Request to Charge by Bernard Okojie — USA v. OKOJIE (Dkt. 82)

Summary

Defendant Bernard Okojie's proposed jury instructions, filed 03/07/23 as Document 82 in Case 4:22-cr-00084-LGW-BWC in the Southern District of Georgia, Savannah Division, set out modified pattern instructions on wire fraud, bank fraud, conspiracy and money laundering. An added instruction would tell jurors that Okojie, as sole actor in businesses including kojie9 LLC and B & K Freight LLC, cannot be convicted of conspiracy with those companies in the absence of another human actor.

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

Case 4:22-cr-00084-LGW-BWC     Document 82     Filed 03/07/23     Page 1 of 35
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
SAVANNAH DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v. CASE NUMBER: 4:22-CR-84

BERNARD OKOBJIE, )
Defendant )

DEFENDANT BERNARD OKOJIE’S
PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTIONS
Case 4:22-cr-00084-LGW-BWC     Document 82     Filed 03/07/23     Page 2 of 35
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PRELIMINARY INSTRUCTIONS
P1 Criminal Cases (Modified)
BASIC INSTRUCTIONS
BI Face Page - Introduction

B2.2 Duty to Follow Instructions and the Presumption of Innocence when a Defendant does not Testify

B3 Definition of Reasonable Doubt

B4 Consideration of Direct and Circumstantial Evidence; Argument of Counsel; Comments by the
Court

B5 Credibility of Witnesses
B6.1 Impeachment of Witnesses because of Inconsistent Statements
B6.2 Impeachment of Witnesses because of Inconsistent Statements or Felony Conviction

B9.1A On or About; Knowingly; Willfully - Generally

SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS

$1.1 Testimony of Accomplice, Informer, or Witness with Immunity

SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS

$17 Good-Faith Defense to Charge of Intent to Defraud

OFFENSE INSTRUCTIONS

O51 Wire Fraud 18 U.S.C. § 1343 (Modified)

O52 Bank Fraud 18 U.S.C. § 1344 (Modified)

Q54 Conspiracy to Commit [Mail] Fraud 18 U.S.C. § 1349 (Modified)

074.2 Money Laundering: Concealing Proceeds of Specified Unlawful Activity or Avoiding
Transaction Reporting Requirement 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(1)(B)(i) & (ii) (Modified)

074.5 Money Laundering Conspiracy 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h) (Modified)
074.6 Money Laundering 18 U.S.C. § 1957 (Modified)

ADDED INSTRUCTION:

One Human Actor Does Not Allow a Conspiracy Conviction
Case 4:22-cr-00084-LGW-BWC     Document 82     Filed 03/07/23     Page 3 of 35
Pl
Preliminary Instructions — Criminal Cases

(Modified)
Members of the Jury:

Now that you have been sworn, I need to explain some basic principles
about a criminal trial and your duty as jurors. These are preliminary instructions.
At the end of the trial I will give you more detailed instructions.

Duty of jury:

It will be your duty to decide what happened so you can determine whether
the defendant is guilty or not guilty of the crime charged in the indictment. At the
end of the trial, I will explain the law that you must follow to reach your verdict.
You must follow the law as I explain it to you even if you do not agree with the
law.

What is evidence:

You must decide the case solely on the evidence presented here in the
courtroom. Evidence can come in many forms. It can be testimony about what
someone saw or heard or smelled. It can be an exhibit admitted into evidence. It
can be someone’s opinion. Some evidence proves a fact indirectly, such as a
witness who saw wet grass outside and people walking into the courthouse
carrying wet umbrellas. Indirect evidence, sometimes called circumstantial

evidence, is simply a chain of circumstances that proves a fact. As far as the law is
Case 4:22-cr-00084-LGW-BWC     Document 82     Filed 03/07/23     Page 4 of 35
concerned, it makes no difference whether evidence is direct or indirect. You may
choose to believe or disbelieve either kind and should give every piece of evidence
whatever weight you think it deserves.

What is not evidence:

Certain things are not evidence and must not be considered. I will list them
for you now:

¢ Statements and arguments of the lawyers. In their opening
statements and closing arguments, the lawyers will discuss the case,
but their remarks are not evidence;

* Questions and objections of the lawyers. The lawyers’ questions are
not evidence. Only the witnesses’ answers are evidence. You should
not think that something is true just because a lawyer’s question
suggests that it is. For instance, if a lawyer asks a witness, “you saw
the defendant hit his sister, didn’t you?” — that question is no
evidence whatsoever of what the witness saw or what the defendant
did, unless the witness agrees with it.

There are rules of evidence that control what can be received into evidence.
When a lawyer asks a question or offers an exhibit and a lawyer on the other side
thinks that it is not permitted by the rules of evidence, that lawyer may object. If I
overrule the objection, then the question may be answered or the exhibit received.
If I sustain the objection, then the question cannot be answered, and the exhibit
cannot be received. Whenever I sustain an objection to a question, you must ignore

the question and not try to guess what the answer would have been.
Case 4:22-cr-00084-LGW-BWC     Document 82     Filed 03/07/23     Page 5 of 35
Sometimes I may order that evidence be stricken and that you disregard or
ignore the evidence. That means that when you are deciding the case, you must not
consider that evidence.

Some evidence is admitted only for a limited purpose. When I instruct you
that an item of evidence has been admitted for a limited purpose, you must
consider it only for that limited purpose and no other.

Credibility of witnesses:

In reaching your verdict, you may have to decide what testimony to believe
and what testimony not to believe. You may believe everything a witness says, or
part of it, or none of it. In considering the testimony of any witness, you may take
into account:

* The opportunity and ability of the witness to see or hear or know the
things testified to;

* The witness’s memory;
* The witness’s manner while testifying;

¢ The witness’s interest in the outcome of the case and any bias or
prejudice;

* Whether other evidence contradicted the witness’s testimony;

* The reasonableness of the witness’s testimony in light of all the
evidence; and

* Any other factors that bear on believability.

I will give you additional guidelines for determining credibility of

witnesses at the end of the case.
Case 4:22-cr-00084-LGW-BWC     Document 82     Filed 03/07/23     Page 6 of 35
Rules for criminal cases:

As you know, this is a criminal case. There are three basic rules about a
criminal case that you must keep in mind.

First, the defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty. The indictment
against the defendant brought by the government is only an accusation, nothing
more. It is not proof of guilt or anything else. The defendant therefore starts out
with a clean slate.

Second, the burden of proof is on the government until the very end of the
case. The defendant has no burden to prove [his] [her] innocence or to present any
evidence, or to testify. Since the defendant has the right to remain silent and may
choose whether to testify, you cannot legally put any weight on a defendant’s
choice not to testify. It is not evidence.

Third, the government must prove the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable
doubt. I will give you further instructions on this point later, but bear in mind that
the level of proof required is high.

Conduct of the jury:

Our law requires jurors to follow certain instructions regarding their
personal conduct in order to help assure a just and fair trial. I will now give you
those instructions:

1. Do not talk, either among yourselves or with anyone else, about
anything related to the case. You may tell the people with whom you
Case 4:22-cr-00084-LGW-BWC     Document 82     Filed 03/07/23     Page 7 of 35
live and your employer that you are a juror and give them information
about when you will be required to be in court, but you may not
discuss with them or anyone else anything related to the case.

2. Do not, at any time during the trial, request, accept, agree to accept,
or discuss with any person, any type of payment or benefit in return
for supplying any information about the trial.

3. You must promptly tell me about any incident you know of
involving an attempt by any person to improperly influence you or
any member of the jury.

4. Do not visit or view the premises or place where the charged crime
was allegedly committed, or any other premises or place involved in
the case. And you must not use Internet maps or Google Earth or any
other program or device to search for a view of any location discussed
in the testimony.

5. Do not read, watch, or listen to any accounts or discussions related
to the case which may be reported by newspapers, television, radio,
the Internet, or any other news media.

6. Do not attempt to research any fact, issue, or law related to this
case, whether by discussions with others, by library or Internet
research, or by any other means or source.

In this age of instant electronic communication and research, I want to
emphasize that in addition to not talking face to face with anyone about the case,
you must not communicate with anyone about the case by any other means,
including by telephone, text messages, email, Internet chat, chat rooms, blogs, or
social-networking websites and apps such as Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat,
YouTube, or Twitter. You may not use any similar technology of social media,

even if I have not specifically mentioned it here.
Case 4:22-cr-00084-LGW-BWC     Document 82     Filed 03/07/23     Page 8 of 35
You must not provide any information about the case to anyone by any
means whatsoever, and that includes posting information about the case, or what
you are doing in the case, on any device or Internet site, including blogs, chat
rooms, social websites, or any other means.

You also must not use Google or otherwise search for any information about
the case, or the law that applies to the case, or the people involved in the case,
including the defendant, the witnesses, the lawyers, or the judge. It is important
that you understand why these rules exist and why they are so important:

Our law does not permit jurors to talk with anyone else about the case, or to
permit anyone to talk to them about the case, because only jurors are authorized to
render a verdict. Only you have been found to be fair and only you have promised
to be fair — no one else is so qualified.

Our law also does not permit jurors to talk among themselves about the case
until the court tells them to begin deliberations, because premature discussions can
lead to a premature final decision.

Our law also does not permit you to visit a place discussed in the testimony.
First, you can’t be sure that the place is in the same condition as it was on the day
in question. Second, even if it were in the same condition, once you go to a place

discussed in the testimony to evaluate the evidence in light of what you see, you
Case 4:22-cr-00084-LGW-BWC     Document 82     Filed 03/07/23     Page 9 of 35
become a witness, not a juror. As a witness, you may now have a mistaken view of
the scene that neither party may have a chance to correct. That is not fair.

Finally, our law requires that you not read or listen to any news accounts of
the case, and that you not attempt to research any fact, issue, or law related to the
case. Your decision must be based solely on the testimony and other evidence
presented in this courtroom. Also, the law often uses words and phrases in special
ways, so it’s important that any definitions you hear come only from me, and not
from any other source. It wouldn’t be fair to the parties for you to base your
decision on some reporter’s view or opinion, or upon other information you
acquire outside the courtroom.

These rules are designed to help guarantee a fair trial, and our law
accordingly sets forth serious consequences if the rules are not followed. I trust
that you understand and appreciate the importance of following these rules, and in
accord with your oath and promise, I know you will do so.

Taking notes:

Moving on now, if you wish, you may take notes to help you remember
what witnesses said. If you do take notes, please keep them to yourself until you
and your fellow jurors go to the jury room to decide the case. Do not let note-
taking distract you so that you do not hear other answers by witnesses. When you

leave the courtroom, your notes should be left in the jury room. Whether or not you
Case 4:22-cr-00084-LGW-BWC     Document 82     Filed 03/07/23     Page 10 of 35
take notes, you should rely on your own memory of what was said. Notes are to
assist your memory only. They are not entitled to any greater weight than your
memory or impression about the testimony.

Course of the trial:

The trial will now begin. First, the government will make an opening
statement, which is simply an outline to help you understand the evidence as it
comes in. Next, the defendant’s attorney may, but does not have to, make an
opening statement. Opening statements are neither evidence nor argument.

The government will then present its witnesses, and counsel for the
defendant may cross-examine them. Following the government’s case, the
defendant may, if he wishes, present witnesses whom the government may cross-
examine. After all the evidence is in, the attorneys will present their closing
arguments to summarize and interpret the evidence for you, and I will instruct you

on the law. After that, you will go to the jury room to decide your verdict.
Case 4:22-cr-00084-LGW-BWC     Document 82     Filed 03/07/23     Page 11 of 35
Bl
Face Page - Introduction

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

SAVANNAH DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )
Vv. ) CASE NUMBER: 4:22-CR-84
BERNARD OKOIJIE, )
Defendant )
COURT’S INSTRUCTIONS
TO THE JURY
Members of the Jury:

It’s my duty to instruct you on the rules of law that you must use in deciding
this case. After I’ve completed these instructions, you will go to the jury room and
begin your discussions — what we call your deliberations.

You must decide whether the Government has proved the specific facts

necessary to find the Defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
Case 4:22-cr-00084-LGW-BWC     Document 82     Filed 03/07/23     Page 12 of 35
The Duty to Follow Instructions; and the Presumption Of Innocence
When a Defendant Does Not Testify

Your decision must be based only on the evidence presented during the trial.
You must not be influenced in any way by either sympathy for or prejudice against
the Defendant or the Government.

You must follow the law as I explain it — even if you do not agree with the
law — and you must follow all of my instructions as a whole. You must not single
out or disregard any of the Court's instructions on the law.

The indictment or formal charge against a Defendant isn’t evidence of guilt.
The law presumes every Defendant is innocent. The Defendant does not have to
prove his innocence or produce any evidence at all. A Defendant does not have to
testify, and if the Defendant chose not to testify, you cannot consider that in any

way while making your decision. The Government must prove guilt beyond a

reasonable doubt. If it fails to do so, you must find the Defendant not guilty.
Case 4:22-cr-00084-LGW-BWC     Document 82     Filed 03/07/23     Page 13 of 35
B3
Definition of “Reasonable Doubt”

The Government's burden of proof is heavy, but it doesn’t have to prove a
Defendant's guilt beyond all possible doubt. The Government's proof only has to
exclude any “reasonable doubt” concerning the Defendant's guilt.

A “reasonable doubt” is a real doubt, based on your reason and common
sense after you’ve carefully and impartially considered all the evidence in the case.

“Proof beyond a reasonable doubt” is proof so convincing that you would be
willing to rely and act on it without hesitation in the most important of your own
affairs. If you are convinced that the Defendant has been proved guilty beyond a

reasonable doubt, say so. If you are not convinced, say so.
Case 4:22-cr-00084-LGW-BWC     Document 82     Filed 03/07/23     Page 14 of 35
Consideration of Direct and Circumstantial Evidence;
Argument of Counsel; Comments by the Court

As I said before, you must consider only the evidence that I have admitted in
the case. Evidence includes the testimony of witnesses and the exhibits admitted.
But, anything the lawyers say is not evidence and isn’t binding on you.

You shouldn’t assume from anything I’ve said that I have any opinion about
any factual issue in this case. Except for my instructions to you on the law, you
should disregard anything I may have said during the trial in arriving at your own
decision about the facts.

Your own recollection and interpretation of the evidence is what matters.

In considering the evidence you may use reasoning and common sense to
make deductions and reach conclusions. You shouldn’t be concerned about
whether the evidence is direct or circumstantial.

“Direct evidence” is the testimony of a person who asserts that he or she has
actual knowledge of a fact, such as an eyewitness.

“Circumstantial evidence” is proof of a chain of facts and circumstances that
tend to prove or disprove a fact. There’s no legal difference in the weight you may

give to either direct or circumstantial evidence.
Case 4:22-cr-00084-LGW-BWC     Document 82     Filed 03/07/23     Page 15 of 35
B5
Credibility of Witnesses

When I say you must consider all the evidence, I don’t mean that you must
accept all the evidence as true or accurate. You should decide whether you believe
what each witness had to say, and how important that testimony was. In making
that decision you may believe or disbelieve any witness, in whole or in part. The
number of witnesses testifying concerning a particular point doesn’t necessarily
matter.

To decide whether you believe any witness I suggest that you ask yourself a
few questions:

¢ Did the witness impress you as one who was telling the truth?

* Did the witness have any particular reason not to tell the truth?

¢ Did the witness have a personal interest in the outcome of the
case?

* Did the witness seem to have a good memory?

* Did the witness have the opportunity and ability to accurately
observe the things he or she testified about?

* Did the witness appear to understand the questions clearly and
answer them directly?

* Did the witness's testimony differ from other testimony or other
evidence?
Case 4:22-cr-00084-LGW-BWC     Document 82     Filed 03/07/23     Page 16 of 35
B6.1
Impeachment of Witnesses Because of Inconsistent Statements

You should also ask yourself whether there was evidence that a witness
testified falsely about an important fact. And ask whether there was evidence that
at some other time a witness said or did something, or didn’t say or do something,
that was different from the testimony the witness gave during this trial.

But keep in mind that a simple mistake doesn’t mean a witness wasn’t
telling the truth as he or she remembers it. People naturally tend to forget some
things or remember them inaccurately. So, if a witness misstated something, you
must decide whether it was because of an innocent lapse in memory or an
intentional deception. The significance of your decision may depend on whether

the misstatement is about an important fact or about an unimportant detail.
Case 4:22-cr-00084-LGW-BWC     Document 82     Filed 03/07/23     Page 17 of 35
Impeachment of Withesses Because of
Inconsistent Statements or Felony Conviction

You should also ask yourself whether there was evidence that a witness
testified falsely about an important fact. And ask whether there was evidence that
at some other time a witness said or did something, or didn’t say or do something,
that was different from the testimony the witness gave during this trial.

To decide whether you believe a witness, you may consider the fact that the
witness has been convicted of a felony or a crime involving dishonesty or a false
statement.

But keep in mind that a simple mistake doesn’t mean a witness wasn’t
telling the truth as he or she remembers it. People naturally tend to forget some
things or remember them inaccurately. So, if a witness misstated something, you
must decide whether it was because of an innocent lapse in memory or an

intentional deception. The significance of your decision may depend on whether

the misstatement is about an important fact or about an unimportant detail.
Case 4:22-cr-00084-LGW-BWC     Document 82     Filed 03/07/23     Page 18 of 35
B9.1A
On or About; Knowingly; Willfully — Generally

You’ll see that the indictment charges that a crime was committed “on or
about” a certain date. The Government doesn’t have to prove that the crime
occurred on an exact date. The Government only has to prove beyond a reasonable
doubt that the crime was committed on a date reasonably close to the date alleged.

The word “knowingly” means that an act was done voluntarily and
intentionally and not because of a mistake or by accident.

[The word “willfully” means that the act was committed voluntarily and
purposely, with the intent to do something the law forbids; that is, with the bad
purpose to disobey or disregard the law. While a person must have acted with the
intent to do something the law forbids before you can find that the person acted
“willfully,” the person need not be aware of the specific law or rule that his

conduct may be violating. ]
Case 4:22-cr-00084-LGW-BWC     Document 82     Filed 03/07/23     Page 19 of 35
S1.1
Testimony of Accomplice, Informer, or Witness with Immunity

You must consider some witnesses’ testimony with more caution than
others.

For example, paid informants, witnesses who have been promised immunity
from prosecution, or witnesses who hope to gain more favorable treatment in their
own cases, may have a reason to make a false statement in order to strike a good
bargain with the Government.

So while a witness of that kind may be entirely truthful when testifying, you
should consider that testimony with more caution than the testimony of other

witnesses.
Case 4:22-cr-00084-LGW-BWC     Document 82     Filed 03/07/23     Page 20 of 35
S17
Good-Faith Defense

“Good faith” is a complete defense to a charge that requires intent to
defraud. A defendant isn’t required to prove good faith. The Government must
prove intent to defraud beyond a reasonable doubt.

An honestly held opinion or an honestly formed belief cannot be fraudulent
intent — even if the opinion or belief is mistaken. Similarly, evidence of a mistake
in judgment, an error in management, or carelessness can’t establish fraudulent
intent.

But an honest belief that a business venture would ultimately succeed
doesn’t constitute good faith if the Defendant intended to deceive others by making

representations the Defendant knew to be false or fraudulent.
Case 4:22-cr-00084-LGW-BWC     Document 82     Filed 03/07/23     Page 21 of 35
Wire Fraud
18 U.S.C. § 1343

(Modified)

It’s a Federal crime to use interstate wire, radio, or television
communications to carry out a scheme to defraud someone else.

The Defendant can be found guilty of this crime only if all the following
facts are proved beyond a reasonable doubt:

(1) the Defendant knowingly devised or participated in a scheme to

defraud someone by using false or fraudulent pretenses,
representations, or promises;

(2) the false pretenses, representations, or promises were about a
material fact;

(3) the Defendant acted with the intent to defraud; and

(4) the Defendant transmitted or caused to be transmitted by wire
some communication in interstate commerce to help carry out the
scheme to defraud.

A “scheme to defraud” means any plan or course of action intended to
deceive or cheat someone out of money or property by using false or fraudulent
pretenses, representations, or promises.

A statement or representation is “false” or “fraudulent” if it is about a
material fact that the speaker knows is untrue or makes with reckless indifference
to the truth, and makes with the intent to defraud. A statement or representation
may be “false” or “fraudulent” when it is a half-truth, or effectively conceals a
material fact, and is made with the intent to defraud.
Case 4:22-cr-00084-LGW-BWC     Document 82     Filed 03/07/23     Page 22 of 35
A “material fact” is an important fact that a reasonable person would use to
decide whether to do or not do something. A fact is “material” if it has the capacity
or natural tendency to influence a person’s decision. It doesn’t matter whether the
decision-maker actually relied on the statement or knew or should have known that
the statement was false.

To act with “intent to defraud” means to act knowingly and with the specific
intent to use false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises to cause
loss or injury. Proving intent to deceive alone, without the intent to cause loss or
injury, is not sufficient to prove intent to defraud.

The Government does not have to prove all the details alleged in the
indictment about the precise nature and purpose of the scheme. It also doesn’t have
to prove that the material transmitted by interstate wire was itself false or
fraudulent; or that using the wire was intended as the specific or exclusive means
of carrying out the alleged fraud; or that the Defendant personally made the
transmission over the wire. And it doesn’t have to prove that the alleged scheme
actually succeeded in defrauding anyone.

To “use” interstate wire communications is to act so that something would
normally be sent through wire , radio, or television communications in the normal

course of business.
Case 4:22-cr-00084-LGW-BWC     Document 82     Filed 03/07/23     Page 23 of 35
Each separate use of the interstate wire communications as part of the

scheme to defraud is a separate crime.
Case 4:22-cr-00084-LGW-BWC     Document 82     Filed 03/07/23     Page 24 of 35
Bank Fraud
18 U.S.C. § 1344

(Modified)

It’s a Federal crime to carry out or attempt to carry out a scheme to defraud a
financial institution, or to get money or property owned or controlled by a financial
institution by using false pretenses, representations, or promises.

The Defendant can be found guilty of this crime only if all the following
facts are proved beyond a reasonable doubt:

(1) the Defendant knowingly carried out or attempted to carry out a

scheme to get money, assets, or other property from a financial

institution by using false or fraudulent pretenses, representations,
or promises about a material fact;

(2) the false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises were
material;

(3) the Defendant intended to defraud the financial institution; and
(4) the financial institution was federally insured or chartered.

A “scheme to defraud” includes any plan or course of action intended to
deceive or cheat someone out of money or property by using false or fraudulent
pretenses, representations, or promises relating to a material fact.

A statement or representation is “false” or “fraudulent” if it is about a
material fact that the speaker knows is untrue or makes with reckless indifference

as to the truth and makes with intent to defraud. A statement or representation may
Case 4:22-cr-00084-LGW-BWC     Document 82     Filed 03/07/23     Page 25 of 35
be “false” or “fraudulent” when it’s a half truth or effectively conceals a material
fact and is made with the intent to defraud.

A “material fact” is an important fact that a reasonable person would use to
decide whether to do or not do something. A fact is “material” if it has the capacity
or natural tendency to influence a person’s decision. It doesn’t matter whether the
decision-maker actually relied on the statement or knew or should have known that
the statement was false.

To act with “intent to defraud” means to act knowingly and with the specific
intent to use false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises to cause
loss or injury. Proving intent to deceive alone, without the intent to cause loss or
injury, is not sufficient to prove intent to defraud.

The Government doesn’t have to prove all the details alleged in the
indictment about the precise nature and purpose of the scheme. It also doesn’t have
to prove that the alleged scheme actually succeeded in defrauding anyone. What
must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt is that the Defendant knowingly
attempted or carried out a scheme substantially similar to the one alleged in the

indictment.
Case 4:22-cr-00084-LGW-BWC     Document 82     Filed 03/07/23     Page 26 of 35
Conspiracy to Commit Wire or Bank Fraud
18 U.S.C. § 1349
(Modified)

It’s a Federal crime to knowingly and willfully conspire or agree with
someone to do something that, if actually carried out, would result in the crime of
either wire or bank fraud.

A “conspiracy” is an agreement by two or more persons to commit an
unlawful act. In other words, it is a kind of partnership for criminal purposes.
Every member of the conspiracy becomes the agent or partner of every other
member.

The Government does not have to prove that those who were members made
any kind of formal agreement. The heart of a conspiracy is the making of the
unlawful plan itself, so the Government does not have to prove that the
conspirators succeeded in carrying out the plan.

The Defendant can be found guilty of this conspiracy offense only if all the
following facts are proved beyond a reasonable doubt:

(1) two or more persons, in some way or manner, agreed to try to

accomplish a common and unlawful plan to commit wire or bank

fraud, as charged in the indictment; and

(2) the Defendant knew the unlawful purpose of the plan and willfully
joined in it;
Case 4:22-cr-00084-LGW-BWC     Document 82     Filed 03/07/23     Page 27 of 35
A person may be a conspirator even without knowing all the details of the
unlawful plan or the names and identities all of the other alleged conspirators.

If the Defendant played only a minor part in the plan but had a general
understanding of the unlawful purpose of the plan — and willfully joined in the plan
on at least one occasion — that’s sufficient for you to find the Defendant guilty.

But simply being present at the scene of an event or merely associating with
certain people and discussing common goals and interests doesn’t establish proof
of a conspiracy. Also, a person who doesn’t know about a conspiracy but happens
to act in a way that advances some purpose of one doesn’t automatically become a

conspirator.
Case 4:22-cr-00084-LGW-BWC     Document 82     Filed 03/07/23     Page 28 of 35
Money Laundering: Concealing Proceeds

of Specified Unlawful Activity
Avoiding Transaction Reporting Requirement
18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(1)(B)(i) and (ii)
(Modified)
It’s a Federal crime to knowingly engage in certain kinds of financial
transactions commonly known as money laundering.
The Defendant can be found guilty of this crime only if all the following

facts are proved beyond a reasonable doubt:

(1) the Defendant knowingly conducted or tried to conduct financial
transactions;

(2) the Defendant knew that the money or property involved in the
transaction were the proceeds of some kind of unlawful activity;

(3) money or property did come from an unlawful activity,
specifically wire or bank fraud; and

(4) the Defendant knew that the transaction was designed, in whole or
in part, to conceal or disguise the nature, location, source,
ownership, or the control of the proceeds.
To “conduct a transaction” means to start or finish a transaction, or to
participate in a transaction at any point.

A “transaction” means a purchase, sale, loan, promise, gift, transfer,

delivery, or other disposition of money or property. A transaction with a financial
Case 4:22-cr-00084-LGW-BWC     Document 82     Filed 03/07/23     Page 29 of 35
institution also includes a deposit, withdrawal, transfer between accounts, or
exchange of currency.

A “financial transaction” means —

a transaction that in any way or to any degree affects interstate or foreign
commerce by sending or moving money by wire or other means.

or

a transaction involving the use of a financial institution that is involved in
interstate or foreign commerce, or whose activities affect, interstate or foreign
commerce in any way or degree. The phrase “financial institution” includes an
insured bank (as defined in section 3(h) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (12
U.S.C. 1813(h)).

“Interstate or foreign commerce” means trade and other business activity
between people or businesses in at least two states or between people or businesses
in the United States and people or businesses outside the United States.

To know “that the money or property involved in the transaction came from
some kind of unlawful activity” is to know that the money or property came from
an activity that’s a felony under state, Federal, or foreign law.

The term “proceeds” means any property derived from or obtained or
retained, directly or indirectly, through some form of unlawful activity, including

the gross receipts of the activity.
Case 4:22-cr-00084-LGW-BWC     Document 82     Filed 03/07/23     Page 30 of 35
The phrase “specified unlawful activity’ means fraud schemes involving
COVID-19 stimulus funds, including EIDL funds and PPP funds, in violation of 18
US.C. 1957.

A “transaction reporting requirement” means a legal requirement that a
person engaged in a trade or business who in the course of that trade or business
receives currency totaling more than $10,000 in a single transaction or in two or

more related transactions must file a report with the Internal Revenue Service.
Case 4:22-cr-00084-LGW-BWC     Document 82     Filed 03/07/23     Page 31 of 35
Money Laundering Conspiracy
18 U.S.C. § 1956(h)
(Modified)

It’s a Federal crime to conspire to engage in money laundering or
transactions involving the proceeds of specified unlawful activity that violates Title
18, United States Code, Section [1956 or 1957].

A “conspiracy” is an agreement by two or more persons to commit an
unlawful act. In other words, it is a kind of partnership for criminal purposes.
Every member of the conspiracy becomes the agent or partner of every other
member.

The Government does not have to prove that all the people named in the
indictment were members of the plan, or that those who were members made any
kind of formal agreement. The heart of a conspiracy is the making of the unlawful
plan itself, so the Government does not have to prove that the conspirators

succeeded in carrying out the plan.

The Defendant can be found guilty of this crime only if all the
following facts are proved beyond a reasonable doubt:

(1)two or more people agreed to try to accomplish a common
and unlawful plan to violate [18 U.S.C. Section 1956 or 1957];
and

(2)the Defendant knew about the plan’s unlawful purpose and
voluntarily joined in it.
Case 4:22-cr-00084-LGW-BWC     Document 82     Filed 03/07/23     Page 32 of 35
A person may be a conspirator even without knowing all the details of the
unlawful plan or the names and identities of all the other alleged conspirators.

If the Defendant played only a minor part in the plan but had a general
understanding of the unlawful purpose of the plan — and voluntarily joined in the
plan on at least one occasion — that’s sufficient for you to find the Defendant guilty.

But simply being present at the scene of an event or merely associating with
certain people and discussing common goals and interests doesn't establish proof of
a conspiracy. Also a person who doesn’t know about a conspiracy but happens
to act in a way that advances some purpose of one doesn’t automatically

become a conspirator.
Case 4:22-cr-00084-LGW-BWC     Document 82     Filed 03/07/23     Page 33 of 35
Money Laundering
18 U.S.C. § 1957
(Modified)
It’s a Federal crime for anyone to engage in certain kinds of financial
transactions commonly known as money laundering.
The Defendant can be found guilty of this offense only if all the following

are proved beyond a reasonable doubt;

(1) the Defendant knowingly engaged or attempted to engage in a
monetary transaction;

(2) the Defendant knew the transaction involved property or funds that
were the proceeds of some criminal activity;

(3) the property had a value of more than $10,000;

(4) the property was in fact proceeds of wire or bank fraud; and

(5) the transaction took place in the United States.

The term “monetary transaction” means the exchange of funds or a monetary
instrument by, through, or to a financial institution in a way that affects interstate
commerce.

A “financial institution” includes an insured bank (as defined in section 3(h)
of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (12 U.S.C. 1813(h)).

The term “proceeds” means any property derived from or obtained or
retained, directly or indirectly, through some form of unlawful activity, including

the gross receipts of the activity.
Case 4:22-cr-00084-LGW-BWC     Document 82     Filed 03/07/23     Page 34 of 35
It doesn’t matter whether the Defendant knew the precise nature of the crime
or that the property came from committing bank or wire fraud. But the
Government must prove that the Defendant knew that the property involved in the
monetary transaction was obtained or derived from committing some crime.

Also it doesn’t matter whether all the property involved was derived from a
crime. The Government only has to prove that $10,000 worth of the property was

obtained or derived from committing a crime.
Case 4:22-cr-00084-LGW-BWC     Document 82     Filed 03/07/23     Page 35 of 35
Added Instruction
One Human Actor Does Not Allow a Conspiracy Conviction

I charge you that Mr. Okojie is the sole stockholder and/or sole actor in the
performance of the activities of these listed businesses (kojie9 LLC, kojie9 home
care llc, kojie9 plumbing services, llc, B & K Automobile Sale Inc., kojie9 Ilc, and
B & K Freight LLC), as such Mr. Okojie cannot be guilty of a criminal conspiracy
with his own corporation in the absence of another human actor.

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,
and as such you would not be permitted to convict Mr. Okojie of conspiracy to
commit wire and bank fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1349 on the basis of EIDL
applications submitted to the Small Business Administration concerning: kojie9
LLC, kojie9 home care llc, kojie9 plumbing services, llc, B & K Automobile Sale

Inc., kojie9 llc, and B & K Freight LLC.

United States v. Stevens, 909 F2d 431 (11" Cir. 1990)


File and source

File

gov.uscourts.gasd.87222.82.0.pdf

Size

1,250,151 bytes

SHA-256

3dc770008b549e6b1b4bfa111fa648cfb0176fc3467141cc44da8736dce7a295

Our copy

gov.uscourts.gasd.87222.82.0.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)