Indictment returned in open court as to Daniel Joseph Tisone (1) count(s) 1-4, 5-10 — USA v. Tisone (Dkt. 19, M.D. Fla. No. 2:22-mj-01043, docketed in No. 2:22-cr-00039)

Record facts

U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida · No. 2:22-cr-00039-SPC-NPM · Doc. 19 · 2022-04-20 · Docket on CourtListener

Full text

APR 2 0 2022

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Clerk, US District Court
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Middle District of Florida
FORT MYERS DIVISION Fort Myers, Florida

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v. CASE NO. 2:22-cr-44-SPC- NPM

DANIEL JOSEPH TISONE 18 U.S.C. § 1343
18 U.S.C. § 1344
18 U.S.C. § 1028A
18 U.S.C. § 1957
18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)

INDICTMENT

The Grand Jury charges:

COUNTS ONE THROUGH FOUR
(Wire Fraud)

A. Introduction

At all times material to this Indictment:

I DANIEL JOSEPH TISONE (“TISONE”) was a resident of the
Middle District of Florida (“MDFL”). TISONE owned and operated TEC
Ventures, LLC, Rub a Dub, LLC, Rub a Dub Atlantic, LLC, Rub a Dub Eco
Wash, LLC, and Rub a Dub Marines, LLC, which were all Virginia
corporations. TISONE also owned and operated Rub a Dub Holdings, Inc., a
Delaware corporation. TISONE was a previously convicted felon.

Ze The United States Small Business Administration (“SBA”) was

an executive-branch agency of the United States government that provided
support to entrepreneurs and small businesses. The mission of the SBA was to
maintain and strengthen the nation’s economy by enabling the establishment
and viability of small businesses and by assisting in the economic recovery of

communities after disasters.

The Paycheck Protection Program

3. The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security
(“CARES”) Act was a federal law enacted in or around March 2020 designed
to provide emergency financial assistance to the millions of Americans who
were suffering the economic effects caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. One
source of relief provided by the CARES Act was the authorization of
forgivable loans to small businesses for job retention and certain other
expenses, through a program referred to as the Paycheck Protection Program
(“PPP”).

4, To obtain a PPP loan, a qualifying business was required to
submit a PPP loan application, which was signed by an authorized
representative of the business. The PPP loan application required the business
(through its authorized representative) to acknowledge the program rules and
make certain affirmative certifications in order to be eligible to obtain the PPP
loan. In the PPP loan application (SBA Form 2483), the small business

(through its authorized representative) was required to state, among other
things, its: (a) average monthly payroll expenses; and (b) number of
employees. These figures were used to calculate the amount of money the
small business was eligible to receive under the PPP. In addition, businesses
applying for a PPP loan were required to provide documentation showing
their payroll expenses. Individuals who operated under a sole proprietorship
or as an independent contractor or eligible self-employment individual were
also eligible to apply for a PPP loan.

5. PPP loan applications were processed by a participating lender. If
a PPP loan application was approved, the participating lender funded the PPP
loan using its own monies, which were 100% guaranteed by the SBA. Data
from the application, including information from the borrower, the total
amount of the loan, and the listed number of employees, was transmitted by
the lender to the SBA in the course of processing the loan.

6. PPP loan proceeds were required to be used for certain
permissible expenses, including payroll costs, mortgage interest, rent, and
utilities. Under the applicable PPP rules and guidance, the interest and
principal on the PPP loan was eligible for forgiveness if the business spent the
loan proceeds on these expense items within a designated period of time and
used a certain portion of the loan towards payroll expenses.

7. The Economic Aid to Hard-Hit Small Business, Nonprofits and
Venues Act (“Economic Aid Act”) was a federal law enacted in or around
December 2020. The Economic Aid Act authorized the SBA to guarantee
Second Draw PPP loans under generally the same terms and conditions
available under the original PPP (“First Draw PPP Loans”). Only First Draw
PPP Loan borrowers who had used, or will have used, the full amount of the
First Draw PPP Loan on or before the expected date on which the Second
Draw PPP Loan was disbursed could receive a Second Draw PPP loan.
Further, a borrower would be eligible for a Second Draw PPP loan only if it
had 300 or fewer employees and experienced a revenue reduction of 25% or
greater in 2020 relative to 2019. Second Draw PPP loan applicants were also
required to make the same or similar certifications and representations
concerning the use of PPP funds.

The Economic Injury Disaster Relief Program

8. The Economic Injury Disaster Loan (“EIDL”) program was an
SBA program that provided low-interest financing to small businesses, renters,
and homeowners in regions affected by declared disasters.

9. The CARES Act authorized the SBA to provide EIDLs of up to
$2 million to eligible small businesses experiencing substantial financial
disruption due to the COVID-19 pandemic. In addition, the CARES Act

authorized the SBA to issue advances of up to $10,000 to small businesses
within three days of applying for an EIDL. The amount of the advance was
determined by the number of employees the applicant certified having. The
advances did not have to be repaid.

10. To obtain an EIDL and advance, a qualifying business had to
submit an application to the SBA and provide information about its operation,
such as the number of employees, gross revenues for the 12-month period
preceding the disaster, and cost of goods sold in the 12-month period
preceding the disaster. In the case of EIDLs for COVID-19 relief, the 12-
month period was that preceding January 31, 2020. For EIDL applications
submitted before May 4, 2020, an EIDL applicant was required to disclose
whether the applicant had been convicted of a criminal offense. The applicant
also had to certify that all the information in the application was true and
correct to the best of the applicant’s knowledge.

11. EIDL applications were submitted directly to the SBA. The
amount of the loan, if the application was approved, was determined based, in
part, on the information provided by the applicant about employment,
revenue, and cost of goods, as described above. Any funds issued under an
EIDL or advance were issued directly by the SBA. EIDL funds could be used
for payroll expenses, sick leave, production costs, and business obligations,

such as debts, rents, and mortgage payments. If the applicant also obtained a
loan under the PPP, the EIDL funds could not be used for the same purpose
as the PPP funds.

The Main Street Lending Program

12. The CARES Act provided funding for the Treasury Secretary to
invest in the Main Street Lending Program (‘“MSLP”). The MSLP was an
emergency lending program established by the Federal Reserve Board, with
the Treasury Secretary’s prior approval, under Section 13(3) of the Federal
Reserve Act. The MSLP was designed to promote lending to small and
medium sized businesses affected by the coronavirus pandemic. As part of the
MSLP, the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston (“FRBB”) created MS Facilities
LLC—a special-purpose vehicle that borrowed funds from the FRBB and used
the funds to purchase participation in loans made by private lenders that
conformed to the MSLP’s terms. The FRBB served as the Managing Member
of the LLC, and Treasury, which contributed capital using the funds
appropriated by the CARES Act, served as the Preferred Equity Member. MS
Facilities LLC purchased 95 percent participations in eligible loans, while a
participating private lender would retain the remaining 5 percent of each loan.

13. The MSLP consisted of three credit facilities available to for-
profit businesses: the Main Street New Loan Facility, Main Street Priority

Loan Facility, and the Main Street Expanded Loan Facility. Under the
Priority Loan Facility Term Sheet, the total value of a loan must not exceed
“the lesser of (i) $50 million or (ii) an amount that, when added to the Eligible
Borrower’s existing outstanding and undrawn available debt, does not exceed
six times the Eligible Borrower’s adjusted 2019 earnings before interest, taxes,
depreciation, and amortization,” referred to as the “EBITDA” formula.

14. Eligible MSLP borrowers would apply through a private lender.
If the lender approved the application, the lender would originate and service
the loan, though it would also sell a 95 percent participation at par to MS
Facilities LLC. MSLP loans were 5-year term loans. Interest repayment was
deferred for the first year and principal repayment was deferred for two years.

PPP Lender

15. Lender 1 was a federally-insured financial institution based in
Luray, Virginia. Lender 1 participated in the SBA’s PPP as a lender and was
authorized to lend funds to eligible borrowers under the terms of the PPP.

MSLP Lender

16. Lender 2 was a federally-insured financial institution based in
Berryville, Virginia. Lender 2 participated in the MSLP as a lender and was

authorized to lend funds to eligible borrowers under the terms of the MSLP.

Bank Accounts Controlled by the Defendants
17. Banks 1 and 2 and Lender 2 were federally-insured financial
institutions that were insured by the FDIC.
18. TISONE controlled and maintained the following financial

accounts:

a. A checking and investment account ending in -38001 at
Bank 1 in the name of “Daniel Tisone” (“Bank I account ending in -38001”),
with TISONE as the sole signatory;

b. A checking and investment account ending in -39000 at
Bank 1 in the name of “Rubadub Atlantic LLC” (“Bank 1 account ending in
-39000”) with TISONE as the sole signatory;

C. A checking and investment account ending in -39171 at
Bank 1 in the name of “Rub a Dub Marines LLC dba rubeadubeco wash”
(“Bank 1 account ending in -39171”) with TISONE as the sole signatory;

d. Achecking and investment account ending in -39323 at
Bank 1 in the name of “TEC Ventures LLC” (“Bank 1 account ending in -
39323”) with TISONE as the sole signatory;

e. A checking account ending in -5581 at Bank 2 in the name
of “TEC Ventures LLC” (“Bank 2 account ending in -5581”) with TISONE as
the sole signatory;

f. A checking account ending in -2616 at Lender 2 in the

name of “TEC Ventures LLC” (“Lender 2 account ending in -2616”) with
TISONE as the sole signatory.
B. The Scheme and Artifice

19. Beginning on an unknown date, but no later than in or around
March 2020, and continuing through the present, in the Middle District of
Florida and elsewhere, the defendant,

DANIEL JOSEPH TISONE,

knowingly devised and intended to devise a scheme and artifice to defraud,
and to obtain money and property by means of materially false and fraudulent
pretenses, representations, and promises.

C. Manner and Means of the Scheme and Artifice

20. The manner and means by which the defendant sought to
accomplish the scheme and artifice to defraud included, among others, the
following:

a. It was part of the scheme and artifice to defraud that the
defendant would and did engage in a scheme to obtain money from the SBA
and PPP and MSLP lenders by submitting false and fraudulent EIDL, PPP,
and MSLP loan applications to the SBA, Lender 1, and Lender 2 in the names
of various businesses owned and controlled by the defendant.

b. It was further part of the scheme and artifice to defraud

that the defendant would and did make and cause to be made materially false
and fraudulent statements to the SBA in EIDL applications, including false
and fraudulent representations regarding the criminal history of the loan
applicant, the number of persons employed by the loan applicant, and falsely
representing the applicant’s gross revenues and cost of goods sold.

c. It was further part of the scheme and artifice to defraud
that the defendant would and did make and cause to be made materially false
and fraudulent statements to Lender 1 in PPP loan applications, including
false and fraudulent representations regarding the applicant’s average monthly
payroll and the number of persons employed by the loan applicant.

d. It was further part of the scheme and artifice to defraud
that the defendant would and did submit and cause the submission of
materially false and fictitious documents to the SBA, Lender 1, and Lender 2
in support of his fraudulent EIDL, PPP, and MSLP loan applications,
including false and fictitious federal income tax documents, payroll
documents, a lease agreement, and other corporate financial documents.

e. It was further part of the scheme and artifice to defraud
that the defendant would and did fraudulently use the means of identification
of individuals who purported to work for the defendant’s companies, such as
their names, dates of birth, and social security numbers, to submit and cause

the submission of false and fraudulent payroll and payroll tax documents to

10
Lender 1 to qualify for PPP loans.

f. It was further part of the scheme and artifice to defraud
that the defendant would and did fraudulently use the means of identification
of an individual, such as the individual’s name, date of birth, social security
number, and driver’s license, to submit and cause the submission of a false a
fraudulent EIDL application to the SBA.

g. It was further part of the scheme and artifice to defraud
that the defendant would and did falsely and fraudulently certify that the PPP
funds acquired from the requested PPP loans would be used to retain workers,
maintain payroll, or make mortgage interest payments, lease payments, and
utility payments on behalf of the applicants.

h. It was further part of the scheme and artifice to defraud
that the defendant’s materially false, fraudulent, and misleading
representations would and did cause the SBA, Lender 1, and Lender 2 to
approve at least 4 EIDL applications, 5 PPP loan applications, and 1 MSLP
loan application, resulting in the SBA, Lender 1, and Lender 2 depositing
approximately $2,617,447.17 in EIDL, PPP, and MSLP funds into accounts
controlled by the defendant.

i. It was further part of the scheme and artifice to defraud

that the defendant would and did open and cause the opening of bank

11
accounts at Bank 1, Bank 2, and Lender 2 for the purpose of receiving EIDL,
PPP, and MSLP proceeds.

j. It was further part of the scheme and artifice to defraud
that the defendant would and did use and cause EIDL, PPP, and MSLP funds
to be used for unauthorized purposes and for his own personal enrichment,
including the purchase of residences in Naples, FL, and stocks and investment
securities.

k. It was further part of the scheme and artifice to defraud
that the defendant would and did misrepresent, hide, and conceal, and cause
to be misrepresented, hidden and concealed, the purpose of the acts performed
in furtherance of the scheme to defraud.

D. Execution of the Scheme and Artifice
21. Onor about the dates set forth below, in the Middle District of
Florida and elsewhere, the defendant,
DANIEL JOSEPH TISONE,
for the purpose of executing the scheme and artifice described above,
transmitted and caused to be transmitted by means of wire communication in
interstate and foreign commerce the writings, signs, signals, pictures, and

sounds described below, each transmission constituting a separate count:

12
COUNT | DATE OF WIRE | INTERSTATE WIRE TRANSMISSION

ONE March 30, 2020 | Electronic transmission of fraudulent EIDL
application in the name of Rub a Dub
Holdings, Inc. from the MDFL to the SBA’s
servers located outside the State of Florida
TWO April 1, 2020 Electronic transmission of fraudulent EIDL
application in the name of TEC Ventures,
LLC from the MDFL to the SBA’s servers
located outside the State of Florida

THREE | October 12, 2020 | Electronic transmission of fraudulent EIDL
application in the name of Rub a Dub
Atlantic, LLC from the MDFL to the SBA’s
servers located outside the State of Florida
FOUR | November 9, 2020 | Electronic transmission of fraudulent EIDL
application in the name of Rub a Dub
Marines, LLC dba Rub a Dub Eco Wash
from the MDFL to the SBA’s servers
located outside the State of Florida

In violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1343 and 2.

COUNTS FIVE THROUGH TEN
(Bank Fraud)

A. Introduction
1. The Grand Jury hereby realleges paragraphs | through 18 of
Counts One through Four of this Indictment and incorporates such
paragraphs by this reference as though fully set forth herein.
B. The Scheme and Artifice
2. Beginning on an unknown date, but no later than in or around
April 2020, and continuing through the present, in the Middle District of

Florida and elsewhere, the defendant,

13
DANIEL JOSEPH TISONE,
did knowingly and intentionally execute, and attempt to execute, a scheme
and artifice to defraud a financial institution, and to obtain monies, funds,
credits, assets, and other property owned by, and under the custody and
control of, a financial institution, by means of materially false and fraudulent
pretenses, representations and promises.

C. Manner and Means of the Scheme

3. The manner and means of the scheme and artifice are set forth in
Paragraphs 20a — 20k of Counts One through Four of this Indictment, the
allegations of which are realleged and incorporated by reference as if fully set
forth herein.

D. Execution of the Scheme

4. On or about the dates set forth below, in the Middle District of
Florida and elsewhere, the defendant,
DANIEL JOSEPH TISONE,
knowingly and with intent to defraud executed and attempted to execute the
scheme and artifice to defraud a financial institution whose deposits were
insured by the FDIC, as described above, and knowingly and with intent to
defraud executed and attempted to execute the scheme and artifice to obtain

moneys, funds, credits, assets, securities and other property owned by and

14
under the custody and control of a financial institution whose deposits were
insured by the FDIC, by means of materially false and fraudulent pretenses,
representations, and promises, as described above, in that DANIEL JOSEPH
TISONE caused, and attempted to cause, the following PPP and MSLP loans

to be made:

COUNT DATE . EXECUTION

FIVE April 20, 2020 $103,900 First Draw PPP loan from Lender 1
in the name of TEC Ventures, LLC

SIX April 22, 2020 $130,600 First Draw PPP loan from Lender 1
in the name of Rub a Dub, LLC

SEVEN July 16, 2020 $130,600 First Draw PPP loan from Lender 1
in the name of Rub a Dub Atlantic, LLC

EIGHT | November 9, 2020 | $1,500,000 MSLP loan from Lender 2 in the
name of TEC Ventures, LLC

NINE January 12,2021 | $104,954.17 Second Draw PPP loan from
Lender 1 in the name of TEC Ventures, LLC

TEN March 31, 2021 $103,900 Second Draw PPP loan from
Lender | in the name of Rub a Dub
Atlantic, LLC

In violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1344 and 2.

COUNT ELEVEN
(Aggravated Identify Theft)

Beginning on an unknown date, but no later than in or around April
2020, and continuing through the present, in the Middle District of Florida,

and elsewhere, the defendant,

15
DANIEL JOSEPH TISONE,
did knowingly transfer, possess, and use, without lawful authority, a means of
identification of another person, that is the name, driver’s license, social
security number, and date of birth of A.T., during and in relation to the felony
offense of wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343, as charged in Count
Two of the Indictment.
In violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1028A(a)(1) and 2.

COUNT TWELVE
(Aggravated Identify Theft)

Beginning on an unknown date, but no later than in or around April
2020, and continuing through the present, in the Middle District of Florida
and elsewhere, the defendant,

DANIEL JOSEPH TISONE,

did knowingly transfer, possess, and use, without lawful authority, a means of
identification of another person, that is the name, social security number, and
date of birth of S.A., during and in relation to the felony offense of bank fraud,
in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1344, as charged in Counts Five and Nine of the
Indictment.

In violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1028A(a)(1) and 2.

16
COUNTS THIRTEEN THROUGH SEVENTEEN
(Illegal Monetary Transactions)

1. Paragraphs 1 through 18 and 20a — 20k of Counts One through
Four of this Indictment are realleged and incorporated by reference as if fully
set forth herein.

2. On or about the dates listed below, in the Middle District of
Florida and elsewhere, the defendant,

DANIEL JOSEPH TISONE,

did knowingly engage and attempt to engage in a monetary transaction, in and
affecting interstate commerce, in criminally derived property of a value greater
than $10,000.00, such property having been derived from specified unlawful
activity, as described below, knowing that such transaction involved property

and funds that were the proceeds obtained from a criminal offense, as follows:

COUNT . DATE SPECIFIED | MONETARY
ae UNLAWFUL .: TRANSACTION —-.
ACTIVITY .
THIRTEEN May 18, 2020 Bank fraud, $19,653.60 electronic
in violation of purchase of 1,000 shares of
18 U.S.C. § 1344 | Blackrock Health Sciences
Trust II with funds from
the Bank 1 account ending
in -38001.

17
FOURTEEN | November 5, 2020 | Wire fraud, $185,000 wire transfer

in violation of from the Bank 1 account

18 U.S.C. § 1343 | ending in -38001 to a law
firm for the purchase of a
residence in Naples, FL.

FIFTEEN January 5, 2021 | Bank fraud, $1,000,000 check from the

in violation of Lender 2 account ending

18 U.S.C. § 1344 | in 2616 issued to TEC
Ventures LLC and
deposited into the Bank I
account ending in -39323.

SIXTEEN January 29, 2021 | Bank fraud, $50,000 electronic

in violation of purchase of 2,500 shares of

18 U.S.C. § 1344 | Pimco Dynamic Income
Opportunities Fund with
funds from the Bank 1
account ending in -39323.

SEVENTEEN | February 1, 2021 | Bank fraud, $93,500 check from the

in violation of Lender 2 account ending

18 U.S.C. § 1344 | in 2616 issued to a law
firm for the purchase of a
residence in Naples, FL.

In violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1957 and 2.

COUNT EIGHTEEN

(Possession of Ammunition by a Convicted Felon)

On or about March 31, 2022, in the Middle District of Florida, the

defendant,

DANIEL JOSEPH TISONE,

knowing that he had previously been convicted in any court of a crime

punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year, including:

1.

18

Attempted Robbery Ist Degree, on or about October 24, 2007;

2. Assault 2nd Degree, on or about October 24, 2007;
3. Attempted Robbery 2nd Degree, on or about October 24, 2007;

4. Hindering Prosecution 2nd Degree, on or about October 24,
2007; and

5. Possession of a Schedule II Controlled Substance, on or about
September 20, 2012,

did knowingly possess, in and affecting interstate and foreign commerce,
ammunition, that is, Speer ammunition, Winchester ammunition, Sellier &
Bellot ammunition, PMC ammunition, BVAC ammunition, Remington
ammunition, IMT ammunition, Fiocchi ammunition, Blazer ammunition, FC
ammunition, RP ammunition, YVX ammunition, PPU ammunition, and
GFL ammunition.

In violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2).

FORFEITURE

1. The allegations contained in Counts One through Ten, and
Counts Thirteen through Eighteen, are incorporated by reference for the
purpose of alleging forfeiture pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 924(d)(1), 981(a)(1)(C)
982(a)(2)(A), and 982(a)(1), and 28 U.S.C. § 2461(c).

2. Upon conviction of a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343, the
defendant,

DANIEL JOSEPH TISONE,

19
shall forfeit to the United States, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(C) and 28
U.S.C. § 2461(c), any property, real or personal, which constitutes or is
derived from proceeds traceable to the violation.
3. Upon conviction of a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1344, the
defendant,
DANIEL JOSEPH TISONE,
shall forfeit to the United States, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 982(a)(2)(A), any
property, real or personal, which constitutes or is derived from proceeds
traceable to the violation.
4. Upon conviction of a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1957, the
defendant,
DANIEL JOSEPH TISONE,
shall forfeit to the United States, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 982(a)(1), any
property, real or personal, involved in such offense, or any property traceable
to such property.
2. Upon conviction of a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922, the defendant,
DANIEL JOSEPH TISONE,
shall forfeit to the United States, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 924(d)(1) and 28
U.S.C. § 2461(c), any firearm or ammunition involved in or used in the

offense.

20
6.
following:

a.

The property to be forfeited includes, but is not limited to, the

An order of forfeiture in the amount of approximately
$2,617,447.17, which represents the proceeds obtained from the
offenses as well as the amount involved in the offenses;

Approximately $64,813.43 seized from Bank of Clarke County
account number ending in 2616, held in the name of TEC
Ventures LLC;

Approximately $832.26 seized from JP Morgan Chase account
number ending in 8870, held in the name of TEC Ventures, LLC;

a 4.02 carat solitaire, oval cut, lab-grown diamond engagement
ring, in custom 18K yellow-gold band setting, purchased from
Friendly Diamonds, on or about September 17, 2021;

a 2019 Tiara 34LS boat, hull number SSUKC007L819;

the real property located at 1001 10" Avenue South #101,
Naples, Florida 34102, including all improvements thereon and
appurtenances thereto, the legal description for which is as
follows:

Unit 101, OLDE NAPLES SEAPORT, a Condominium,
according to the Declaration of Condominium thereof as
recorded in Official Records Book 3869, Page 3913, as amended
from time to time, of the Public Records of Collier County,
Florida; and

the real property, located at 550 Starboard Drive, Naples, Florida
34103, including all improvements thereon and appurtenances
thereto, the legal description for which is as follows:

Lot 5, Block F, THE MOORINGS, UNIT NO. 6, in accordance
with and subject to the plat thereof, recorded in Plat Book 8,
pages 7 and 8, of the Public Records of Collier County, Florida;
and

21
h. Assorted ammunition, including Speer ammunition, Winchester
ammunition, Sellier & Bellot ammunition, PMC ammunition,
BVAC ammunition, Remington ammunition, IMT ammunition,
Fiocchi ammunition, Blazer ammunition, FC ammunition, RP
ammunition, YVX ammunition, PPU ammunition, and GFL
ammunition.

7. If any of the property described above, as a result of any act or

omission of the defendant:
a. cannot be located upon the exercise of due diligence;
b. has been transferred or sold to, or deposited with, a third
party,
c. has been placed beyond the jurisdiction of the Court;
d. has been substantially diminished in value; or
e. has been commingled with other property which cannot be

divided without difficulty,

the United States shall be entitled to forfeiture of substitute property under the

22
provisions of 21 U.S.C. § 853(p), as incorporated by 18 U.S.C. § 982(b)(1) and

28 U.S.C. § 2461(c).

A TRUE BILL,

Oreperson

ROGER B. HANDBERG
United States Attorney

Trenton J. Reichling
Assistant United States Attorney

By M. (ron

s M. Casas
Assistant United States Attorney
Chief, Fort Myers Division

23
Case 2:22-cr-00039-SPC-NPM Document 19 Filed 04/20/22 Page 24 of 24 PageID 98

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.flmd.401005.19.0.pdf

Size

2,155,896 bytes

SHA-256

e0c5177db6dfcf42cbe269601f75c107951d7946cb7b247241c09c9e10a8a253

Our copy

gov.uscourts.flmd.401005.19.0.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)