Third Motion in Limine by USA as to Casey David Crowther — USA v. Crowther (Dkt. 78, M.D. Fla. No. 2:20-mj-01094, docketed in No. 2:20-cr-00114)

Record facts

U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida · No. 2:20-cr-00114 · Doc. 78 · 2021-03-08 · Docket on CourtListener

Full text

1 
 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 
FORT MYERS DIVISION 
 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 
 
v. 
CASE NO. 2:20-cr-114-JES-MRM 
 
CASEY DAVID CROWTHER 
 
UNITED STATES’ MOTION IN LIMINE REGARDING EVIDENCE 
OR ARGUMENT THAT LENDER  
AND MORTGAGE LENDER SUFFERED NO FINANCIAL LOSS 
 
 
The United States of America seeks an order prohibiting Defendant 
Casey Crowther (“Crowther”) from eliciting testimony, introducing evidence, 
or making argument that the Lender and Mortgage Lender alleged in the 
Second Superseding Indictment suffered no financial loss as a result of the 
defendant’s actions.  
Introduction 
The defendant is charged in a seven-count second superseding 
indictment with bank fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1344) (Counts One and Five), false 
statement to a lending institution (18 U.S.C. § 1014) (Counts Two and Six), 
and illegal monetary transactions (18 U.S.C. § 1957) (Counts Three, Four, and 
Seven). Doc. 62.  The seven charges can be grouped into two categories:  those 
related to Crowther’s procurement of a Payroll Protection Program (“PPP”) 
loan from the Lender and those related to Crowther’s procurement of a 
Case 2:20-cr-00114-JES-M_M     Document 78     Filed 03/08/21     Page 1 of 6 PageID 293

 
2 
 
mortgage loan from the Mortgage Lender to purchase a residence in St. James 
City. 
With respect to the PPP loan, the government intends to prove that 
Crowther applied for an approximately $2.1 million loan from the Lender on 
behalf of his company Target Roofing.  When he applied for the loan, 
Crowther represented to the bank that Target Roofing would only use the 
proceeds of the loan for things like payroll and rent, even though he intended 
to impermissibly use the proceeds to benefit himself.  As of the filing of this 
motion, the repayment period on the loan has not commenced. A PPP 
borrower is not required to make any repayments on the principal or interest 
on the loan until 10 months after the end of the borrower’s loan forgiveness 
period or 10 months from the date the SBA determines the loan is not eligible 
for forgiveness. 86 FR 8283, 8288. Here, Crowther’s loan forgiveness period 
ended on or about September 29, 2020, 24 weeks after the loan’s disbursement 
date of April 14, 2020. Per the conditions of the loan program, Crowther 
would not have to make payments toward the loan until on or about July 29, 
2021.1  
With respect to the mortgage, the government intends to prove that 
Crowther defrauded the Mortgage Lender by making false representations 
 
1 Crowther did not apply for loan forgiveness during the 24 week loan 
forgiveness period.  
Case 2:20-cr-00114-JES-M_M     Document 78     Filed 03/08/21     Page 2 of 6 PageID 294

 
3 
 
concerning the source of the mortgage’s down payment and his liquid assets. 
In an effort to corroborate these false representations, Crowther submitted 
altered bank statements that falsely represented the account’s available 
balance. The Mortgage Lender, relying on the defendant’s false 
representations, approved Crowther’s application for the mortgage and, on 
July 31, 2020, disbursed approximately $640,381.21 towards the purchase of a 
$1,300,000 residence in St. James City.   After being indicted for bank fraud 
related to the PPP loan on September 23, 2020, Crowther listed the St. James 
City residence for sale. Before the residence was sold2, on October 28, 2020, 
Crowther was indicted for mortgage fraud in a superseding indictment and the 
government filed a notice of lis pendens on October 29, 2020 (Doc. 33). The 
government and defense counsel agreed to allow the pending sale of the 
residence to proceed, and the Mortgage Lender recouped the $640,381.21 it 
loaned to Crowther.  
Argument  
Crowther has previously argued the government cannot prove a scheme 
to defraud because there was no actual loss. Doc. 41 at 6.  As explained 
below, the federal offense of bank fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1344) does not require 
 
2 On the date the defendant was charged with mortgage fraud in the 
Superseding Indictment, the residence was pending sale but had not been sold.   
Case 2:20-cr-00114-JES-M_M     Document 78     Filed 03/08/21     Page 3 of 6 PageID 295

 
4 
 
the government to prove the victim financial institution suffered a loss. See 
Shaw v. United States, 137 S.Ct. 462 (2016). Furthermore, since financial loss is 
not an element of the offense, any testimony, evidence, or argument 
concerning the absence of a financial loss is irrelevant and has no probative 
value.  
To prove the crime of bank fraud, the government is required to prove 
the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt: 
(1) The defendant knowingly carried out a scheme to defraud 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 a mortgage lending 
business.  
See 11th Cir. Pattern Jury Instructions (2016).  
 
The bank fraud statute does not require the government to prove the 
financial institution suffered a financial loss or that that defendant intended to 
cause such a loss. Shaw, 137 S.Ct. at 464. Additionally, “evidence is relevant 
if: (a) it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would 
Case 2:20-cr-00114-JES-M_M     Document 78     Filed 03/08/21     Page 4 of 6 PageID 296

 
5 
 
be without the evidence; and (b) the fact is of consequence in determining the 
action.” Fed. R. Evid. 401.  While the issue of actual or intended loss may 
become relevant at a sentencing hearing, see generally U.S.S.G. §2B1.1, such a 
consideration is only appropriate in the event that Crowther is found guilty of 
any of the respective fraud charges contained within the Second Superseding 
Indictment.  At this point such argument or suggestion regarding loss would 
be irrelevant and should not be permitted at trial.    
Wherefore, the United States respectfully requests an order prohibiting 
Crowther from eliciting testimony, introducing evidence, and making 
arguments that the Lender and Mortgage Lender as alleged in the Second 
Superseding Indictment suffered no financial loss.   
Respectfully submitted, 
 
By: 
 /s/Trent Reichling              
Trenton J. Reichling  
Assistant United States Attorney 
Florida Bar No. 0084422 
2110 First Street, Suite 3-137 
Ft. Myers, Florida 33901 
Telephone: (239) 461-2200 
Facsimile: 
(239) 461-2219 
E-mail: Trenton.Reichling@usdoj.gov 
Case 2:20-cr-00114-JES-M_M     Document 78     Filed 03/08/21     Page 5 of 6 PageID 297

 
6 
 
U.S. v. Casey David Crowther   
        Case No. 2:20-cr-114-JES-MRM 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 
 
I hereby certify that on March 8, 2021, I electronically filed the 
foregoing with the Clerk of the Court by using the CM/ECF system which 
will send a notice of electronic filing to the following: 
Nicole H. Waid  
nicole.waid@fisherbroyles.com  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Trent Reichling         
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Trenton J. Reichling  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Assistant United States Attorney 
Case 2:20-cr-00114-JES-M_M     Document 78     Filed 03/08/21     Page 6 of 6 PageID 298

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.flmd.381779.78.0.pdf

Size

108,933 bytes

SHA-256

b6a9bca37755ea6ad1f591b851f34ce37f7ec334fa66a7459d2bde0a8b6c1a4a

Our copy

gov.uscourts.flmd.381779.78.0.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)