Court filing
Proposed Voir Dire by USA — Proposed Voir Dire by USA as to Anuli Okeke — USA v. Okeke (Dkt. 38) (Dkt. 38, E.D.N.Y.)
Filed June 10, 2024 in Docket NYED 474435, the only filing from this case in the archive.
Record facts
| Court | U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York |
|---|---|
| Filed | 2024-06-10 |
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York · No. 1:22-cr-00020-FB · Doc. 38 · 2024-06-10 · Docket on CourtListener
Full text
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X UNITED STATES OF AMERICA - against - ANULI OKEKE, Defendant. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X 22-CR-20 (FB) PROPOSED STATEMENT OF THE CASE, VOIR DIRE REQUESTS AND LIST OF PERSONS, PLACES AND ENTITIES The government respectfully submits the following statement of the case, voir dire questions, and list of names, entities and places expected to be mentioned during the trial scheduled to commence on June 10, 2024. PROPOSED STATEMENT OF THE CASE Anuli Okeke is charged with defrauding and conspiring to defraud Popular Bank and the Small Business Administration (“SBA”) to obtain Payment Protection Program (“PPP”) loans and Economic Injury Disaster Loan (“EIDL”) program loans. The government alleges that the defendant and her co-conspirators assisted borrowers in submitting fraudulent PPP applications through Popular Bank to the SBA despite knowing that the customers did not qualify for the loans and took unauthorized kickbacks from the loan proceeds. The government further alleges that the defendant laundered the crime proceeds through the financial system. In connection with these alleged crimes, the defendant is charged in a four-count indictment with wire and bank fraud conspiracy, wire fraud, bank fraud, and money laundering conspiracy. Case 1:22-cr-00020-FB Document 38 Filed 05/24/24 Page 1 of 9 PageID #: 187 2 PROPOSED VOIR DIRE REQUESTS In accordance with Rule 24(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, the government respectfully requests that, in addition to its usual voir dire, the Court ask the following questions in jury selection for this case: Loan Experience 1. During this trial, you will hear about the Small Business Administration’s loans, such as PPP or EIDL loans. Do you have any knowledge or experience regarding such loans? Have you, a family member, or a close friend ever worked for the United States Small Business Administration? 2. You may hear testimony from representatives of a bank, lender, or other financial institution, as well as the SBA. Have you had any experiences with any bank, lender, or other financial institutions that would make it difficult for you to evaluate that testimony fairly and impartially? Have you had any experiences with the SBA that would make it difficult for you to evaluate that testimony fairly and impartially? You will also hear evidence about individuals applying for and obtaining loans during the pandemic. Do you have any experience with securing loans, or not securing loans during the pandemic? 3. Have you or anyone close to you ever been the victim of fraud related to a loan you or they made? 4. If you had a business or worked during the pandemic, did you suffer an economic consequence to your job or business during the pandemic? 5. Do you think you could be fair and impartial in weighing the evidence in a case in which a victim is a bank or other financial institution? Case 1:22-cr-00020-FB Document 38 Filed 05/24/24 Page 2 of 9 PageID #: 188 3 Type of Offense 6. You will hear evidence concerning alleged wire fraud, bank fraud, and money laundering. Does the fact that the charges involve wire fraud, bank fraud, and money laundering affect your ability to render a fair and impartial verdict in this case? 7. Have you or anyone close to you been the victim of or a target of any sort of fraudulent scheme? Is there anything about that experience that would affect your ability to be a fair and impartial juror in this case? Relationship with Law Enforcement 8. This case is the result of an investigation by federal law enforcement authorities, including the FBI, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Office of Inspector General, the Federal Reserve, the Social Security Administration, the Small Business Administration, the United States Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of New York. Have you or anyone you know had any experience with any of those agencies or the U.S. Attorney’s Office? If so, please describe the nature of that experience and whether you considered it positive or negative. Would that affect your ability to be fair and impartial in this case? 9. Have you had any other experience with law enforcement that might affect your ability to be fair and impartial? 10. You will hear testimony during the trial from members of law enforcement or regulatory agencies. Because a witness may be a government employee or member of law enforcement does not mean that his or her testimony is entitled to any greater weight by reason of his or her employment. By the same token, his or her testimony is not entitled to lesser consideration simply because he or she is a government employee. You should consider the testimony of members of law enforcement just as you would consider any other evidence in the Case 1:22-cr-00020-FB Document 38 Filed 05/24/24 Page 3 of 9 PageID #: 189 4 case and evaluate their testimony just as you would any other witness. Would you be able to follow this instruction? Popular Bank 11. You will hear about what allegedly happed at Popular Bank and testimony from witnesses who worked at Popular Bank. Do you currently have an account at Popular Bank or Banco Popular? Or have you had an account there in the past? 12. Do you have any other experience with Popular Bank or Banco Popular? 13. Is there anything about your experience with the bank that would affect your ability to render a fair and impartial verdict in this case? Cooperating Witnesses 14. You may hear testimony from cooperating witnesses who have pleaded guilty and have entered into an agreement with the government to testify. The government has agreed to bring the witness’s cooperation to the attention of the sentencing judge by writing a letter. Based on that letter, the judge might impose a sentence on the cooperating witness that is less than he or she would otherwise have received. The government is permitted to enter into these kinds of agreements. The jury may take the terms of such agreements into account, together with the other factors that bear on the issue of credibility, in evaluating the witness’s testimony. Is there anyone here who has any strong opinions about cooperating witnesses? Is there anything about the fact that a witness is cooperating in exchange for leniency that would prevent you from being a fair and impartial juror in this case? Will you be able to follow the Court’s instructions about how to evaluate the credibility of such a witness? Case 1:22-cr-00020-FB Document 38 Filed 05/24/24 Page 4 of 9 PageID #: 190 5 Prior Jury Service 15. Have you ever served as a juror in a civil or criminal case in state or federal court or served on a grand jury in state or federal court? If so, on what type of case did you serve? How long ago was that? Did you deliberate? Does that experience affect your ability to be fair and impartial in this trial? Prior Contact with Law Enforcement or the Justice System 16. Have you, a family member, or a close friend ever been arrested, charged with a crime, or been the subject of a criminal investigation? Would that experience affect your ability to be fair and impartial in this case? Witness to or Victim of a Crime 17. Have you, or any of your close friends or relatives, ever been the victim of a crime or a witness to a crime? What was the nature of the crime? Is there anything about those experiences that would affect your ability to be fair and impartial in this case? 18. Is there anything that we have not directly addressed that would make it difficult for you to be a fair and impartial juror in this case? LIST OF PERSONS, ENTITIES AND LOCATIONS 19. Is anyone familiar with any of the following individuals, entities, or locations? If so, how? Defendants, Defense Counsel and Others Seated at the Defense Table 1. Anuli Okeke 2. Sanford Talkin, Esq. 3. Noam Greenspan, Esq. Seated at the Government’s Table 1. Assistant United States Attorney Turner Buford Case 1:22-cr-00020-FB Document 38 Filed 05/24/24 Page 5 of 9 PageID #: 191 6 2. Assistant United States Attorney Chand Edwards-Balfour 3. Assistant United States Attorney Adam Amir 4. Justice Department Attorney Jennifer Bilinkas 5. Paralegal Specialist Samuel Ronchetti 6. Paralegal Specialist Michaela Ausbrooks 7. Special Agent Jeff Thomson, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, OIG Relevant Individuals 1. Elvin Adames 2. Jose Anormaliza 3. Mark Balsam 4. Hashim Campbell 5. Anthony Castro 6. Mary Cvengros 7. Tenin Diallo 8. Bakary Diarra 9. Stephen Donnelly 10. Carlos Gorgas 11. Bernadette Kouame 12. Brahima Lengane 13. Jeff Thompson 14. Peter Tsakonas 15. Lauren Munoz 16. Auguste Nipabi Case 1:22-cr-00020-FB Document 38 Filed 05/24/24 Page 6 of 9 PageID #: 192 7 17. Daniel Onove 18. Richard Pinero 19. Guadalupe Ponce 20. Lenny Sanchez 21. Israel Viloria 22. Charlene Wint 23. Assana Zampaligre 24. Shelly Zielinski 25. Carlos Maldonado 26. Dareen Cofield 27. David Thomas 28. Donnell Gaskins 29. Jesse Rolan 30. Kizzilie Davis 31. Michael De Leon 32. Naeem Cofield 33. Ricardo Miranda 34. Yalitza Soto 35. Benadette Kouame 36. Fatoumata Bamba 37. Benedite Kouassi 38. Fatima Lengane 39. Alicia Vignola Case 1:22-cr-00020-FB Document 38 Filed 05/24/24 Page 7 of 9 PageID #: 193 8 40. Raymond Ruiz Relevant Entities 1. Popular Bank 2. Small Business Administration 3. R.R. Franklyn Ave. Inc. 4. Rapid Realty NYC 5. Car Expert Auto Group 6. AutoNext 7. Global Auto Sales 8. Sorayas House of Beauty 9. Mommy’s African Hair Braiding 10. Ni Global Enterprises 11. Hot Spot Clothing 12. Assana Hair Braiding 13. Fatim’s Hair Braiding & Business Space 14. Benne Hair Braiding 15. Laser Cut Barbershop 16. Hot Spot Clothing 17. C+C Apartment Management, LLC Places 1. 125th Street Manhattan, New York 2. Oxford Rd., New Rochelle, New York 3. Boston Rd., Bronx, New York Case 1:22-cr-00020-FB Document 38 Filed 05/24/24 Page 8 of 9 PageID #: 194 9 4. Plymouth Ave., Bronx, New York 5. Emmons Ave., Brooklyn, New York Dated: Brooklyn, New York May 24, 2024 Respectfully submitted, BREON PEACE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY Eastern District of New York Attorney for Plaintiff 271 Cadman Plaza East Brooklyn, New York 11201 By: /s/ Chand Edwards-Balfour Chand Edwards-Balfour Adam Amir Assistant United States Attorneys (718) 254-7000 GLENN S. LEON Chief, Fraud Section Criminal Division, Dept. of Justice By: /s/ Jennifer Bilinkas Trial Attorney cc: Clerk of the Court (FB) (RML) (by ECF) Defense counsel (by ECF and Email) Case 1:22-cr-00020-FB Document 38 Filed 05/24/24 Page 9 of 9 PageID #: 195
File and source
- File
- gov.uscourts.nyed.474435.38.0.pdf
- Size
- 147,889 bytes
- SHA-256
- bc7eb74babb9f67f7a80f89deb331db94160c5d6f06ee3cc0f61cfe2e53986be
- Original
- PACER (login required)