of fraud, including, among 
other things: 
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW     Document 390     Filed 05/31/21     Page 5 of 12   Page ID
#:4031

 
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
• digital photographs of credit cards in the names of Iuliia 
Zhadko and Viktoria Kauichko on defendant R. Ayvazyan’s new 
iPhone; 
• a grocery bag containing nearly $450,000 of cash that 
defendant Terabelian threw into the bushes in her backyard 
when law enforcement arrived;  
• an assortment of gold coins believed to have been purchased 
with disaster relief funds fraudulently obtained using 
defendant Terabelian’s deceased father’s identity; and 
financial records showing the source of funds (namely 
disaster relief loan proceeds) used by defendants R. 
Ayvazyan and Terabelian to purchase the Topeka Residence. 
(ECF 188 at 11.)   
Law enforcement executed a separate search the same day, also 
pursuant to a federal search warrant, at the residence of defendants 
A. Ayvayzan and T. Dadyan on Weddington Avenue in Encino, California 
(the “Weddington Residence”).  During that search, as discussed in 
detail in the Government’s Motion in Limine No. 2, law enforcement 
discovered a trove of evidence related to the PPP/EIDL fraud 
conspiracy, including, among other things: 
• dozens of unauthorized and counterfeit access devices, 
such as fake and stolen California driver’s licenses, 
social security cards, and credit cards, including for 
individuals whose names were used to fraudulently apply 
for PPP and EIDL loans; 
• handwritten and typed lists of personally identifiable 
information (“PII”) for fake, stolen and synthetic 
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW     Document 390     Filed 05/31/21     Page 6 of 12   Page ID
#:4032

 
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
identities, including for names used in furtherance of the 
fraud; 
• lists of “EMAILS FOR BORROWERS,” which were lists of email 
addresses created for fake, stolen and synthetic 
identities used to apply for fraudulent loans; 
• fraudulent PPP and EIDL loan applications using T. 
Dadyan’s name and the names of other individuals; 
• blank checks and other records for accounts that received 
PPP and EIDL funds; and official looking rubber stamps, 
including stamps for the Clerk of the United States 
Bankruptcy Court for the Central District of California, 
Los Angeles Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk, the Los 
Angeles Superior Court, and numerous notaries. 
(ECF 207 at 11; see also ECF 384.)   
At trial, the government intends to call CBP officers who 
assisted in the searches that resulted in the discovery of the 
fraudulent physical credit cards at the Miami International Airport.  
The government also intends to call law enforcement witnesses to 
introduce evidence that was seized pursuant to the search warrants 
that were executed at the Topeka Residence and the Weddington 
Residence, including the evidence described above.   
III. ARGUMENT 
Defendants should be precluded from introducing evidence or 
argument regarding any alleged improprieties related to the searches, 
such as the length of time defendants R. Ayvazyan and Terabelian were 
detained, searched, and questioned at the border in Miami, and the 
safety precautions agents undertook to secure the Topeka Residence 
and the Weddington Residence in executing the search warrants.  Any 
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW     Document 390     Filed 05/31/21     Page 7 of 12   Page ID
#:4033

 
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
such evidence, argument, or references by defense counsel to the 
alleged impropriety or unlawfulness of the border stop or the 
residences searches is irrelevant and improper, and should be 
excluded. 
First, the government does not intend to use any statements made 
by defendants R. Ayvazyan and Terabelian during the October 2020 
Miami border stop or any evidence obtained from their digital devices 
seized in Miami, in compliance with the Court’s order.  (ECF 296.)  
The government also does not intend to introduce evidence as to the 
planning and manner of the execution of the residential search 
warrants in November 2020.  As such, any evidence or argument  
(including through cross-examination of government witnesses) as to 
the custodial interrogation in Miami or the manner in which the 
November 2020 premises searches were executed is irrelevant to any 
fact of consequence at trial, and thus is inadmissible on this basis 
alone.  Fed. R. Evid. 401, 402.   
Second, the legal issues the government expects defendants may 
seek to re-raise at trial are for the sole province of the Court, not 
the jury.  The Miami border stop and the searches of the Topeka 
Residence and the Weddington Residence have been the subject of 
multiple and extensive motions to suppress in this case, in which 
defendants raised numerous constitutional arguments related to the 
actions of law enforcement agents who conducted the searches.  (See 
generally ECF 130, 135, 136, 146, 149, 153.)  Among other things, 
defendants R. Ayvazyan and Terabelian claimed that they were 
unreasonably detained at the Miami airport and subjected to a 
coercive custodial interrogation.  (See generally ECF 130, 135, 136, 
153.)  They also alleged that they were subjected to an unreasonable 
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW     Document 390     Filed 05/31/21     Page 8 of 12   Page ID
#:4034

 
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
show of force by agents who entered and conducted a safety sweep of 
the Topeka Residence prior to the search of that premises.  (ECF 146, 
153.)  Defendant A. Ayvazyan and T. Dadyan similarly claimed that 
agents acted unreasonably while securing the Weddington Residence 
prior to the arrival of the search teams at that location.  (ECF 
149.)  This Court has issued orders resolving the issues raised in 
these motions.  (ECF 296, 297.) 
Defendants should not be permitted to relitigate before the 
jury, whether through argument, evidence, or cross examination of 
government witnesses, the same issues as to the legal admissibility 
of the evidence raised in their motions to suppress.  Such questions 
are properly in the jurisdiction of the Court, not the jury.  See 
Fed. R. Evid. 104(a); see also United States v. Reed, 575 F.3d 900, 
919 (9th Cir. 2009) (“It is well-settled that the question of the 
competency of the evidence by reason of the legality or otherwise of 
its seizure is a question of fact and law for the court and not for 
the jury.”) (quotations and citations omitted).2     
Third, allowing the defense once again to raise these legal 
arguments will confuse the issues, mislead the jury, be a waste of 
time, and risks the undue delay of a “trial within a trial” based on 
conduct not at issue in the case.  Fed. R. Evid. 403.  Defendants’ 
                     
2 To the extent defendants claims allege violations of their 
civil rights due to the circumstances surrounding the execution of 
the warrants, civil and not criminal remedies should be applied in 
adjudicating such claims.  See Hudson v. Michigan, 547 U.S. 586, 598-
599 (2006) and United States v. Garcia-Hernandez, 659 F.3d 108, 113–
14 (1st Cir. 2011).  The government would object to the introduction 
of such evidence in this trial, however, on the bases of Fed. R. of 
Evid. 104(b) and 403 as lacking sufficient proof to determine 
relevance and lacking any probative value that would not be 
substantially outweighed by a danger of unfair prejudice, confusing 
the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, and waste of time. 
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW     Document 390     Filed 05/31/21     Page 9 of 12   Page ID
#:4035

 
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
questioning of government witnesses regarding circumstances 
surrounding the searches at issue here would result in a misleading 
sideshow.  For example, if defendants were allowed to reallege to the 
jury that law enforcement used excessive and unreasonable force in 
executing the search warrants, defendants would be putting in issue 
(once again) operational and safety concerns that have no bearing on 
the issues at trial.  Nonetheless, if such issues are raised, the 
government would need to introduce in rebuttal factual considerations 
that guided law enforcement’s planning of the search warrant 
executions, including, among other things, evidence of defendants’ 
ties to the “Armenian Power” organized crime group and evidence of 
their possession of numerous firearms.  (See generally ECF 188, 207.) 
In addition, even assuming there is some limited probative value 
at trial as to the legality of the searches conducted in this case 
(and, to be clear, there is not), any such probative value is 
substantially outweighed by the danger of the numerous concerns set 
forth in Federal Rule of Evidence 403.  The Court addressed whether 
interactions between defendants and law enforcement in this case 
warranted suppression of the evidence and resolved those issues as a 
matter of law.  At this stage of the proceeding, any argument or 
suggestion to the jury that the behavior of law enforcement involved 
in the searches was unconstitutional presents the danger of unfair 
prejudice, as the jury’s focus improperly will be drawn from the 
actual evidence and facts at issue to their feelings about how that 
evidence was obtained.  Fed. R. Evid. 403.  The government expects 
the jurors will be instructed that they are to decide the facts from 
“all the evidence received in the case” and not be influenced by any 
“personal likes or dislikes, sympathy, prejudice, fear, or public 
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW     Document 390     Filed 05/31/21     Page 10 of 12   Page ID
#:4036

 
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
opinion.”  Ninth Circuit Model Criminal Jury Instructions, No. 3.1 
(Duties of Jury To Find Facts and Follow Law).  However, if 
defendants are permitted to cross examine law enforcement witnesses, 
for example, on the legal basis for the Miami border stop, including 
whether the stated reasons for the stop were pretextual or whether 
defendants R. Ayvazyan and Terabelian were unreasonably detained 
before CBP officers found the Zhadko and Kauichko credit cards, there 
is a significant risk of the jury deciding this case based on emotion 
(i.e., whether the jurors dislike the officers) rather than the 
evidence at issue.   
There also is the significant risk that the jury would be 
distracted from the central issue in the case, that is, whether 
defendants are guilty or not guilty of the various loan fraud, 
aggravated identity theft, and money laundering counts with which 
they are charged, and focus instead on whether the jury approves of 
the government’s witnesses and operational tactics.  Under Rule 403, 
such evidence and argument should be excluded to avoid confusion of 
the issues and misleading the jury.  See United States v. Sarno, 73 
F.3d 1470, 1488 89 (9th Cir. 1995) (exclusion of evidence relating to 
proof of fact that was not element of charge not abuse of discretion 
where such evidence “might well have (as the district court here 
concluded) induced confusion in the minds of the jury and distracted 
them from the true issue [in the case]”). 
Finally, defendants are not entitled to introduce otherwise 
irrelevant evidence or argument in the hopes of encouraging jury 
nullification.  See United States v. Powell, 955 F.2d 1206, 1212-13 
(9th Cir. 1992) (defense is not entitled to a jury nullification 
instruction); see also United States v. Sepulveda, 15 F.3d 1161, 1190 
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW     Document 390     Filed 05/31/21     Page 11 of 12   Page ID
#:4037

 
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
(1st Cir. 1993) (“A trial judge . . . may block defense attorneys’ 
attempts to serenade a jury with the siren song of nullification”).  
Having no right to seek jury nullification, defendants have no right 
to present evidence or evidence that is irrelevant to their defense 
and merely constitutes a baseless attack on the testifying government 
witnesses.  See Zal v. Steppe, 968 F.2d 924, 930 (9th Cir. 1992) 
(Trott, J., concurring).  Jurors should not be misled into drawing 
upon emotion in reaching their verdict.  Having already had the 
opportunity to litigate their constitutional arguments before the 
Court, defendants should not be allowed to divert attention from the 
central issues of guilt or innocence in an effort to suggest to the 
jury that they should not be held accountable because of the way in 
which evidence against them was gathered. 
IV. 
CONCLUSION 
For the foregoing reasons, the government respectfully requests 
that this Court grant the government’s motion in limine seeking to 
exclude evidence and arguments, including on cross examination of 
government witnesses, that the border stop on October 19-20, 2020 at 
the Miami International Airport and the residence searches conducted 
on November 5, 2020 were unlawful or that the manner in which law 
enforcement agents engaged in the border stop or residence searches 
violated defendants’ constitutional rights. 
 
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW     Document 390     Filed 05/31/21     Page 12 of 12   Page ID
#:4038

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.cacd.813904.390.0.pdf

Size

56,264 bytes

SHA-256

917e8ac39122aacead51c5557dd464c86322d9bed107bc2565498fa6e93b51d5

Our copy

gov.uscourts.cacd.813904.390.0.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)