Court filing
Opposition to Notice of Motion and Motion — USA v. Ayvazyan et al. (Dkt. 119, C.D. Cal.)
Filed February 16, 2021 in USA v. Ayvazyan et al.; one of 233 filings from this case.
Record facts
| Court | U.S. District Court for the Central District of California |
|---|---|
| Filed | 2021-02-16 |
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California · No. 2:20-cr-00579-SVW · Doc. 119 · 2021-02-16 · Docket on CourtListener
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 R. 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 A. 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.
ARTUR AYVAZYAN,
aka “Arthur Ayvazyan,”
Defendant.
No. CR 20-579-SVW-3
GOVERNMENT’S OPPOSITION TO
DEFENDANT ARTUR AYVAZYAN’S MOTION
TO MODIFY CONDITIONS OF PRETRIAL
RELEASE; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF
CHRISTOPHER FENTON
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 and
Brian Faerstein, and Department of Justice Trial Attorney Christopher
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW Document 119 Filed 02/16/21 Page 1 of 10 Page ID
#:827
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
Fenton, hereby submits its opposition to defendant ARTUR AYVAZYAN’s
motion to modify the conditions of pretrial release. (CR 117.)
The government’s opposition is based on the attached memorandum
of points and authorities, the attached declaration, the files and
records in this case, and such additional evidence or argument as the
Court may permit.
Dated: February 16, 2021
Respectfully submitted,
TRACY L. WILKISON
Acting United States Attorney
BRANDON D. FOX
Assistant United States Attorney
Chief, Criminal Division
/s/
SCOTT PAETTY
BRIAN R. 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 119 Filed 02/16/21 Page 2 of 10 Page ID
#:828
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
Defendant ARTUR AYVAZYAN, his wife, brother, and sister-in-law,
were all indicted for bank fraud, wire fraud and conspiracy, in
connection with a scheme to fraudulently obtain millions of dollars
in COVID-19-related disaster relief funds under the federal
government’s Paycheck Protection Program and Economic Injury Disaster
Loan Program. (CR 32.) Among other things, the indictment alleges
that AYVAZYAN and his co-defendants used fake, stolen, and synthetic
identities, as well as stolen or fictitious business names, to submit
fraudulent loan applications to financial institutions and the Small
Business Administration. (Id.) In connection with the fraudulent
loan applications, AYVAZYAN and his co-defendants made false
statements and submitted fake documents, including fake Internal
Revenue Service forms and fake California Drivers’ Licenses. (Id.)
The indictment further alleges that AYVAZYAYN and his co-defendants
used the fraudulently obtained disaster relief funds for their own
personal benefit, including to purchase a multi-million dollar luxury
home. (Id.)
The government moved for detention based on the danger that the
defendant poses to the community and the serious risk that he may
flee. (CR 17.) While the Court denied the government’s motion, it
imposed strict conditions on the defendant including, among other
things, home confinement, restriction of travel to this District,
location monitoring, and posting of a surety bond to be secured by
the full deeding of property. (CR 5.) At that time, the defendant
represented that he was working as a truck driver and the Court set
conditions that specifically allow him to continue doing so - the
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW Document 119 Filed 02/16/21 Page 3 of 10 Page ID
#:829
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
conditions allow the defendant to leave his home, with pre-approval
of Pretrial Services, to seek and maintain employment. (Id.)
Only three months after the Court imposed these conditions, the
defendant has asked the Court to eliminate home confinement and the
travel restrictions. (CR 117.) The defendant argues that his choice
of employment as a truck driver makes supervision inconvenient for
himself and for Pretrial Services. The Court should deny the
defendant’s current motion for the following reasons:
First, the defendant fails to provide verifiable proof that he
is actually working as a truck driver. He does not provide any
documentation to show for whom he is working, when is working, or how
he is getting paid, among other things. The lack of evidence is
particularly concerning in light of the pending indictment, which
alleges that the defendant’s purported trucking company - Allstate
Towing and Transport LLC – played a central role in the fraud. (CR
32 at 11-12, 18, 20; see also United States v. Artur Ayvazyan, et
al., 2:20-mj-05321, CR 1 (“Complaint”), ¶¶ 15-27.) Specifically, the
defendant lied about the trucking company’s operations and submitted
fake federal tax forms on behalf of the trucking company to
fraudulently obtain COVID-19 disaster relief money from the
government. (Id.) Given the defendant’s past lies about his
trucking company, the government is concerned the defendant is again
lying about his trucking company in an attempt to evade supervision.
Second, the conditions do not need to be modified because they
already afford the defendant a reasonable opportunity to seek and
maintain employment (as a truck driver or otherwise). Indeed, based
on government counsel’s communications with Pretrial Services
Officers Alexis Ochoa and Sandra Hege, the government understands
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW Document 119 Filed 02/16/21 Page 4 of 10 Page ID
#:830
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
that, in the past, when the defendant has claimed to be running late
due to an unexpected delay in loading or unloading cargo, Pretrial
Services has been agreeable to work with him, so long as he provides
notice. (See Declaration of Christopher Fenton (attached hereto)
(“Declaration”), ¶ 3.) The government further understands that, were
the Court to deny the defendant’s motion, Pretrial Services is
agreeable to continue to work with the defendant in this respect.
(Id., ¶ 4.) And, to the extent there are inconveniences, the
government understands from Pretrial Services that these
inconveniences can be alleviated, in part, by switching the form of
electronic monitoring from voice ID to an ankle bracelet, which is
now being used again in the District. (Id., ¶ 5.) There is
therefore no need for the Court to modify the conditions by
eliminating home confinement.1
Third, the conditions initially imposed by the Court are still
necessary to reasonably assure the safety of the community from the
danger posed by the defendant’s criminal activities. Nothing has
changed in the last three months. The defendant continues to pose
the same serious risk of harm.2
1 The defendant also claims there are trucking jobs that would
require him to travel out of the District. (CR 117.) He does not,
however, argue that there are an insufficient number of trucking jobs
within the District or that he needs to take out of District trucking
jobs in order to earn enough money for his family. In addition, the
defendant’s wife - who is also a defendant in this case – is required
by the conditions of her release to actively seek and maintain
employment and is therefore expected to contribute to the family’s
income. (CR 20.)
2 The defendant previously filed a motion asking the Court to
modify the conditions to allow him to go on a luxury ski trip in
Aspen for the holidays. (CR 107.) The Court denied his motion. (CR
109.)
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW Document 119 Filed 02/16/21 Page 5 of 10 Page ID
#:831
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
The defendant is alleged to have used fake, stolen, and
synthetic identities, as well as stolen and fictitious business
names, to defraud federally-insured financial institutions and the
federal government of millions of dollars earmarked for families in
need as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. (See generally Complaint,
CR 32.) When the defendant’s home was searched at the time of his
arrest, federal law enforcement agents seized: (i) dozens of
counterfeit and unauthorized access devices, namely, drivers’ license
numbers, Social Security numbers, and credit card numbers relating to
real, fake, and synthetic identities; (ii) fake or stolen stamps
bearing the name of state and federal court clerks and various
notaries; and (iii) documents associated with over 20 different
businesses at various addresses in and around Los Angeles, including
federal tax forms, checkbooks, and bank statements. (Declaration, ¶
6.) In addition, federal law enforcement took custody of an arsenal
of 13 guns from the defendant’s home. (Id., ¶ 7.) Around the same
time agents searched the defendant’s home, the government also
applied for and obtained from this Court warrants to search six other
residences in and around Los Angeles that were believed to be used as
part of the scheme. (See, e.g., 2:20-MJ-05282.)
Home confinement is critical in this case because allowing the
defendant to travel freely in and around the District without pre-
approval would afford him easy unfettered access to a number of
nearby locations that were and continue to be relevant to the
fraudulent scheme, including: (i) the various addresses the defendant
used to send and receive mail relating to the fake, stolen and
synthetic identities and stolen and fictitious businesses; (ii) the
homes of his co-defendants and other co-conspirators; and (iii) the
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW Document 119 Filed 02/16/21 Page 6 of 10 Page ID
#:832
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
branch locations for banks used to hold or transfer the criminal
proceeds of the alleged conspiracy. The defendant’s modus operandi,
which includes using fake, stolen and synthetic identities, stolen
and fictitious businesses, and fake documents, makes it more likely
that the defendant can commit such crimes without immediate
detection.
In addition, the defendant could readily commit further crimes
if released from home confinement - the federal government continues
to provide COVID-19 disaster relief funds through the programs that
the defendant has already learned how to defraud. Home confinement
is therefore necessary.
Fourth, home confinement and travel restrictions are still
necessary to reasonably assure the defendant’s appearance at trial.
Both the defendant and his wife are charged with serious crimes and,
if convicted, face considerable sentences of imprisonment. That fact
alone provides a significant incentive to flee. The fact that the
defendant and his wife have young children makes such an incentive
even greater. Were the Court to eliminate home confinement and
travel restrictions, the defendant could hide his family in his
truck, drive them to the border, and use a fake identity and
documents to cross into Mexico.
Finally, the defendant argues that home confinement is no longer
necessary because he posted a surety bond. The defendant is wrong.
The Court’s order setting conditions does not, as the defendant
suggests, provide that home confinement is only necessary up to and
until a surety bond is posted. The Court imposed the conditions of
home confinement and a surety bond. (CR 5.) While these two
conditions serve related purposes, home confinement is necessary to
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW Document 119 Filed 02/16/21 Page 7 of 10 Page ID
#:833
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
reasonably assure the safety of the community and the defendant’s
appearance at trial.
In conclusion, for the reasons set forth herein, home
confinement and travel restrictions remain necessary to reasonably
assure the safety of the community and defendant’s appearance at
trial. Accordingly, the Court should deny the defendant’s motion.
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW Document 119 Filed 02/16/21 Page 8 of 10 Page ID
#:834
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
DECLARATION OF CHRISTOPHER FENTON
I, CHRISTOPHER FENTON, hereby declare as follows:
1.
I am a Trial Attorney at the Fraud Section within the
Criminal Division of the Department of Justice. I represent the
government in this matter and submit this declaration in support of
the Government’s Opposition to Defendant Artur Ayvazyan’s Motion to
Modify Conditions of Pretrial Release.
2.
In connection with the defendant’s motion, I spoke with
United States Probation and Pretrial Services (“Pretrial Services”)
Officers Alexis Ochoa and Sandra Hege on Friday, February 12, 2021,
to obtain more information about the defendant’s ongoing supervision
and conditions of release. On Monday, February 15, 2021, I exchanged
emails with Officer Hege to confirm my understanding of my earlier
telephone conversations.
3.
Based on my communications with Pretrial Services Officers
Ochoa and Hege, I understand that, in the past, when the defendant
has claimed to be running late due to an unexpected delay in loading
or unloading cargo, Pretrial Services has been agreeable to work with
him, so long as he provides notice.
4.
Based on these communications, I further understand that,
were the Court to deny the defendant’s motion, Pretrial Services is
agreeable to continue to work with the defendant in this respect.
5.
Moreover, to the extent there are inconveniences, I
understand from Pretrial Services that these inconveniences can be
alleviated, in part, by switching the form of electronic monitoring
from voice ID to an ankle bracelet, which is now being used again in
the District.
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW Document 119 Filed 02/16/21 Page 9 of 10 Page ID
#:835
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
6.
Based on information provided to me by case agents and made
available to the defense to inspect as part of discovery, I know that
during the search of the defendant’s home, federal law enforcement
agents seized (i) dozens of counterfeit and unauthorized access
devices, namely, drivers’ license numbers, Social Security numbers,
and credit card numbers relating to real, fake, and synthetic
identities; (ii) fake or stolen stamps bearing the name of state and
federal court clerks and various notaries; and (iii) documents
associated with over 20 different businesses at various addresses in
and around Los Angeles, including federal tax forms, checkbooks, and
bank statements.
7.
Based on information provided to me by case agents, at the
time of the search, federal law enforcement took custody of an
arsenal of 13 guns from the defendant’s home.
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW Document 119 Filed 02/16/21 Page 10 of 10 Page ID
#:836File and source
- File
- gov.uscourts.cacd.802533.119.0.pdf
- Size
- 54,777 bytes
- SHA-256
- 39302d39fbd57d5a229bd36ef945caf593685476de539a1964cffc7955cdd67b
- Original
- PACER (login required)