OPPOSITION to MOTION in Limine to Exclude cellphone image (gov.'s proposed exhibit… — USA v. Ayvazyan et al (Dkt. 549)

Record facts

U.S. District Court for the Central District of California · No. 2:20-cr-00579-SVW · Doc. 549 · 2021-06-20 · 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 
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 
 
JOSEPH BEEMSTERBOER 
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 RESPONSE IN 
OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT 
TERABELIAN’S MOTION IN LIMINE TO 
EXCLUDE CELLPHONE IMAGE (GOV’T. 
EXHIBIT 16b) 
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW     Document 549     Filed 06/20/21     Page 1 of 9   Page ID
#:6486

 
 
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 Ahn, and Brian Faerstein, and Department of 
Justice Trial Attorney Christopher Fenton, hereby files this 
response in opposition to defendant Marietta Terabelian’s motion in 
limine seeking exclusion of Government Exhibit 16b (ECF 545).   
This response is based upon the attached memorandum of points 
and authorities, the files and records in this case, and such 
further evidence and argument as the Court may permit. 
 
Dated: June 20, 2021 
Respectfully submitted, 
 
TRACY L. WILKISON 
Acting United States Attorney 
 
SCOTT M. GARRINGER 
Assistant United States Attorney 
Chief, Criminal Division 
 
      /s/ 
 
CATHERINE AHN 
SCOTT PAETTY 
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 549     Filed 06/20/21     Page 2 of 9   Page ID
#:6487

 
 
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
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 
This Court has already held that evidence like Government 
Exhibit (“GEX”) 16b is directly relevant under Federal Rule of 
Evidence (“Rule”) 401.  Even if it were not directly relevant, 
GEX 16b is inextricably intertwined and not subject to Rule 
404(b).  Defendant Marietta Terabelian’s (“Terabelian’s”) 
contention that the government has failed to meet a Rule 404(b) 
burden or that GEX 16b should be otherwise excluded ignores this 
Court’s prior rulings and defendant’s motion to exclude GEX 16b 
should be denied. 
I. 
GEX 16b Is Directly Relevant Under Rule 401  
The image of the handwritten note at GEX 16b contains the 
business name “Fiber One Media.”  That purported business name 
was used by defendants to submit numerous Paycheck Protection 
Program (“PPP”) and Economic Injury Disaster Loan (“EIDL”) 
applications using one of the names that was both: (a) used to 
further the charged conspiracies; and (b) directly linked to 
defendant Marietta Terabelian – Viktoria Kauichko.  (See GEX 
3.e, 3.f, 3.g, 4.o, 4.q. (Fiber One Media PPP and EIDL 
applications submitted in the name of Viktoria Kauichko).)   
Defendant Terabelian’s argument that the age of the 
photograph renders it confusing and irrelevant ignores the other 
evidence identified in the government’s trial exhibits.  
Photographs of still-valid credit cards and checks found in 
defendant Richard Ayvazyan’s possession shows the same name, 
Susanna M., doing business as Fiber One Media – the same company 
whose name was used by defendants to submit PPP and EIDL 
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW     Document 549     Filed 06/20/21     Page 3 of 9   Page ID
#:6488

 
 
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
applications.  (See Image 1, below (excerpts from GEX 19c) (with 
redactions).)  Furthermore, the address identified with Susanna 
M. DBA Fiber One Media on the check images is the exact same 
address associated with Viktoria Kauichko by defendant Richard 
Ayvazyan in his text messages to Anthony Farrar.  (See Image 2 
(excerpts from GEX 37c).)  Notably, defendant Richard Ayvazyan 
identifies that address as the address of his wife.  (Id.) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The handwritten note possessed by defendant Terabelian, 
just like the credit cards and checks possessed by defendant 
Richard Ayvazyan, constitutes evidence that is directly relevant 
to the charged offenses.  Fiber One Media is part of the First 
Superseding Indictment, which alleges that Fiber One Media was 
used to launder the criminal proceeds of the bank fraud and wire 
fraud conspiracy.  (See First Superseding Indictment, Count One, 
Image 1.  Checks and credit cards found in 
Richard Ayvazyan’s phone (1B85) (redacted) (GEX 
19c). 
Image 2.  Anthony Farrar text 
messages (admitted as GEX 37c.) 
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW     Document 549     Filed 06/20/21     Page 4 of 9   Page ID
#:6489

 
 
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
Overt Act No. 7.)  Moreover, it was further explicitly 
referenced in text messages found on defendant Tamara Dadyan’s 
phone in the context of submitting PPP or EIDL applications.  
(See ECF 441 at 6-7 (T.D. iPhone Excerpt 9).)  The handwritten 
note found in defendant Terabelian’s phone, just like the checks 
and credit cards found in defendant Richard Ayvazyan’s phone, 
are directly relevant to the government’s charges alleging their 
knowing use of the businesses, names, and addresses used to 
commit the fraud and money laundering schemes and conspiracies.  
The existence of evidence on defendant Terabelian’s iPhone 
showing her knowledge of and possession of the fake business 
name Fiber One Media in association with Susanna M., who shares 
the same address and company affiliation as Viktoria Kauichko, 
corroborates defendant Terabelian’s intentional possession of 
the Viktoria Kauichko credit card during the Miami border stop.  
As such, the handwritten note, like the credit card and check 
images found in defendant Richard Ayvazyan’s phone, is directly 
relevant to the crimes with which defendants, including 
defendant Terabelian, are charged. 
II. 
If Not Directly Relevant, Then GEX 16x Is Inextricably 
Intertwined  
This Court has previously held that if there was “‘a 
sufficient contextual or substantive connection’ to the charged 
offenses, the Court will admit the evidence.”  Order, ECF 478 at 
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW     Document 549     Filed 06/20/21     Page 5 of 9   Page ID
#:6490

 
 
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
15 (quoting United States v. Vizcarra-Martinez, 66 F.3d 1006, 
1013 (9th Cir. 1995)).1   
This Court has admitted evidence that provides “‘a coherent 
and comprehensible story regarding the commission of the crime’ 
– i.e., it is highly probative of the methods and instruments 
Defendants used to execute the conspiracy alleged in the 
indictment.”  Order, ECF 517 at 1 (quoting United States v. 
Loftis, 843 F.3d 1173, 1178 (9th Cir. 2016).)  This Court has 
done so when the evidence commingled information for individuals 
or businesses whose names were directly used in a Paycheck 
Protection Program (“PPP”) and Economic Injury Disaster Loan 
(“EIDL”) application with those that were not.  (See e.g., ECF 
506, Gov’t. Exh. 4 (previously filed under seal) at 8-9 (“EMAILS 
FOR BORROWERS”).)  This Court has also admitted evidence when 
that evidence contained proof of the overall scheme, even though 
the specific individual named in that evidence was not found in 
a submitted PPP or EIDL application.  (See e.g., ECF 441 at 5-6 
(discussing handwritten instructions regarding identifiers and 
photograph for “Nerses N” with accompanying California Driver’s 
License found on defendant Artur Ayvazyan’s phone).)  Such 
evidence is related to the “overall scheme to obtain fraudulent 
PPP and EIDL loans” and is therefore inextricably intertwined 
with the charged offenses.  Order, ECF 478 at 15.   
 
1 The government hereby incorporates by reference herein the 
evidence and arguments set forth in its Motion in Limine to 
Admit Evidence Inextricably Intertwined with the Charged 
Offenses (“MIL #2”) and supporting filings. 
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW     Document 549     Filed 06/20/21     Page 6 of 9   Page ID
#:6491

 
 
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
If this Court determines the evidence is not directly 
relevant, the evidence found on defendant Terabelian’s phone 
meets the standard for the other evidence this Court previously 
admitted as being inextricably intertwined with the charged 
offenses for all of the reasons explained above.  As such, if 
not directly relevant, defendant Terabelian’s possession of that 
image is still directly related to, and inextricably intertwined 
with, the charged offenses. 
Defendant Terabelian’s argument that the photograph of the 
handwritten note lacks foundation and is confusing is similarly 
unavailing.  The foundation for this image is that it was found 
in defendant Terebelian’s possession.  Whether it was created by 
another person does not negate that fact.  Defendant Terebelian 
does not challenge that she possessed it either in her iCloud 
account2 or directly on her phone.  That possession is highly 
probative of her knowledge of and participation in the charged 
offenses.  This is particularly true given the actual content of 
that evidence, which is her possession of another individual’s 
identifiers in conjunction with a business on whose behalf 
numerous fraudulent PPP and EIDL loans were submitted.  Given 
the ample evidence in this case that defendants texted or 
otherwise passed personal and business identifiers amongst each 
other (see id.), the possibility that the photograph was taken 
by another individual does not diminish its probative value and 
 
2 iCloud is Apple’s proprietary remote storage system.  It 
enables users to store data remotely and download them onto 
their personal devices.  Each iCloud account is tied to a 
specific Apple ID.  
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW     Document 549     Filed 06/20/21     Page 7 of 9   Page ID
#:6492

 
 
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 fact is strongly probative of defendant Terabelian’s 
involvement in the charged conspiracies.  The photograph neither 
lacks foundation nor is it confusing, and it should be admitted.   
Defendant’s possession of the image contained in GEX 16b 
prior to the charged offenses also does not negate its 
admissibility or proof of her relationship to the overall 
scheme.3  As extensively briefed in the government’s MIL #2, 
defendants used a combination of previously held individual and 
business identities as well as newly formed ones to commit the 
charged fraud and money laundering schemes and conspiracies.  
(See ECF 441 at 1-5; see also ECF 384 at 11-12 (T.D. iPhone 
Excerpt 3, referencing use of “osbaldo” or “alak” in loan 
applications for their higher credit score).)  Whether 
defendants reached into their supply of previously formed 
reserve identities or formed new ones, defendants’ possession of 
and access to personal and business identifiers was critical to 
the formation and continuation of the fraud and money laundering 
conspiracies and schemes charged in the First Superseding 
Indictment.  
Notably, defendant appears to contend that a large batch 
download of data to defendant Terabelian’s phone somehow 
demonstrates GEX 16b’s lack of relevance or admissibility.  But, 
 
3 This applies even if defendant used the information for 
other crimes in addition to possessing it during the period of 
the charged offenses.  See United States v. Williams, 989 F.2d 
1061, 1070 (9th Cir. 1993) (holding that intextricably 
intertwined evidence does not become “other acts” evidence 
subject to Fed. R. Evid. 404(b) “simply because the defendant is 
indicted for less than all of his actions”) (internal citations 
and quotations omitted).   
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW     Document 549     Filed 06/20/21     Page 8 of 9   Page ID
#:6493

 
 
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
as previously briefed, the government seized defendant 
Terabelian’s previous phone during the Miami border stop on 
October 19-20, 2020.  In order to access her data on a new 
phone, defendant Terabelian would have had to download the data 
she had stored remotely back onto any new or replacement phone.  
Either way, it does not negate the fact that defendant 
Terabelian possessed the information during the period of the 
charged offenses.  
Finally, defendant’s arguments that GEX 16b fails to meet 
the notice requirements of Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) is 
simply not applicable.  As explained above, this Court has held 
that evidence like GEX 16b is, at a minimum, inextricably 
intertwined with the charged offenses.  As such, the 
requirements of Rule 404(b) simply do not apply.  Loftis, 843 
F.3d at 1177 (relying on Vizcarra-Martinez, 66 F.3d at 1012).)   
III. Conclusion  
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, including the fact 
that the evidence is directly relevant to the charged offenses, 
and even if not directly relevant would be inextricably 
intertwined for the reasons articulated in this Court’s previous 
rulings (ECF 478 at 14-15 and ECF 517 at 1), defendant 
Terabelian’s motion should be denied. 
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW     Document 549     Filed 06/20/21     Page 9 of 9   Page ID
#:6494

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.cacd.802533.549.0.pdf

Size

377,472 bytes

SHA-256

a3a3cec2f41def94bfc9dfd7d3f6988ed30145ad3eeb18edc653c9eb8176344c

Our copy

gov.uscourts.cacd.802533.549.0.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)