MOTION for Forfeiture of an Order of Forfeiture and Preliminary Order for Direct Assets by… — USA v. Crowther (Dkt. 148)

Record facts

U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida · No. 2:20-cr-00114 · Doc. 148 · 2021-05-27 · Docket on CourtListener

Summary

The United States' motion for an order of forfeiture and a preliminary order of forfeiture for direct assets, filed May 27, 2021 as Document 148 in United States v. Casey David Crowther, Case No. 2:20-cr-114-JES-MRM, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida. Under 18 U.S.C. §§ 982(a)(1) and 982(a)(2)(A) and Rule 32.2(b)(2), the government asks the court to forfeit a 2020 Invincible catamaran and about $630,482.37 from the sale of a Florida property, and to enter an order of forfeiture for $2,739,081.21. The memorandum of law states the defendant pled guilty to two counts on March 22, 2021 and a jury found him guilty on the remaining counts. It states that figure combines $2,098,700.00 in Paycheck Protection Program loan funds and $640,381.21 in mortgage loan funds. The 13-page motion asks that the orders become final at sentencing.

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

Full text

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 FOR ORDER OF FORFEITURE AND 
PRELIMINARY ORDER OF FORFEITURE FOR DIRECT ASSETS 
 
Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 982(a)(1), 982(a)(2)(A), and Rule 32.2(b)(2) of the 
Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, the United States of America hereby moves for 
a preliminary order of forfeiture for the following assets, which were involved in, or 
proceeds of, the offenses for which the defendant was convicted: 
a. 
a 2020 40’ Invincible Catamaran, Hull ID# IVBC0076D920,  
 
 
 
registered to and owned by the defendant (the Catamaran); and  
 
b. 
approximately $630,482.37 received from the sale of the real  
 
 
 
property located at 3653 San Carlos Drive, Saint James City,  
 
 
 
Florida 33956, in lieu of the property itself (the Real Property). 
 
The United States further moves, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 982(a)(1), 
982(a)(2)(A), and Rule 32.2(b)(2), for an order of forfeiture against the defendant in 
the amount of $2,739,081.21, representing the total proceeds of, and property 
involved in, the offenses of which the defendant was convicted.   
The United States further asks that the preliminary order of forfeiture for 
direct assets and order of forfeiture become final as to the defendant at sentencing.   
 
In support of its motion, the United States submits the following 
memorandum of law. 
Case 2:20-cr-00114-JES-M_M     Document 148     Filed 05/27/21     Page 1 of 13 PageID
3384

2 
MEMORANDUM OF LAW 
I. 
Statement of Facts 
A. 
Allegations Against the Defendant  
1. 
The defendant was charged in a Second Superseding Indictment, in 
pertinent part, with (1) two counts of a bank fraud scheme, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 
§ 1344 and 18 U.S.C. § 2, (2) two counts of making a false statement to a lending 
institution, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1014 and 18 U.S.C. § 2, and (3) two counts of 
money laundering offenses, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1957 and 18 U.S.C. § 2.  Doc. 
62.  
 
2. 
The Second Superseding Indictment also contained forfeiture 
allegations putting the defendant on notice that, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 982(a)(1) 
and 982(a)(2)(A), the United States would seek forfeiture of the following assets 
which constitute or were derived from (a) proceeds obtained, directly or indirectly, as 
a result of the offenses charged in Counts One, Two, Five, and/or Six, and/or (b) 
property involved in the money laundering offenses charged in Counts Three and/or 
Four: 
a. 
an order of forfeiture in the amount of approximately 
$2,098,700.00, which represents the proceeds obtained from the 
offenses;  
 
b. 
a 2020 40’ Invincible Catamaran, Hull ID# IVBC0076D920, 
registered to and owned by Casey Crowther; and 
 
c. 
the real property located at 3653 San Carlos Dr., Saint James 
City, Florida 33956.  Id. at 16-17. 
 
 
Case 2:20-cr-00114-JES-M_M     Document 148     Filed 05/27/21     Page 2 of 13 PageID
3385

3 
 
3. 
On February 17, 2021, the United States filed a Bill of Particulars which 
more specifically identified the assets subject to forfeiture.1  Doc. 72. 
 
B. 
Finding of Guilt and Admissions of Fact 
 
4. 
On March 22, 2021, without the benefit of a plea agreement, the 
defendant pled guilty to Counts Five (bank fraud scheme) and Six (making a false 
statement to a lending institution).2 The Court accepted his plea and adjudicated him 
guilty.  Doc. 117.   
 
5. 
On March 23, 2021, a jury trial commenced for the remaining counts 
and, at the conclusion of the trial, the jury found the defendant guilty on all counts.  
Doc. 127.   
II. 
Applicable Law 
 
 
 
The United States is entitled to an order of forfeiture against the defendant and 
to forfeit the direct assets, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 982(a)(2)(A).  The United States 
may criminally forfeit, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 982(a)(2)(A), any property 
constituting, or derived from, any proceeds the defendant obtained, directly or 
 
1  While this case was pending, the defendant obtained an offer to purchase the real property 
located at 3653 San Carlos Drive.  Recognizing that it was in all parties’ best interest to 
allow the pending sale to proceed as scheduled, the parties executed at Stipulation 
Regarding Sale of Real Property.  Exhibit A.  In that stipulation, the United States agreed to 
provide releases necessary to allow the sale to proceed.  In exchange, the parties agreed that 
the net proceeds obtained from the sale of the property would be placed into a holding 
account and preserved as substitute res pending the outcome of the case.  The Bill of 
Particulars was filed in accordance with this stipulation to reflect the parties’ agreement that 
the sale proceeds be considered for forfeiture as substitute res in lieu of the real property.  
 
2  The United States moved to dismiss Count Seven.  The defendant went to trial on the 
remaining counts (One through Four). 
Case 2:20-cr-00114-JES-M_M     Document 148     Filed 05/27/21     Page 3 of 13 PageID
3386

4 
indirectly, as a result of a bank fraud scheme (18 U.S.C. § 1344) and/or making a 
false statement to a lending institution (18 U.S.C. § 1014).  In addition, the United 
States is entitled to an order of forfeiture against the defendant and to forfeit the 
direct assets pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 982(a)(1), which provides for the forfeiture of 
any property, real or personal, involved in a money laundering offense (18 U.S.C. § 
1957), and any property traceable to such property.  
Because forfeiture is an aspect of sentencing, the United States need only 
prove the elements of forfeiture by a preponderance of the evidence.  See United States 
v. Dicter, 198 F.3d 1284, 1289-90 (11th Cir. 1999) (elements of forfeiture under 21 
U.S.C. § 853(a)(1) and (a)(2) must be proven under the preponderance standard); 
United States v. Hasson, 333 F.3d 1264, 1278 (11th Cir. 2003) (extending 
preponderance standard to forfeiture cases under 18 U.S.C. § 982(a)(1)). 
 
Moreover, forfeiture is mandatory and cannot be offset by restitution already 
paid to victims.  See United States v. Bailey, 630 Fed. Appx. 902, 903-904 (11th Cir. 
2015) (the Eleventh Circuit has “refused to offset the required forfeiture by restitution 
already paid to victims, recognizing that forfeiture and restitution are separate 
concepts serving different goals”); see also United States v. Joseph, 743 F.3d 1350 (11th 
Cir. 2014) (finding that the district court’s oral pronouncement directing that 
restitution to the IRS be offset by the amount of the forfeiture was contrary to law 
and affirming written judgment, which declined to make such an offset). 
 
 
 
Case 2:20-cr-00114-JES-M_M     Document 148     Filed 05/27/21     Page 4 of 13 PageID
3387

5 
III. 
Factual Basis for Forfeiture 
A. 
Forfeiture of Directly Traceable Assets  
The United States seeks to forfeit the property identified below as property 
traceable to the proceeds the defendant obtained from the bank fraud schemes (18 
U.S.C. § 1344) and making a false statements to lending institutions (18 U.S.C. § 
1014), and also, with regards to the Catamaran, as property involved in money 
laundering (18 U.S.C. § 1957).  Rule 32.2(b)(1) provides that, when the government 
seeks to forfeit specific property, the Court must determine whether the government 
has established the requisite nexus between the property and the defendant=s crime.  
Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.2(b)(1).   
The Catamaran Purchased with PPP Loan Funds 
In this case, the defendant was found guilty of a bank fraud scheme (18 U.S.C. 
§ 1344) and making a false statement to a lending institution (18 U.S.C. § 1014) 
relating to his fraudulent procurement of a Payroll Protection Program (PPP) loan, 
as well as money laundering (18 U.S.C. § 1957) relating to his subsequent use of 
those illicit proceeds to purchase the Catamaran.  As was established at trial, in or 
around April 2020, the defendant applied for an approximately $2.1 million PPP 
loan from Sanibel Captiva Community Bank on behalf of his company, Target 
Roofing.  The defendant made false and fraudulent representations in order to secure 
the loan and used the PPP loan funds for his own personal enrichment.  
As Sanibel Captiva Bank office manager Kristen DiIorio testified, around the 
time of the PPP loan application, the defendant contacted her about opening a 
Case 2:20-cr-00114-JES-M_M     Document 148     Filed 05/27/21     Page 5 of 13 PageID
3388

6 
separate account that he wanted exclusively for the PPP loan funds. Ms. DiIorio 
assisted the defendant with opening Sanibel Captiva account ending 6781, held in 
the name of Targer Roofing and Sheet Metal Inc. (Sanibel Captiva Account 6781).   
See Gov’t Ex. 26.  As Ms. DiIorio testified, the defendant was the only signor on the 
account and the only one with access to the account.  
According to the April 2020 bank statement for Sanibel Captiva Account 
6781, on April 14, 2020, $2,098,700 in PPP loan funds were deposited into the 
account.  Gov’t Ex. 107.  Prior to that deposit, the account had a zero balance.  Id.  
According to the trial testimony of Diane Knott, in the next few days, the defendant 
initiated a series of transfers from the account, including a $689,417 wire to Sara Bay 
Marina on April 24, 2020, for the purchase of the Catamaran.  Gov’t Exs. 33, 34, 
and 107.    
Because the Catamaran was purchased with $689,417 in proceeds from the 
fraudulently obtained PPP loan, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1344 and 18 U.S.C. § 
1014 (Counts One and Two), it is subject to forfeiture pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 
982(a)(2)(A).  Additionally, because the defendant conducted the transaction to 
purchase the Catamaran knowing it involved more than $10,000 in illicit proceeds, in 
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1957 (Count Four), the Catamaran is subject to forfeiture 
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 982(a)(1). 
The Real Property Purchased with Fraudulently Obtained Mortgage 
Before proceeding to trial on the counts relating to the PPP loan, the 
defendant pled guilty to a separate bank fraud scheme (18 U.S.C. § 1344) and to 
Case 2:20-cr-00114-JES-M_M     Document 148     Filed 05/27/21     Page 6 of 13 PageID
3389

7 
making a false statement to a lending institution (18 U.S.C. § 1014) relating to a 
mortgage he obtained via fraud to purchase the Real Property. Pages 3 through 5 of 
the United States’ Notice of Maximum Penalties, Elements of Offense, 
Personalization of Elements and Factual Basis (Doc. 112) state, among other things, 
that in May 2020, the defendant entered into a contract to purchase the Real 
Property.  To purchase the home, the defendant obtained a loan for a portion of the 
purchase price from the mortgage lender Angel Oak Mortgage Solutions, LLC 
(Angel Oak). Id. at 3. 
 
During the application process for the loan, Angel Oak required the defendant 
to provide bank statements showing the source of funds he intended to use to make 
the down payment on the property in order to evaluate the risk of making a loan to 
him and to make sure that he had sufficient money on hand to meet certain payment 
obligations that would arise during the first year of the loan (e.g. taxes and 
insurance). Id.  The defendant represented to Angel Oak that he would be using 
money contained in a bank account associated with his single-asset real estate 
company, 3801 Jade Ave, LLC (Jade Avenue Account), to make the down payment.  
Id. The defendant created three false bank statements with inflated balances for the 
Jade Avenue Account and a screenshot of a webpage which falsely showed an 
inflated balance for that account as of on or about July 17, 2020, which he provided 
to a mortgage broker, whose job it was to gather documents from the borrower and 
provide them to Angel Oak.  Id. Angel Oak relied on those documents to determine 
Case 2:20-cr-00114-JES-M_M     Document 148     Filed 05/27/21     Page 7 of 13 PageID
3390

8 
the defendant’s qualification for and terms of the loan it ultimately provided to him 
on or about July 31, 2020. Id. 
 
Shortly before the loan closed and on July 31, 2020, the defendant signed and 
submitted to Angel Oak a document which falsely stated that the Jade Avenue 
Account contained approximately $1,071,696, when, in fact, the account contained 
no more than approximately $404,114.79, an amount insufficient to make the 
required down payment.  Id. at 4. To make the down payment, the defendant relied 
on, among other things, previously undisclosed money, including a draw on a line of 
credit associated with another business he owned. Id. 
 
As outlined in the Second Superseding Indictment, these misrepresentations 
caused the lender to approve the loan and disburse approximately $640,381.21 for 
the defendant’s purchase of the Real Property. 
 
Because the Real Property was purchased with proceeds obtained from a bank 
fraud scheme and from false statements to a lending institution, in violation of 18 
U.S.C. § 1344 and 18 U.S.C. § 1014, it is subject to forfeiture pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 
982(a)(2)(A).   
B. 
Order of Forfeiture 
 
In addition to the forfeiture of directly traceable assets, the United States seeks 
an Order of Forfeiture in the total amount of proceeds the defendant obtained from 
the bank fraud schemes and false statements to lending institutions, and subsequently 
used, in part, in his money laundering violations.  For cases in which a defendant no 
longer has the actual dollars or property traceable to proceeds in his possession, or 
Case 2:20-cr-00114-JES-M_M     Document 148     Filed 05/27/21     Page 8 of 13 PageID
3391

9 
the government cannot locate those assets, the obligation to forfeit simply takes the 
form of an order of forfeiture in favor of the United States.  See United States v. 
Padron, 527 F.3d 1156, 1161-62 (11th Cir. 2008).  Rule 32.2(b)(1) provides that, 
where the government seeks an order of forfeiture, the Court must determine the 
amount of money that the defendant will be ordered to pay. 
Aside from the Catamaran and Real Property, identified above, the defendant 
has dissipated or otherwise spent the proceeds he obtained and laundered.  Because 
the United States could not locate all of the specific property constituting or derived 
from the proceeds the defendant obtained from his bank fraud schemes and/or 
making false statements to a lending institution, or from property involved in his 
money laundering offenses, the United States seeks an order of forfeiture against the 
defendant for $2,739,081.21, pursuant to Rule 32.2(b)(2).  This amount includes the 
$2,098,700.00 in Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) loan funds the defendant 
obtained from the bank fraud scheme and false statement to a lending institution as 
charged in Counts One and Two, plus the $640,381.21 in mortgage loan funds the 
defendant obtained from the bank fraud scheme and false statement to a lending 
institution as charged in Counts Five and Six.3   
 
3  This figure also encompasses the amounts involved in the money laundering offenses for 
which the defendant was found guilty (Counts Three and Four).  Counts Three and Four 
related to the defendant’s subsequent, knowing use of some of these illicit PPP loan 
proceeds in two monetary transactions, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1957.  The first involved 
a $100,000 wire to the defendant’s former business partner on April 21, 2020 (Count Three).  
The second was the $689,417 wire on April 24, 2020 for the purchase of the Catamaran 
(Count Four). 
Case 2:20-cr-00114-JES-M_M     Document 148     Filed 05/27/21     Page 9 of 13 PageID
3392

10 
 
With regards to the proceeds obtained from the offenses in Counts One and 
Two (some of which were subsequently laundered as part of the offenses in Counts 
Three and Four), as detailed above, the jury found the defendant guilty of a bank 
fraud scheme and making false statements to a lending institution in connection with 
a fraudulently obtained PPP loan.  Evidence at trial established that, as a result of 
false and fraudulent representations, on April 14, 2020, $2,098,700 in PPP loan 
funds were deposited into Sanibel Captiva Account 6781, an account controlled 
exclusively by the defendant. 
With regards to the proceeds obtained from the offenses in Counts Five and 
Six, the defendant pled guilty to a separate bank fraud scheme and to making false 
statements to a lending institution in connection with a fraudulently obtained 
mortgage.  As outlined in the Second Superseding Indictment, these 
misrepresentations caused the lender to approve the loan and disburse approximately 
$640,381.21 for the defendant’s purchase of the Real Property. 
Based on the facts proven at trial and the jury’s finding of guilt on Counts One 
through Four, as well as the defendant’s guilty plea to Counts Five and Six, at least 
$2,739,081.21 was obtained by the defendant from his offenses and involved in the 
money laundering violations.  If the Court finds that at least $2,739,081.21 in 
proceeds was obtained by the defendant and laundered as part of the offenses, and 
that the defendant has dissipated those proceeds, then it is appropriate for the Court 
to enter an order of forfeiture against the defendant in that amount pursuant to Rule 
32.2(b)(2). 
Case 2:20-cr-00114-JES-M_M     Document 148     Filed 05/27/21     Page 10 of 13 PageID
3393

11 
The net proceeds from the forfeiture and sale of any specific assets, including 
the funds obtained from the sale of the Real Property and Catamaran, will be 
credited to and reduce the amount the United States shall be entitled to forfeit as 
substitute assets.    
III. 
Conclusion 
For the reasons stated above, the United States requests that, pursuant to 18 
U.S.C. §§ 982(a)(1) and 982(a)(2)(A), and Rule 32.2(b)(2), the Court enter an order 
of forfeiture against the defendant in the amount of $2,739,081.21, for which he will 
be held liable.   
The United States further requests that, because the $2,739,081.21 in proceeds 
was dissipated by the defendant, the United States may seek, as a substitute asset, 
pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 853(p), as incorporated by 18 U.S.C. § 982(b)(1), forfeiture 
of any of the defendant’s property up to the value of $2,739,081.21.   
The United States further requests that, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 982(a)(1) and 
982(a)(2)(A), and Rule 32.2(b)(2), the Court enter a preliminary order of forfeiture 
for the assets identified on page two, supra.      
The net proceeds from the forfeiture and sale of any specific assets will be 
credited to and reduce the amount the United States shall be entitled to forfeit as 
substitute assets.    
The United States further requests that the order of forfeiture and preliminary 
order of forfeiture for direct assets become final as to the defendant at sentencing. 
Case 2:20-cr-00114-JES-M_M     Document 148     Filed 05/27/21     Page 11 of 13 PageID
3394

12 
Upon issuance of the Preliminary Order of Forfeiture for Direct Assets, the 
United States will provide written notice to all third parties known to have an alleged 
legal interest in the property and will publish notice on the Internet at 
www.forfeiture.gov of its intent to forfeit the property.  Determining whether a third 
party has any interest in the property must be deferred until a third party files a claim 
in an ancillary proceeding under Rule 32.2(c). 
As required by Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.2(b)(4)(B), the United 
States requests that the Court include the forfeiture when orally pronouncing the 
sentence and in the judgment.  See Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.2(b)(4)(B) and United States v. 
Kennedy, 201 F.3d 1324, 1326 (11th Cir. 2000). 
 
 
The United States further requests that the Court retain jurisdiction to address 
any third party claim that may be asserted in these proceedings, to enter any further 
order necessary for the forfeiture and disposition of such property, and to order any 
substitute assets forfeited to the United States up to the amount of the order of 
forfeiture. 
 
 
 
 
Respectfully submitted, 
KARIN HOPPMANN 
Acting United States Attorney 
 
By: 
s/Suzanne C. Nebesky                                
 
 
 
 
 
 
SUZANNE C. NEBESKY 
Assistant United States Attorney 
Fla. Bar No. 59377 
400 N. Tampa Street, Suite 3200 
Tampa, Florida 33602 
Tel:   (813) 274 6000 
 
E-mail: suzanne.nebesky@usdoj.gov 
Case 2:20-cr-00114-JES-M_M     Document 148     Filed 05/27/21     Page 12 of 13 PageID
3395

13 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 
 
I hereby certify that on May 27, 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 counsel of record. 
 
s/Suzanne C. Nebesky                       
SUZANNE C. NEBESKY 
Assistant United States Attorney 
Case 2:20-cr-00114-JES-M_M     Document 148     Filed 05/27/21     Page 13 of 13 PageID
3396

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.flmd.381779.148.0.pdf

Size

167,139 bytes

SHA-256

839b26b986fd028e35864e44ab08d61ec1847c62089e5d455141903484f4f92b

Our copy

gov.uscourts.flmd.381779.148.0.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)