Letter Re: Admission of the Defendant's EIDL… — Letter Re: Admission of the Defendant's EIDL Loan Application… (Dkt. 46)

Record facts

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York · No. 1:22-cr-00020-FB · Doc. 46 · 2024-06-16 · Docket on CourtListener

Full text

U.S. Department of Justice 
United States Attorney
Eastern District of New York 
FTB:CWE/AA/JB 
271 Cadman Plaza East      
F. #2020R00955
Brooklyn, New York 11201 
June 16, 2024 
By E-mail and ECF 
The Honorable Frederic Block 
United States District Judge 
Eastern District of New York 
225 Cadman Plaza East 
Brooklyn, New York 11201 
Re: 
United States v. Anuli Okeke 
Docket No. 22-CR-20 (FB)    
Dear Judge Block: 
The government writes to highlight a dispute likely to arise during the next 
government witness.  The government intends to introduce the defendant’s own Economic Injury 
Disaster Loan (“EIDL”) application and evidence of its falsity.  See Gov. Exs. 344-345, 308B.  
The defense has indicated that it intends to object—notwithstanding the fact that defendant’s 
EIDL application is already in evidence by stipulation.  Because the indictment charges the 
defendant with defrauding the U.S. Small Business Administration (“SBA”), and because the 
trial evidence showed that the defendant and others sought to defraud the SBA’s pandemic 
assistance programs, evidence of the defendant’s own fraudulent SBA pandemic application is 
probative and should be admitted.   
“[E]vidence of criminal behavior may be admissible as direct evidence of the 
crime charged ‘if it arose out of the same transaction or series of transactions as the charged 
offense, if it is inextricably intertwined with the evidence regarding the charged offense, or if it is 
necessary to complete the story of the crime on trial.’”  United States v. Hsu, 669 F.3d 112, 118 
(2d Cir. 2012) (quoting United States v. Carboni, 204 F.3d 39, 44 (2d Cir. 2000)).  Evidence of 
other acts “may be admitted to provide the jury with the complete story of the crimes charged by 
demonstrating the context of certain events relevant to the charged offense.”  United States v. 
Inserra, 34 F.3d 83, 89 (2d Cir. 1994) (citations omitted); see also United States v. Gonzalez, 110 
F.3d 936, 941 (2d Cir. 1997) (“To be relevant, evidence need only tend to prove the 
government’s case, and evidence that adds context and dimension to the government’s proof of 
the charges can have that tendency.  Relevant evidence is not confined to that which directly 
establishes an element of the crime.”).
Case 1:22-cr-00020-FB     Document 46     Filed 06/16/24     Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 269

2 
 
Here, the defendant’s EIDL application and evidence of its falsity are admissible 
because they are “inextricably intertwined with the evidence regarding the charged offense.”  
Hsu, 669 F.3d at 118.  In this case, the defendant is charged with scheming to defraud the U.S. 
Small Business Administration between March and August 2020.  See generally Indictment, 
ECF No. 12.  The government should be permitted to admit the defendant’s EIDL application to 
the U.S. Small Administration.  The EIDL application is dated May 29, 2024 (i.e., within the 
charged time period) and makes false representations about the defendant’s company in order to 
fraudulently obtain an EIDL advance of $1,000.  Accordingly, the defendant’s EIDL application 
and evidence of its falsity is inseparable from the charged offense, since it involves the same 
type of fraud (pandemic loan), against the same victim (the SBA), during the same time period 
(summer of 2020).  See United States v. Nektalov, 325 F. Supp. 2d 367, 370 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) 
(“Because the proffered testimony relates to similar transactions with the same CW prior to the 
charged conspiracy, there is a strong argument that the evidence arises from the same series of 
transactions as, and is necessary to complete the story of, the charged conduct.”). 
 
The EIDL application and its falsity are also admissible because the defendant has 
disputed her knowledge of fraud occurring at the 125th Street branch of Popular Bank.  Thus, the 
defendant’s own knowing submission of false applications for SBA money is highly probative.  
United States v. Garnes, 102 F.4th 628, 639 (2d Cir. 2024) (reversing district court exclusion of 
charged threats because, inter alia, of the “light they shed on [the defendant’s] intent”); United 
States v. Inserra, 34 F.3d 83, 89 (2d Cir. 1994) (admitting prior misrepresentations of the 
defendant where defendant put in issue his state of mind in his opening statement).1 
 
For the reasons given above, the government respectfully moves to admit the 
defendant’s fraudulent EIDL loan and evidence of its falsity.  See Gov. Exs. 344-345, 308B. 
 
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/ Adam Amir                     
Chand Edwards-Balfour 
 
1 To the extent, however, that the Court concludes that the above-referenced evidence is 
not inextricably intertwined with or arises out of the same transaction as the charged crimes, the 
government moves in the alternative to admit such evidence pursuant to Rule 404(b).  The 
government previously gave the defense a Rule 404(b) notice, and the defense never moved in 
limine to exclude such evidence.  The defendant’s own fraudulent EIDL application is relevant 
for non-propensity reasons, namely her motive, intent, knowledge, and absence of mistake.  See 
Fed. R. Evid. 404(b). 
Case 1:22-cr-00020-FB     Document 46     Filed 06/16/24     Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 270

3 
 
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) (by ECF) 
 
Defense counsel (by Email) 
Case 1:22-cr-00020-FB     Document 46     Filed 06/16/24     Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 271

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.nyed.474435.46.0.pdf

Size

181,249 bytes

SHA-256

c5d82d754594b487ba2d37d0dea5fbbdf7c710d6846bc03a4000740612759292

Our copy

gov.uscourts.nyed.474435.46.0.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)