Motion to Dismiss Counts One and Three and Corresponding Portions of The Forfeiture — USA v. Okojie (Dkt. 29, S.D. Ga.)

Record facts

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Georgia · No. 4:22-cr-00084-LGW-BWC · Doc. 29 · 2022-09-15 · Docket on CourtListener

Full text

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
SAVANNAH DIVISION 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
)
)
v.                                        
)   CASE NUMBER: CR422-0084
)
BERNARD OKOJIE, 
 
)
Defendant
)
DEFENDANT BERNARD OKOJIE’S 
MOTION TO DISMISS
COUNTS ONE AND THREE OF THE INDICTMENT 
AND THE CORRESPONDING PORTIONS OF THE FORFEITURE ALLEGATION
COMES NOW, BERNARD OKOJIE, Defendant, by and through his counsel of record,
and files this his Motion to Dismiss Counts One and Three of the Indictment, and the
Corresponding Portions of the Forfeiture Allegation, as follows:
Count One of the Indictment charges Mr. Okojie with conspiracy to commit wire and
bank fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1349.  Count Three of the Indictment charges him with
money laundering conspiracy in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h). 
In paragraph 26 of Count One of the Indictment, it alleges various EIDL applications and
it provides the names of the entity for which the applications were submitted.  It also alleges Mr.
Okojie’s ownership and operation of these entities.  There are no allegations as to any person
other than Mr. Okojie being an owner, shareholder, officer, or otherwise involved with the listed
entities.  As such, these allegations are insufficient to set out a valid conspiracy to commit wire
and bank fraud charges.  As when there is only one human actor, acting for himself and for the
corporate entity that he controls, the law does not allow a conspiracy conviction.  United States
v. Stevens, 909 F2d 431 (11th Cir. 1990)
Case 4:22-cr-00084-LGW-BWC     Document 29     Filed 09/15/22     Page 1 of 4

An additional defect in the Indictment is that the allegations of conspiracy in Counts One
and Three fails to name any co-conspirators as to identify the alleged agreement.  The existence
of an agreement with another person or entity is required to establish a conspiracy.   Paragraph
27 of the Indictment identifies the date of EIDL applications, and the amounts of gross revenue
for people who are labeled as Individuals 1 through 8.  The residences of Individuals 1 through 8
are also provided.  However, no allegation is made that any conspiratorial agreement was made
with any of the Individuals 1 through 8 and Mr. Okojie.  To the contrary, the discovery materials
suggest that these other parties contend that they were unaware of any unlawful activities and did
not have an agreement with Mr. Okojie to do either an unlawful act or a lawful act by unlawful
means.
As a consequence of the Indictment’s failure to identify any agreement or any party or
unrelated entity that was a party to any agreement with Mr. Okojie, he is prevented from being
sufficiently informed to enable him to prepare a defense without surprise at trial and he is not
adequately protected against subsequent prosecution as is required by the law.  United States v.
Davis, 679 F.2d 845 (11th Cir. 1982)
A valid conspiracy charge requires more than one person, and any other person must
have sufficient knowledge concerning a transaction that they are agreeing to commit a crime. 
United States v. Johnson, 440 F.3d 1286 (11th Cir. 2006)
The vague allegation of the conspiracy count charged in Counts One and Three are also
insufficient to protect Mr. Okojie from the dangers of being prosecuted inappropriately under the
conspiracy alleged in the Indictment and for a series of other smaller uncoordinated conspiracies. 
United States v. Toler, 144 F.3d 1423 (11th Cir. 1998); United States v. Glinton, 154 F.3d 1245 
Case 4:22-cr-00084-LGW-BWC     Document 29     Filed 09/15/22     Page 2 of 4

(11th Cir. 1998)
The allegation in paragraph 29 concerning the PPP application to Lender 1, does not
provide any additional information as to either what the alleged agreement was or who it was
with.  
The allegations in Count 3, the money laundering conspiracy, provide no further
information to identify any agreement or other party to the agreement, and as such is subject to
the same deficiencies in the Indictment previously discussed.
WHEREFORE, Mr. Okojie respectfully requests that the Court dismiss Counts One and
Three of the Indictment, along with the corresponding portions of the Forfeiture Allegation that
incorporate and rely on Count One and Count Three in the Indictment. 
Respectfully submitted, this 15th day of September, 2022.    
/s/John  J. Ossick, Jr.
Georgia Bar No. 555150
JOHN J. OSSICK, JR., P.C.
Post Office Box 1087
Kingsland, Georgia  31548
Telephone:  912-729-5864
E-mail:  ossick@tds.net 
Case 4:22-cr-00084-LGW-BWC     Document 29     Filed 09/15/22     Page 3 of 4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
SAVANNAH DIVISION 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
)
)
v.                                        
)   CASE NUMBER: CR422-0084
)
BERNARD OKOJIE, 
 
)
Defendant
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 
This is to certify that I have this day served all parties in this case in accordance with the
directives from the Court Notice of Electronic Filing (“NEF”), which was generated as a result
of electronic filing.
This 15th day of September, 2022. 
/s/John  J. Ossick, Jr.
Georgia Bar No. 555150
JOHN J. OSSICK, JR., P.C.
Post Office Box 1087
Kingsland, Georgia  31548
Telephone:  912-729-5864
E-mail:  ossick@tds.net 
Case 4:22-cr-00084-LGW-BWC     Document 29     Filed 09/15/22     Page 4 of 4

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.gasd.87222.29.0.pdf

Size

94,278 bytes

SHA-256

b3b34f189279f0c79d4b041cbb90fd2026e823d07cffcc67395f37fee19aea6c

Our copy

gov.uscourts.gasd.87222.29.0.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)