Response in Opposition by USA as to Bernard Okojie re 75 Motion in Limine — USA v. Okojie (Dkt. 87, S.D. Ga.)

Record facts

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Georgia · No. 4:22-cr-00084-LGW-BWC · Doc. 87 · 2023-03-10 · Docket on CourtListener

Full text

1 
 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA 
SAVANNAH DIVISION 
 
 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 
 
) 
) 
) 
 
v. 
) 
CR: 422-084 
 
BERNARD OKOJIE 
) 
) 
 
 
GOVERNMENT’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT BERNARD OKOJIE’S 
MOTION IN LIMINE 
 
 
Prior to the return of the indictment in this case, Defendant Bernard Okojie 
agreed to be interviewed by law enforcement in the presence of his retained counsel. 
During the interview, Defendant specifically identified Brandon Richardson as the 
individual who advised him how to commit numerous aspects of the fraud scheme 
that is the subject of the indictment in this case. To put it simply, Defendant 
identified Richardson as a conspirator in this case. Defendant now has changed his 
mind and seeks to exclude “any mention by the government of a criminal conspiracy 
between Mr. Okojie and Brandon Richardson or any acts alleged to be part of such 
other crime.” ECF No. 75. Defendant’s attempt to keep out evidence he previously 
admitted was part of the conspiracy should be denied.   
I. 
EVIDENCE OF BRANDON RICHARDSON’S ADMITTED 
PARTICIPATION IN THE CONSPIRACY IS HIGHLY RELEVANT TO 
THE CRIMES CHARGED IN THE INDICTMENT AND ADMISSIBLE 
AT TRIAL.  
 
Defendant Bernard Okojie identified Brandon Richardson as a co-conspirator 
in his proffer interview with law enforcement before the indictment was even 
returned in this case. The Government has filed its own motion in limine asking the 
Case 4:22-cr-00084-LGW-BWC     Document 87     Filed 03/10/23     Page 1 of 7

2 
 
Court to admit all the statements in his proffer interview, including the ones about 
Brandon Richardson, because they are admissible admissions no longer subject to 
any protection under the proffer agreement. See ECF No. 79, at 2-3. The 
memorandum of interview describes the substance of Defendant’s statements in 
detail. The memorandum is attached as an exhibit to the Government’s motion in 
limine. See ECF 79-2. 
In summary, in his proffer interview, Defendant identified Brandon 
Richardson as the individual who told him about “free money” that could be made 
by completing SBA EIDL applications; that Richardson told him specific amounts to 
enter in the gross revenue field of these applications; that Richardson identified the 
personally identifiable information (PII) necessary to complete the applications; 
that Richardson submitted a loan application on behalf of the Defendant; that 
Richardson identified the number of employees to enter on applications to generate 
“free money” from the SBA; that Defendant provided Richardson with his own PII 
and the PII of his family members; that Defendant provided Richardson with his 
banking username and password; and that Richardson told Defendant the amount 
of money he would charge for completing SBA loan applications for other people. 
ECF 79-2, at 1–2.  In short, Defendant specifically identified Richardson as an 
individual who advised him how to commit numerous aspects of the fraud scheme 
that eventually led to the return of the indictment in this case. 
Case 4:22-cr-00084-LGW-BWC     Document 87     Filed 03/10/23     Page 2 of 7

3 
 
Defendant barely mentions his proffer interview in his motion in limine. He 
instead raises several contentions in an effort to keep out evidence he told law 
enforcement was relevant. No contention has any merit.   
Defendant first argues that the loan documents associated with Brandon 
Richardson do not “reference Mr. Okojie or any of the other persons identified as 
being involved in the Okojie Indictment.” ECF No. 75, at 2. Similarly, Defendant 
argues that a spreadsheet outlining numerous loan applications associated with 
Richardson, do not explicitly link Okojie to a particular application  Id.    
Defendant’s argument misapprehends the scope of the evidence admissible to 
prove a criminal conspiracy. Defendant is charged with two conspiracy counts in the 
indictment, Conspiracy to Commit Wire Fraud and Bank Fraud, in violation of 18 
U.S.C. § 1349 (Count One), and Conspiracy to Commit Money Laundering, in 
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h). ECF No. 3. As explained in the Eleventh Circuit 
Pattern Jury Instruction (O54) for these offenses:  
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 Government does not have to prove that 
the members planned together all the details of the plan. 
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.  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. 
 
Accordingly, it is not necessary that Defendant be mentioned in a specific 
application filed by Brandon Richardson; that Defendant know the people who are 
Case 4:22-cr-00084-LGW-BWC     Document 87     Filed 03/10/23     Page 3 of 7

4 
 
mentioned in Richardson’s applications; or that the Defendant know all the details 
of Richardson’s role in the scheme.  
Further, the fact that Richardson extended the fraudulent scheme beyond 
him and included others is exactly what Defendant told law enforcement during his 
interview. The loan applications submitted in Brandon Richardson’s company’s 
name (Credit Achieved LLC) and the spreadsheets linking one of those loan 
applications to many others, primarily on the basis that they were submitted from 
the same IP address, corroborate Okojie’s proffer statements. Therefore, the 
extension of the scheme is not a basis to keep the evidence out. It’s a basis for 
admitting it.   
Defendant next argues, apparently in the alternative, that even if the 
evidence supports a conspiratorial agreement between him and Richardson, “such 
would allege a different conspiracy form the one alleged in the present Indictment.”  
ECF No. 75, at 2.  But this contention is flatly contradicted by Defendant’s own 
proffer statements, which identify Richardson and explain how he taught him to fill 
out false EIDL and PPP applications, which are at the center of the indictment in 
this case. Further, the Government intends to show at trial, through documents and 
testimony, that Defendant and Richardson did not come up with some completely 
different conspiracy involving different types of loans or different fraudulent tactics.  
The Government will show that, as the Defendant admitted in his proffer interview, 
Richardson was connected to the conspiracy charged in the Indictment.    
Case 4:22-cr-00084-LGW-BWC     Document 87     Filed 03/10/23     Page 4 of 7

5 
 
Defendant also errs in suggesting that “[n]o information has been included in 
the discovery disclosures as to any connection or involvement of any of the two 
Brandon Richardson application spreadsheets to the transactions contained in the 
Indictment.” ECF No. 75.  Defendant again misapprehends the scope of evidence 
admissible to prove a conspiracy. It is not necessary for Richardson’s applications to 
be mentioned in the indictment or specifically tied to a transaction alleged in the 
indictment. What is required is for the Government to show that Defendant and at 
least one other co-conspirator “in some way or manner, agreed to try and accomplish 
a common and unlawful plan to commit wire and bank fraud, as charged in the 
indictment.” The Government intends to do that at trial, and the evidence outlined 
in Defendant’s motion in limine regarding Brandon Richardson is relevant to the 
conspiracy charged in the Indictment.   
Defendant finally argues that “Brandon Richardson is not mentioned or 
referenced in the Indictment, nor was he mentioned during the grand jury 
testimony leading to this Indictment.” ECF No. 75, at 3. But as Judge Cheesbro 
explained in rejecting Defendant’s motion to dismiss, “an indictment alleging a 
conspiracy is sufficient if it alleges a defendant conspired with another person, even 
if the indictment does not name the coconspirators.” ECF No. 53 at 5 (citing United 
States v. Stapleton, 39 F.4th 1320, 1330 (11th Cir. 2022); United States v. Daniels, 
135 F. App’x 305, 308 (11th Cir. 2005). It is of no moment, therefore, that the name 
“Brandon Richardson” is not in the Indictment. 
Case 4:22-cr-00084-LGW-BWC     Document 87     Filed 03/10/23     Page 5 of 7

6 
 
For all the above reasons, Defendant’s motion in limine should be denied. At 
trial, Defendant is free to contest the link of any particular piece of evidence to the 
charged conspiracy, including the evidence linking Richardson to the fraudulent 
scheme alleged in the indictment. But his attempt to keep the jury from hearing 
any evidence regarding an admitted co-conspirator is without basis and should be 
denied.    
Respectfully submitted this 10th day of March, 2023. 
JILL E. STEINBERG 
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY 
 
s/ Matthew A. Josephson 
Matthew A. Josephson 
Assistant United States Attorney 
Georgia Bar No. 367216 
United States Attorney’s Office 
Southern District of Georgia 
P.O. Box 8970 
Savannah GA 31412 
T: (912) 652-4422 
matthew.josephson@usdoj.gov 
 
s/ Jennifer A. Stanley 
 
 
 
Jennifer A. Stanley 
Assistant United States Attorney 
Alabama Bar No. 8400E77T 
United States Attorney’s Office 
Southern District of Georgia 
Post Office Box 2017 
Augusta, Georgia 30903 
T: (706) 826-4525 
jennifer.stanley@usdoj.gov 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Case 4:22-cr-00084-LGW-BWC     Document 87     Filed 03/10/23     Page 6 of 7

7 
 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 
This is to certify that I have on this day served all parties in this case in 
accordance with the notice of electronic filing (“NEF”), which was generated as a 
result of electronic filing in this Court. 
 
This 10th day of March 2023. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
JILL E. STEINBERG 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
s/ Jennifer A. Stanley   
 
 
Jennifer A. Stanley  
Assistant United States Attorney 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Case 4:22-cr-00084-LGW-BWC     Document 87     Filed 03/10/23     Page 7 of 7

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.gasd.87222.87.0.pdf

Size

171,614 bytes

SHA-256

c04f12d582b85fdcb286afd24941c47190da9d568fb7c9964878f626afc45e4c

Our copy

gov.uscourts.gasd.87222.87.0.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)