Jury Instructions/ Court Exhibit #2 — Jury Instructions/ Court Exhibit #2 — USA v. Okeke (Dkt. 51) (Dkt. 51)

Record facts

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York · No. 1:22-cr-00020-FB · Doc. 51 · 2024-06-20 · Docket on CourtListener

Full text

Case 1:22-cr-00020-FB     Document 51     Filed 06/20/24     Page 1 of 54 PageID #: 297

 
2 
 
I. GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS 
 
Now that the evidence in this case has been presented and the attorneys for 
the government and the defendant have concluded their closing arguments, it is my 
responsibility to instruct you as to the law that governs this case. My instructions 
will be in three parts: 
 
FIRST, the general rules that define and govern the duties of a jury in a 
criminal case. 
 
SECOND, the legal elements of the crimes charged in the indictment—that 
is, the specific elements that the government must prove beyond a reasonable 
doubt to warrant a finding of guilt. 
 
 
THIRD, concluding remarks on the rules regarding your deliberations. 
ROLE OF THE COURT 
 
You must accept my instructions of law and apply them to the facts as you 
determine them. If any attorney has stated a legal principle different from any that I 
state to you in my instructions, my instructions are what you must follow. 
 
You should not single out any instruction as alone stating the law; rather, 
you should consider my instructions as a whole. You should not be concerned 
about the wisdom of any rule that I state. Regardless of any opinion that you may 
have as to what the law may be—or ought to be—it would violate your sworn duty 
to base a verdict upon any view of the law other than that which I give you. 
Case 1:22-cr-00020-FB     Document 51     Filed 06/20/24     Page 2 of 54 PageID #: 298

 
3 
 
ROLE OF THE JURY 
 
You are the sole and exclusive judges of the facts. You pass upon the weight 
of the evidence; you determine the credibility of the witnesses; you resolve such 
conflicts as there may be in their testimony; and you draw whatever reasonable 
inferences you decide to draw from the facts as you have determined them. 
 
I will later discuss with you how to pass upon the credibility—or 
believability—of the witnesses. 
 
In determining the facts, you must rely upon your own recollection of the 
evidence. What the lawyers have said in their opening statements, in their closing 
arguments, in their objections, or in their questions is not evidence. In this 
connection, you should bear in mind that a question put to a witness is never 
evidence. It is only the answer which is evidence. Nor is anything I may have said 
during the trial, or may say during these instructions with respect to a fact matter, 
to be taken in substitution for your own independent recollection. What I say is not 
evidence. 
 
The evidence before you consists of the answers given by the witnesses—the 
testimony they gave, and the exhibits that were received in evidence. 
 
Since you are the sole and exclusive judges of the facts, I do not mean to 
indicate any opinion as to the facts or what your verdict should be. The rulings I 
have made during the trial are not any indication of my views of what your 
Case 1:22-cr-00020-FB     Document 51     Filed 06/20/24     Page 3 of 54 PageID #: 299

 
4 
 
decision should be as to whether or not the guilt of the defendant has been proven 
beyond a reasonable doubt. You are expressly to understand that the Court has no 
opinion as to the verdict you should render. 
 
Under your oath as jurors, you are not to be swayed by fear, prejudice, bias 
or sympathy. It must be clear to you that once you let fear, prejudice, bias or 
sympathy interfere with your thinking, there is a risk that you will not arrive at a 
true and just verdict. In a similar vein, it would also be improper to base your 
verdict on any sympathy or prejudice you may feel about the defendant’s race, 
religion, national origin, sex, or age. 
GOVERNMENT AS A PARTY 
 
The fact that the prosecution is brought in the name of the United States of 
America entitles the government to no greater consideration than that accorded to 
any other party to a litigation. By the same token, it is entitled to no less 
consideration. All parties, whether government or individuals, stand as equals at 
the bar of justice. 
PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE,  
BURDEN OF PROOF AND REASONABLE DOUBT 
 
The law presumes a defendant to be innocent of all the charges against her. I 
therefore instruct you that the defendant is to be presumed by you to be innocent 
throughout your deliberations on each count in which she is charged until such 
time, if ever, that you as a jury are satisfied that the government has proved her 
Case 1:22-cr-00020-FB     Document 51     Filed 06/20/24     Page 4 of 54 PageID #: 300

 
5 
 
guilty beyond a reasonable doubt on the count. Thus, the defendant, although 
accused of the crimes in the indictment, begins the trial with a “clean slate” – with 
no evidence against her. The indictment, as I will describe in greater detail later, is 
not evidence of any kind. The defendant is, of course, not on trial for any act or 
crime not contained in the indictment. The law permits nothing but legal evidence 
presented before the jury in court to be considered in support of any charge against 
the defendant. 
 
The burden is always upon the government to prove guilt beyond a 
reasonable doubt. This burden never shifts to the defendant, for the law never 
imposes upon a defendant in a criminal case the burden or duty of calling any 
witnesses or producing any evidence. The defendant is not even obligated to 
produce any evidence by cross-examining the witnesses for the government. The 
presumption of innocence alone, therefore, is sufficient to acquit a defendant. 
 
It is not required that the government prove guilt beyond all possible doubt. 
The test is one of reasonable doubt. A reasonable doubt is a doubt based upon 
reason and common sense—the kind of doubt that would make a reasonable person 
hesitate to act. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt must, therefore, be proof of such a 
convincing character that a reasonable person would not hesitate to rely and act 
upon it in the most important of his or her own affairs. You should consider all the 
proof presented at trial, or any lack of proof, in determining if you have a 
Case 1:22-cr-00020-FB     Document 51     Filed 06/20/24     Page 5 of 54 PageID #: 301

 
6 
 
reasonable doubt. 
 
In considering each count in the indictment, unless the government proves, 
beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant has committed each and every 
element of the offense charged in the count, you must find the defendant not guilty 
of the offense charged in the count. If you view the evidence with respect to the 
count as reasonably permitting either of two conclusions—one of innocence, the 
other of guilt —you must adopt the conclusion of innocence. This does not mean 
that the government’s burden of proof is ever less than proof beyond a reasonable 
doubt. 
DIRECT AND CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE 
 
There are two types of evidence which you may properly use in deciding 
whether the defendant is guilty or not guilty. 
 
One type of evidence is called direct evidence. Direct evidence is where a 
witness testifies to what he or she saw, heard, or observed. In other words, when 
witnesses testify about what they know by virtue of their own senses—what they 
could see, hear, feel or touch—that is called direct evidence. 
 
Circumstantial evidence is evidence which tends to prove a disputed fact by 
proof of other facts. There is a simple example of circumstantial evidence which is 
often used in this courthouse: 
 
Assume that when you came into the courthouse this morning the sun was 
Case 1:22-cr-00020-FB     Document 51     Filed 06/20/24     Page 6 of 54 PageID #: 302

 
7 
 
shining and it was a nice day. Assume that the courtroom was without windows 
and that you could not look outside. 
 
As you were sitting here, someone walked in with an umbrella which was 
dripping wet. Somebody else then walked in with a raincoat which also was 
dripping wet. 
 
Now, you cannot look outside of the courtroom and you cannot see whether 
or not it is raining. So you have no direct evidence of that fact. But, on the 
combination of facts which I have asked you to assume, it would be reasonable and 
logical for you to conclude that it had been raining. That is all there is to 
circumstantial evidence.  
 
Circumstantial evidence is of no less value than direct evidence. It is a 
general rule that the law makes no distinction between direct and circumstantial 
evidence, but simply requires that before convicting a defendant, the jury must be 
satisfied of the defendant’s guilt from all of the evidence in the case. 
INFERENCE DEFINED 
 
You should consider the evidence in light of your common sense and 
experience, and you may draw reasonable inferences from the evidence. 
 
There are times when different inferences may be drawn from facts, whether 
proven by direct or circumstantial evidence. The government asks you to draw one 
set of inferences, while the defense asks you to draw another. It is for you, and you 
Case 1:22-cr-00020-FB     Document 51     Filed 06/20/24     Page 7 of 54 PageID #: 303

 
8 
 
alone, to decide what inferences you will draw. 
 
 
An inference is a deduction or conclusion which you, the jury, are 
permitted—but not required—to draw from the facts which have been established 
by either direct or circumstantial evidence. In drawing inferences, you should 
exercise your common sense. The process of drawing inferences from facts in evi-
dence is not a matter of guesswork or speculation. 
 
So when you consider the evidence, you are permitted to draw, from the 
facts which you find to be proven, such reasonable inferences as would be justified 
in light of your experience. 
 
Here again, let me remind you that, whether based upon direct or 
circumstantial evidence, or upon the logical, reasonable inferences drawn from 
such evidence, you must be convinced of the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable 
doubt before you may convict. 
WITNESS CREDIBILITY 
 
You have had an opportunity to observe all of the witnesses. It is part of 
your job to decide how believable the witnesses were in their testimony. You are 
the sole judges of the credibility of the witnesses and of the importance of their 
testimony. Remember, once again, the burden of proof is always on the 
government and the defendant is not required to call any witnesses or offer any 
evidence because they are presumed to be innocent. 
Case 1:22-cr-00020-FB     Document 51     Filed 06/20/24     Page 8 of 54 PageID #: 304

 
9 
 
 
It must be clear to you by now that you are being called upon to resolve 
various factual issues under the indictment in the face of the very different pictures 
painted by the government and the defense, which cannot be reconciled. An 
important part of your decision will involve making judgments about the testimony 
of the witnesses you have listened to and observed. In making those judgments, 
you should carefully scrutinize the testimony of the witnesses, the circumstances 
under which the witnesses testified, and any other matter in evidence which may 
help you to decide the truth and the importance of the witnesses’ testimony. 
 
Your decision whether or not to believe a witness may depend on how the 
witness impressed you. Was the witness candid, frank and forthright? Or, did the 
witness seem as if he or she was hiding something, being evasive or suspect in 
some way? How did the way the witness testified on direct examination compare 
with how the witness testified on cross-examination? Was the witness consistent in 
his or her testimony or did he or she contradict himself or herself? Did the witness 
appear to know what he or she was talking about and did the witness strike you as 
someone who was trying to report his or her knowledge accurately? Was the 
witness perhaps honest, but nonetheless mistaken? 
 
How much you choose to believe a witness may be influenced by the 
witness’s bias. Does the witness have a relationship with the government or the 
defendant which may affect how he or she testified?  Does the witness have some 
Case 1:22-cr-00020-FB     Document 51     Filed 06/20/24     Page 9 of 54 PageID #: 305

 
10 
 
other incentive or motive that might cause the witness to shade the truth? Or does 
the witness have some bias, prejudice or hostility that may have caused the 
witness—consciously or not—to give you something other than a completely 
accurate account of the facts to which the witness testified? 
 
Even if the witness was impartial, you should consider whether the witness 
had an opportunity to observe the facts the witness testified about. You should also 
consider the witness’s ability to express himself or herself. Ask yourselves whether 
the witness’s recollection of the facts stand up in light of all other evidence. 
 
If any witness is shown to have intentionally lied on the witness stand about 
any material matter, you have the right to conclude that he or she also lied about 
other matters. You may disregard all the witness’s testimony, or you may accept 
whatever part you think deserves to be believed. 
 
It is up to you to determine whether the witness testified falsely and whether 
he or she did so deliberately. It is entirely up to you to determine the weight, if any, 
that should be given to the testimony of such a witness on the basis of all of the 
evidence and your common sense. 
 
In sum, what you must try to do in deciding credibility is to size a person up 
in light of his or her demeanor, the explanations given, and the other evidence in 
the case, just as you would in any important matter where you are trying to decide 
if a person is truthful, straightforward and accurate in his or her recollection. In 
Case 1:22-cr-00020-FB     Document 51     Filed 06/20/24     Page 10 of 54 PageID #: 306

 
11 
 
deciding the question of credibility, remember that you should use your common 
sense, your good judgment and your life experience. 
LAW ENFORCEMENT WITNESSES 
 
Some of the witnesses in this case are or were law enforcement officials. 
That a witness may be a law enforcement official does not mean that his or her 
testimony is deserving of more or less consideration or greater or lesser weight 
than that of an ordinary witness. It is for you to decide, after weighing all the 
evidence, in light of the instructions I have given you about factors relevant to 
determining the credibility of a witness, whether you accept the testimony of a 
witness who is a law enforcement official, and what weight, if any, it deserves.  
TESTIMONY OF COOPERATING WITNESSES 
In the attorneys’ opening and closing arguments, much was said about the so-
called “cooperating witness” and about whether or not you should believe him. The 
government argues, as it is permitted to do, that it must take the witnesses as it finds 
them. It argues that only people who themselves take part in criminal activity have 
the knowledge required to show criminal behavior by others. For those very reasons, 
the law allows the use of accomplice and co-conspirator testimony. Indeed, it is the 
law in federal courts that the testimony of a single accomplice or co-conspirator may 
be enough in and of itself to sustain a conviction, if the jury finds that the testimony 
establishes guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. 
Case 1:22-cr-00020-FB     Document 51     Filed 06/20/24     Page 11 of 54 PageID #: 307

 
12 
 
However, it is also the case that cooperator testimony is of such a nature that 
it must be scrutinized with great care and viewed with particular caution when you 
decide how much of that testimony, if any, to believe. I have given you some general 
considerations on credibility and I will not repeat them all here. Nor will I repeat all 
of the arguments made on both sides. Instead, I will say a few things that you may 
want to consider during your deliberations on the subject of cooperating witnesses. 
You should ask yourselves whether the witness would benefit more by lying or by 
telling the truth. Was the testimony made up in any way because the witness believed 
or hoped that they would somehow receive favorable treatment by testifying falsely? 
Or did the witness believe that his interests would be best served by testifying 
truthfully? If you believe that the witness was motivated by hopes of personal gain, 
was this motivation one that would cause him to lie, or was it one that would cause 
him to tell the truth? Did this motivation color his testimony at all? 
You have also heard testimony that the cooperating witnesses have been 
promised that if they provide substantial assistance to the government and testify 
truthfully, completely, and fully, the government will present to the sentencing court 
what is called a 5K1.1 letter, or a “5K letter.” The 5K letter sets forth the cooperating 
witness's criminal acts as well as the substantial assistance the witness has provided. 
I instruct you that the 5K letter does not guarantee the cooperating witness a lower 
sentence. This is because the sentencing court may, but is not required to, take the 
Case 1:22-cr-00020-FB     Document 51     Filed 06/20/24     Page 12 of 54 PageID #: 308

 
13 
 
5K letter into account when imposing a sentence on the cooperating witness. 
Thus, while the decision regarding whether to write the 5K letter rests with 
the government, the final determination as to the sentence to be imposed rests with 
the court. Ultimately, you should look at all of the evidence in deciding what 
credence and what weight you give to the cooperating witness. 
PRIOR INCONSISTENT STATEMENTS 
 
You have heard evidence that witnesses made statements on earlier 
occasions which counsel argues are inconsistent with their trial testimony.  If you 
find that a witness made an earlier statement that conflicts with his or her trial 
testimony, you may consider that fact in deciding how much of the trial testimony, 
if any, to believe. 
 
In making this determination, you may consider whether the witness 
purposely made a false statement or whether it was an innocent mistake; whether 
the inconsistency concerns an important fact, or whether it had to do with a small 
detail; whether the witness had an explanation for the inconsistency, and whether 
that explanation appealed to your common sense.  
 
It is your exclusive duty, based upon all evidence and your own good 
judgment, to determine whether any prior statements were inconsistent, and if so 
how much, if any, weight is to be given to the inconsistent statement in 
determining whether to believe all or part of the witness’s testimony. 
Case 1:22-cr-00020-FB     Document 51     Filed 06/20/24     Page 13 of 54 PageID #: 309

 
14 
 
INTERVIEWING WITNESSES 
 
References have been made to interviews that attorneys conducted with 
witnesses prior to the witness testifying. You should not draw any unfavorable 
inference from that conduct. I instruct you that they not only have a right to 
interview witnesses prior to putting them on the stand, but it is their responsibility 
to do so. 
DEFENDANT’S TESTIMONY 
 
As I have already told you, a defendant in a criminal case has no obligation 
to testify or to present any other evidence because it is the government’s burden to 
prove a defendant’s guilt; that burden remains with the government throughout the 
entire trial and never shifts to a defendant. In addition, our Constitution provides 
that the government cannot compel a defendant to testify against herself. 
Nevertheless, a defendant has a right to testify and present other evidence in her 
own defense. 
Ms. Okeke chose not to testify. Since she had an absolute right to make that 
choice, no negative inference can be drawn against her because she did not testify. 
INVESTIGATIVE TECHNIQUES, UNCALLED  
WITNESSES, AND PRODUCTION OF EVIDENCE 
 
There is no legal requirement that the government use any specific 
investigative techniques or pursue every investigative lead to prove its case. Law 
enforcement techniques are not your concern. 
Case 1:22-cr-00020-FB     Document 51     Filed 06/20/24     Page 14 of 54 PageID #: 310

 
15 
 
 
The law does not require the government to produce as exhibits all papers 
and things mentioned during the course of the trial.  Nor does the law require the 
government to call as witnesses all persons who may have been present at any time 
or place involved in the case, or who may appear to have some knowledge of the 
matters at issue in this trial. 
In sum, I have repeatedly told you that the government has the burden of 
proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.  Your job is to determine whether the 
testimony and other evidence that the government did produce satisfies that 
burden. 
STIPULATIONS 
Finally, the attorneys for the government and the attorney for the defendant 
have entered into stipulations concerning certain facts that are relevant to this case. 
When the attorneys on both sides stipulate and agree to the existence of facts you 
must accept the stipulation and regard those facts as proven. 
CHARTS AND SUMMARIES 
During the course of trial, there were charts and summaries shown to you in 
order to make the other evidence more meaningful and to aid you in considering 
the evidence. They are not direct, independent evidence; they are summaries of the 
evidence. They are admitted into evidence as aids to you. 
In understanding the evidence you have heard, it is sometimes easier and 
Case 1:22-cr-00020-FB     Document 51     Filed 06/20/24     Page 15 of 54 PageID #: 311

 
16 
 
more convenient to utilize summary charts than to place all of the relevant 
documents in front of you. It is for you to decide whether the charts and summaries 
correctly present information contained in the testimony and in the exhibits on 
which they are based. To the extent that the charts conform to what you determine 
the underlying evidence to be, you may consider them if you find that they are of 
assistance to you in analyzing and understanding the evidence. 
UNCALLED WITNESSES 
There are several people whose names you have heard during the course of 
the trial but who did not appear here to testify. Each party had an opportunity to 
call witnesses. You should not speculate as to what these people would have 
testified to had they been called. Their absence should not affect your judgment in 
any way. 
You should, however, remember my instruction that the law does not impose 
on a defendant in a criminal case the burden or duty of calling any witness or 
producing any evidence. The burden remains with the government to prove the 
guilt of the defendant beyond a reasonable doubt. 
POLICIES AND PROCEDURES 
You have heard testimony and seen manuals regarding ethics and other 
policies and procedures in effect at Popular Bank in 2020. Those policies and 
procedures were not offered to define the relevant law in this case. Instead, I am 
Case 1:22-cr-00020-FB     Document 51     Filed 06/20/24     Page 16 of 54 PageID #: 312

 
17 
 
now instructing you on the law and definitions of terms, and you should only use 
the definitions I provide.  
Further, while a violation of policies and procedures may be a civil or 
administrative matter, this is a criminal case, not a civil or administrative matter. If 
you find that the defendant violated any policy or procedures that does not, by 
itself, mean that the defendant has committed a crime. In determining whether the 
defendant has committed any of the charged offenses, you are to apply the 
instructions I have given you today. Bank policies and procedures are simply 
evidence that you may give as much, or as little weight, as you deem appropriate. 
II. LEGAL ELEMENTS OF THE CRIMES CHARGED 
THE INDICTMENT AND SUMMARY OF CHARGES 
The defendant, Anuli Okeke, is formally charged in an Indictment. As I 
instructed you at the beginning of this case, an indictment is a charge or 
accusation. It is not evidence. It merely describes the charges made against the 
defendant. It is an accusation and may not be considered by you as any evidence of 
guilt. 
The indictment charges that the offenses allegedly took place “on or about” 
certain dates. The proof need not establish with certainty the exact date of the 
alleged offenses. It is sufficient if the evidence proves that the offenses were 
committed on a date reasonably near the date alleged.  The Indictment in this case 
Case 1:22-cr-00020-FB     Document 51     Filed 06/20/24     Page 17 of 54 PageID #: 313

 
18 
 
contains four counts on which you will be called to render a verdict. 
Count One charges the defendant with participating in a conspiracy to 
commit wire fraud and bank fraud. 
Count Two charges the defendant with committing the substantive offense 
of wire fraud. 
Count Three charges the defendant with committing the substantive offense 
of bank fraud. 
Count Four charges the defendant with participating in a conspiracy to 
commit money laundering. 
Each count is a separate offense or crime. You must consider each count 
separately, and you will be called upon to render a separate verdict on each count.  
Your verdict as to any one count does not determine your verdict as to any other 
count.  
I will now explain to you the law that applies to each of the counts in the 
Indictment. I am going to present the counts to you beginning with what we call 
the “substantive counts” before turning to the “conspiracy counts.” I will explain 
the distinction between these counts when I explain the conspiracy counts. 
COUNT TWO: WIRE FRAUD 
Count Two reads as follows: 
In or about and between March 2020 and August 2020, both dates being 
approximate and inclusive, within the Eastern District of New York and 
Case 1:22-cr-00020-FB     Document 51     Filed 06/20/24     Page 18 of 54 PageID #: 314

 
19 
 
elsewhere, the defendant ANULI OKEKE, together with others, did 
knowingly and intentionally devise a scheme and artifice to defraud and 
to obtain money and property from [Popular Bank] and the United 
States Small Business Administration by means of one or more 
materially false and fraudulent pretenses, representations and promises, 
and for the purpose of executing and attempting to execute such scheme 
and artifice did transmit and cause to be transmitted, by means of wire 
communications in interstate commerce, writings, signs, signals, 
pictures and sounds, to wit: electronic submission of applications and 
supporting documentation. 
 
Section 1343 of Title 18 of the United States Code provides: 
 
Whoever, having devised or intending to devise any scheme or artifice 
to defraud, or for obtaining money or property by means of false or 
fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises, transmits or causes 
to be transmitted by means of wire, radio or television communication 
in interstate or foreign commerce, any writings, signs, signals, pictures 
or sounds for the purpose of executing such scheme or artifice shall be 
[guilty of an offense]. 
 
To prove that a defendant is guilty of this offense, the government must 
prove each of the following three elements beyond a reasonable doubt: 
 First, that there was a scheme or artifice to defraud others of 
money or property by materially false and fraudulent pretenses, 
representations, or promises; 
 
 Second, that the defendant knowingly and willfully participated 
in the scheme or artifice to defraud, with knowledge of its 
fraudulent nature and with specific intent to defraud; and 
 
 Third, that in the execution of the scheme, the defendant used, 
or caused the use by others, of wire communications in interstate 
or foreign commerce. 
 
I will now instruct you on the elements of this crime. 
Case 1:22-cr-00020-FB     Document 51     Filed 06/20/24     Page 19 of 54 PageID #: 315

 
20 
 
First Element: Scheme or Artifice to Defraud 
The first element the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is 
that there was a scheme or artifice to defraud victims of money or property by means 
of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises.   
A “scheme or artifice” is simply a plan for the accomplishment of an 
objective. “Fraud”—and its verb, “to defraud”—are general terms that embrace all 
ingenious efforts and means that individuals devise to take unfair advantage of 
others. The unfair advantage sought must involve money, property, or other thing of 
value. Thus, a “scheme to defraud” is simply a plan to deprive another of money or 
property by trick, deceit, deception, or swindle. 
The scheme to defraud must occur by certain means. Here, the law requires 
that the “means” involve fraudulent pretenses, or fraudulent representations, or 
fraudulent promises. Let me explain what “fraudulent pretense” means. It is a 
general phrase. The term “fraudulent,” like the term “fraud” I described above, 
includes all possible means (or ways) by which a person seeks to gain some unfair 
advantage over another person. Here, again, that unfair advantage must involve 
money, property, or any other thing of value. The word “pretense” adds something 
to that. It requires that the fraud be by an act or statement that conceals the truth, or 
contains an intentional misrepresentation or false suggestion; it must have been done 
or made falsely and with intent to deceive, and it must relate to a material fact or 
Case 1:22-cr-00020-FB     Document 51     Filed 06/20/24     Page 20 of 54 PageID #: 316

 
21 
 
matter. In other words, it cannot relate simply to something no-one cared about. A 
material fact is one which would reasonably be expected to be of concern or 
importance to a reasonable and prudent person. In addition, it must matter in a 
pecuniary or monetary way. Actual reliance by a person on the concealment of the 
truth, intentional misrepresentation, or false suggestion is not required. 
It is also not necessary that the Government prove that the defendant actually 
realized any gain from the scheme, nor is it required that the intended victim was 
actually harmed or in fact suffered any loss. In addition, if a defendant believes that 
no harm will ultimately occur to the victim she has defrauded, that is not a defense. 
A scheme to defraud need not be shown by direct evidence but may be 
established by circumstantial evidence. As with all fact questions, your 
determination should be based on the totality of the evidence. 
Second Element: Participation in the Scheme With Intent 
The second element the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is 
that the defendant agreed to participate in (or that she devised) the fraudulent scheme 
knowingly, willfully, and with the specific intent to defraud. 
The words “participated” and “devised” are words that you are familiar with 
and I therefore do not need to spend much time defining them for you. To 
“participate” in a scheme to defraud means to associate oneself with it with a view 
and intent toward making it succeed. To “devise” a scheme to defraud is to concoct 
Case 1:22-cr-00020-FB     Document 51     Filed 06/20/24     Page 21 of 54 PageID #: 317

 
22 
 
or plan it. While a mere onlooker is not a participant in a scheme to defraud, it is not 
necessary that a participant be someone who personally and visibly executes the 
scheme to defraud. 
In order to satisfy this element, it is not necessary for the government to 
establish that the defendant herself originated, came up with the idea for, or was the 
first or only person to pursue the scheme to defraud. It is sufficient if you find that a 
scheme to defraud existed, even if someone else originated it, and that the defendant, 
while aware of the scheme’s existence, knowingly agreed to participate in it. 
It is also not required that the defendant participate in or have knowledge of 
all of the operations of the scheme. The guilt of the defendant is not governed by the 
extent of that defendant’s participation. 
It also is not necessary that the defendant have participated in the alleged 
scheme from the beginning. A person who comes in at a later point with knowledge 
of the scheme’s general operation, although not necessarily all of its details, and 
intentionally acts in a way to further the unlawful goals, becomes a member of the 
scheme and is legally responsible for all that may have been done in the past in 
furtherance of the criminal objective and all that is done thereafter. 
Moreover, even if the defendant participated in the scheme to a lesser degree 
than others, she is nevertheless equally guilty, so long as the defendant became a 
member of the scheme to defraud with knowledge of its general scope and purpose. 
Case 1:22-cr-00020-FB     Document 51     Filed 06/20/24     Page 22 of 54 PageID #: 318

 
23 
 
As I have previously noted, before the defendant may be convicted of the 
fraud charged here, she must also be shown to have acted knowingly and with a 
specific intent to defraud. 
“Knowingly” means to act purposefully and voluntarily, and not because of 
ignorance, mistake, accident, or carelessness. Whether a defendant acted knowingly 
may be proven by his or her conduct and by all of the facts and circumstances 
surrounding the case. 
To act “willfully” means to act knowingly and purposely, with an intent to do 
something the law forbids; that is to say, with bad purpose either to disobey or to 
disregard the law. The defendant need not have known that she was breaking any 
particular law or any particular statute. The defendant need only have been aware of 
the generally unlawful nature of her act. “Willfully” thus means to act deliberately 
and with a bad purpose, rather than innocently. 
A defendant acts with “specific intent to defraud” if she engages or 
participates in a scheme to defraud or to obtain money by materially false or 
fraudulent pretenses, representations or promises with some realization of the 
scheme’s fraudulent or deceptive character, and with an intention to be involved in 
the scheme, and to help it succeed, with a purpose of causing harm to a victim. 
The question of whether a person acted knowingly, willfully, and with specific 
intent to defraud is a question of fact for you to determine, like any other fact 
Case 1:22-cr-00020-FB     Document 51     Filed 06/20/24     Page 23 of 54 PageID #: 319

 
24 
 
question. This question involves one’s state of mind. Science has not yet devised a 
manner of looking into a person’s mind and knowing what that person is thinking. 
However, you have before you the evidence of certain acts, conversations, and 
statements alleged to involve the defendant and others. It is up to you to weigh this 
and all evidence, and to decide whether to accept or reject it. The point is, the 
ultimate facts of knowledge and criminal intent may or may not be established by 
words and conduct, and all the surrounding circumstances, as well as the rational or 
logical inferences that may be drawn from the words and conduct. It is for you to 
determine whether the government has established beyond a reasonable doubt such 
knowledge and intent on the part of the defendant. 
Since an essential element of wire fraud is intent to defraud, it follows that 
good faith on the part of the defendant is a complete defense to wire fraud. However 
misleading or deceptive a plan may be, it is not fraudulent if it was devised or carried 
out in good faith. A defendant has no burden to establish a defense of good faith. 
The burden is on the Government to prove fraudulent intent and the consequent lack 
of good faith. Even false representations or statements, or omissions of material facts 
do not amount to a fraud unless done with fraudulent intent. However misleading or 
deceptive a plan may be, it is not fraudulent if it was devised or carried out in good 
faith.  
A belief by the defendant, however, that ultimately everything would work 
Case 1:22-cr-00020-FB     Document 51     Filed 06/20/24     Page 24 of 54 PageID #: 320

 
25 
 
out so that no one would lose any money does not require that you find she acted in 
good faith. No amount of honest belief on the part of a defendant that the scheme 
will ultimately make a profit will excuse fraudulent actions or false representations 
by her to obtain money or property. 
Third Element: Use of Wire Communications in Interstate or Foreign 
Commerce 
The third element the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is 
the use of an interstate or foreign wire communication in furtherance of the scheme 
to defraud.   
What are “wires” as I am using the term here? “Wires” include use of the 
Internet or cell phones to communicate; “wires” include all manner of cell phone, 
telephone, and Internet communications, such as telephone calls, text messages, 
emails, and chat messages, and also include money transfers made by wire. The wire 
communication must travel interstate. That is, the use of the wire facilities must pass 
between two or more states, or from outside the United States into the United States 
or vice versa. 
The use of the wires need not itself be a fraudulent representation. However, 
it must further or assist in the carrying out of the scheme to defraud. It is not 
necessary for a defendant to be directly or personally involved in the wire 
communication, as long as the communication was reasonably foreseeable in the 
Case 1:22-cr-00020-FB     Document 51     Filed 06/20/24     Page 25 of 54 PageID #: 321

 
26 
 
execution of the scheme to defraud. 
In this regard, it is sufficient to establish this element of the crime if the 
evidence justifies a finding that a defendant caused the wires to be used by others. 
This does not mean that a defendant must specifically have authorized others to make 
or cause the transfer of funds or other wire communication. When one does an act 
with knowledge that the use of the wires will follow in the ordinary course of 
business or where such use of the wires reasonably can be foreseen, even though not 
actually intended, then she causes the wires to be used. 
Aiding and Abetting Liability 
The indictment also charges the defendant with aiding and abetting the wire 
fraud crime charged in Count Two.  A person may be guilty of a substantive offense, 
such as the one I just listed, if she “aids and abets,” which essentially means if she 
assists another person in committing the offense. Thus, for example, you may find 
that the defendant is guilty of wire fraud if you find beyond a reasonable doubt that 
the government has proven that another person actually committed the crime, and 
that the defendant helped or assisted that person in the commission of the offense. 
In relevant part, the aiding and abetting statute, section 2(a) of Title 18 of the 
United States Code provides that: 
Whoever commits an offense against the United States or aids, abets, 
counsels, commands, induces or procures its commission, is punishable 
as a principal. 
 
Case 1:22-cr-00020-FB     Document 51     Filed 06/20/24     Page 26 of 54 PageID #: 322

 
27 
 
You should give those words their ordinary meaning. A person “aids” or 
“abets” a crime if she knowingly does some act for the purpose of aiding or 
encouraging the commission of that crime, with the intention of causing the crime 
to be committed. To “counsel” means to give advice or recommend. To “induce” 
means to lead or move by persuasion or influence as to some action or state of mind. 
To “procure” means to bring about by unscrupulous or indirect means. To “cause” 
means to bring something about, to effect something. 
In order to prove that the defendant is guilty of aiding and abetting a crime, 
the government must prove each of the following two elements beyond a reasonable 
doubt: 
 First, that another person actually committed the crime with 
which the defendant is charged; and 
 
 Second, that the defendant aided and abetted that person in the 
commission of the offense. 
 
As you can see, the first requirement for aiding and abetting liability is that 
the crime charged was committed. Obviously, no one can be convicted of aiding and 
abetting a crime if no crime was committed. But if you do find that a crime was 
committed, then you must consider whether the defendant aided or abetted the 
commission of the crime. 
However, I emphasize, to aid and abet another to commit a crime, it is 
necessary that a person willfully and knowingly associated herself in some way with 
Case 1:22-cr-00020-FB     Document 51     Filed 06/20/24     Page 27 of 54 PageID #: 323

 
28 
 
the crime, and willfully and knowingly sought to help make the crime succeed. 
Participation in a crime is willful if action is taken voluntarily and knowingly. 
For the second element, to determine whether the defendant aided and abetted 
the commission of the crime with which she is charged, ask yourself these questions: 
1. Did she participate in the crime charged as something she wished to bring 
about? 
2. Did she associate herself with the criminal venture knowingly and 
willfully? 
3. Did she seek by her actions to make the criminal venture succeed? 
If she did, then the defendant is an aider and abettor, and therefore guilty of 
the offense. If she did not, then the defendant is not an aider and abettor and is not 
guilty as an aider and abettor. 
The mere presence of a person where a crime is being committed, even 
coupled with knowledge by that person that a crime is being committed, or the mere 
acquiescence by a person in the criminal conduct of others, even with guilty 
knowledge, is not sufficient to establish aiding and abetting. An aider and abettor 
must have some interest in the criminal venture and must take some action to assist 
or encourage the commission of the crime. 
Conscious Avoidance 
As I explained, the government is required to prove that the defendant acted 
Case 1:22-cr-00020-FB     Document 51     Filed 06/20/24     Page 28 of 54 PageID #: 324

 
29 
 
knowingly, as I have defined that term. In addition to a person actually being aware 
of a fact, the law also allows you to find that a defendant had knowledge of a fact 
when the evidence shows that she was aware of a high probability of that fact but 
intentionally avoided confirming that fact. The law calls this “conscious avoidance” 
or “willful blindness.” 
In determining whether the defendant acted knowingly, you may consider 
whether the defendant deliberately closed her eyes to what would otherwise have 
been obvious to her. If you find beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant acted 
with (or that the defendant’s ignorance was solely and entirely the result of) a 
conscious purpose to avoid learning the truth, then this element may be satisfied. 
However, guilty knowledge may not be established by demonstrating that the 
defendant was merely negligent, foolish, or mistaken. 
Thus, if you find beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant knew there 
was a high probability that a criminal offense was being committed, but deliberately 
and consciously avoided confirming this fact, then you may treat this deliberate 
avoidance of positive knowledge as the equivalent of knowledge, unless you find 
that the defendant actually believed that the criminal offense was not being 
committed. 
COUNT THREE: BANK FRAUD 
Count Three reads as follows: 
Case 1:22-cr-00020-FB     Document 51     Filed 06/20/24     Page 29 of 54 PageID #: 325

 
30 
 
In or about and between March 2020 and August 2020, both dates being 
approximate and inclusive, within the Eastern District of New York and 
elsewhere, the defendant ANULI OKEKE, together with others, did 
knowingly and intentionally execute and attempt to execute a scheme 
and artifice to defraud [Popular Bank], the deposits of which were 
insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, and to obtain 
moneys, funds, credits and other property owned by, and under the 
custody and control of, [Popular Bank] by means of one or more 
materially false and fraudulent pretenses, representations and promises. 
 
Section 1344 of Title 18 of the United States Code makes it a crime to: 
 
knowingly execute[], or attempt[] to execute, a scheme or artifice—  
(1) to defraud a financial institution; or  
(2) to obtain any of the moneys, funds, credits, assets, securities, 
or other property owned by, or under the custody or control of, a 
financial institution, by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, 
representations, or promises. 
 
To prove that a defendant is guilty of this offense, the government must 
prove each of the following three elements beyond a reasonable doubt: 
 First, that there was either a scheme to defraud a bank (or a 
scheme or artifice to obtain money owned by or under the 
custody or control of a bank by means of materially false or 
fraudulent pretenses, representations or promises) as charged in 
the Indictment; 
 
 Second, that the defendant executed the scheme with the intent 
to defraud the bank; and 
 
 Third, that at the time of the execution of the scheme, the bank 
involved was federally insured. 
 
I will now instruct you on the elements of this crime. 
First Element: Existence of Scheme or Artifice 
The first element the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is 
Case 1:22-cr-00020-FB     Document 51     Filed 06/20/24     Page 30 of 54 PageID #: 326

 
31 
 
that there was a scheme or artifice to defraud or to obtain money or other property, 
owned by or under the custody or control of a bank by means of false or fraudulent 
pretenses, representations or promises. 
I have already instructed you as to the meaning of “scheme or artifice.” You 
should apply that definition here. 
A representation is fraudulent if it was falsely made with the intent to deceive. 
Deceitful statements of half-truth, the concealment of material facts, and the 
expression of an opinion not honestly entertained may constitute false or fraudulent 
representations under the statute. 
A fraudulent representation must relate to a material fact or matter. A material 
fact is one that would reasonably be expected to be of concern to a reasonable and 
prudent person in relying upon the representation or statement in making a decision. 
This means that if you find a particular statement of fact to have been false, you must 
determine whether that statement was one that a reasonable person might have 
considered important in making her decision. The same principle applies to 
fraudulent half-truths or omissions of material facts. 
In considering this element of bank fraud, it does not matter whether any 
decision makers at the bank actually relied upon the misrepresentation. It is 
sufficient if the misrepresentation is one that is capable of influencing the bank’s 
decision and is intended by the defendant to do so. It also does not matter whether 
Case 1:22-cr-00020-FB     Document 51     Filed 06/20/24     Page 31 of 54 PageID #: 327

 
32 
 
the bank involved might have discovered the fraud had it probed further, or been 
more careful. If you find that a scheme or artifice existed, it is irrelevant whether 
you believe that the bank was careless, gullible, or even negligent. 
Moreover, the deception need not be premised upon spoken or written words 
alone. The arrangement of the words, the omission of words, or the circumstances 
in which they are used may convey a false and deceptive appearance. If there is 
intentional deception, the manner in which it is accomplished does not matter. 
Second Element: Intent to Defraud 
The second element the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is 
that the defendant intended to defraud the bank. 
  I have already instructed you as to the meaning of “knowingly” and 
“willfully.” You should apply those same definitions here. 
To act with “intent to defraud” means to act knowingly and with the specific 
intent to deceive, for the purpose of causing some financial loss to another. 
As explained earlier, direct proof of knowledge and fraudulent intent is almost 
rarely available. Such direct proof is not required. 
Accordingly, the ultimate facts of knowledge and criminal intent may be 
established by circumstantial evidence, based upon a person’s outward 
manifestations, her words, her conduct, her acts, and all the surrounding 
circumstances disclosed by the evidence and the rational or logical inferences that 
Case 1:22-cr-00020-FB     Document 51     Filed 06/20/24     Page 32 of 54 PageID #: 328

 
33 
 
may be drawn from the evidence. But regardless of whether you look to direct 
evidence, circumstantial evidence, or a combination thereof, the government must 
establish the essential elements of the crime charged beyond a reasonable doubt—
including the requisite mental states. 
The government must prove that the defendant engaged in, or participated in, 
the scheme alleged with an understanding of its fraudulent or deceptive nature and 
with an intent to help it succeed. I have already instructed you, when discussing the 
wire fraud charged in Count Two, what is and is not necessary to reach such a 
conclusion. You should apply those same instructions here. 
As I instructed you with wire fraud charged in Count Two, good faith on the 
part of a defendant is a complete defense to the charge of bank fraud, since an 
essential element of the crime charged is intent to defraud. You should apply those 
instructions here. 
Third Element: Federally Insured Financial Institution 
The third and final element the government must prove beyond a reasonable 
doubt is that the bank in question was federally insured at the time of the scheme. 
This simply means that the bank’s deposits had to be insured by the Federal Deposit 
Insurance Corporation (FDIC). 
The Government need not show that the defendant knew that the bank in 
question was federally insured to satisfy this third element. It must prove, however, 
Case 1:22-cr-00020-FB     Document 51     Filed 06/20/24     Page 33 of 54 PageID #: 329

 
34 
 
that the defendant intended to defraud a financial institution that was federally 
insured, or to obtain money or funds owned or under the custody or control of such 
an institution. 
Aiding and Abetting Liability 
I have already instructed you as to the meaning of “aiding and abetting.” You 
should apply that definition here. 
Conscious Avoidance 
I have also already instructed you as to the meaning of “conscious avoidance.” 
You should apply that definition here. 
COUNT ONE: CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT WIRE FRAUD AND BANK 
FRAUD 
Now that I have gone through the two substantive counts in the 
Indictment, I will turn to the two conspiracy counts. 
Count One reads as follows: 
In or about and between March 2020 and August 2020, both dates 
being approximate and inclusive, within the Eastern District of New 
York and elsewhere, the defendant ANULI OKEKE, together with 
others, did knowingly and intentionally conspire to execute a 
scheme and artifice, to wit: 
(a) to defraud and to obtain money and property from [Popular 
Bank], an entity the identity of which is known to the Grand Jury, 
which was a federally-insured financial institution, and the United 
States Small Business Administration by means of one or more 
materially false and fraudulent pretenses, representations and 
promises, and to transmit and cause to be transmitted by means of 
wire communications in interstate commerce, writings, signs, signals, 
pictures and sounds, for the purpose of executing the scheme to 
Case 1:22-cr-00020-FB     Document 51     Filed 06/20/24     Page 34 of 54 PageID #: 330

 
35 
 
defraud, contrary to Title 18, United States Code, Section 1343; and 
(b) to defraud [Popular Bank], a financial institution, and to 
obtain money, funds, credits and other property owned by and under 
the custody and control of [Popular Bank], by means of one or more 
materially false and fraudulent pretenses, representations and 
promises, contrary to Title 18, United States Code, Section 1344. 
 
 
Before I give you more specific instructions about Count One, let me explain 
generally about the crime of conspiracy. A conspiracy is a criminal partnership—a 
combination or agreement of two or more persons to join together to accomplish 
some unlawful purpose. 
Conspiracy simply means agreement, and the crime of conspiracy to violate 
a federal law is an independent offense, separate and distinct from the actual 
violation of any specific federal laws. Thus, if a conspiracy exists, it is still 
punishable as a crime, even if it fails to achieve its purpose. Consequently, for a 
defendant to be guilty of conspiracy, there is no need for the government to prove 
that she, or any other conspirator, was actually successful in their criminal goals. 
You may thus find a defendant guilty of the crime of conspiracy even if you find 
that the substantive crimes that were the objects of the conspiracy were never 
actually committed. By the same token, you may find the defendant guilty of 
committing the substantive crime with which she is charged, even if you find her 
not guilty of conspiracy. 
Case 1:22-cr-00020-FB     Document 51     Filed 06/20/24     Page 35 of 54 PageID #: 331

 
36 
 
I will now discuss the elements of the wire fraud and bank fraud conspiracy 
charged in the indictment. In order to sustain its burden of proof on this charge, the 
government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt the following two elements: 
 First, that there was an agreement or understanding to 
accomplish the unlawful objective alleged in the Indictment, 
which is wire fraud and bank fraud; and 
 
 Second, that the defendant knowingly and willfully became a 
member of the conspiracy. 
 
 
I will now instruct you on the elements of this crime. 
First Element: Existence of the Agreement 
 
The first element the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is 
that the conspiracy existed.   
What is a conspiracy? Simply put, a conspiracy is an agreement by two or 
more persons to accomplish one or more unlawful objectives by working together. 
The essence of the crime of conspiracy is the unlawful agreement to violate 
the law. It is not necessary that a conspiracy actually succeed in its purpose for you 
to conclude that it existed. Indeed, you may find a defendant guilty of conspiracy 
despite the fact that it was factually impossible for the defendant to commit the 
substantive crime or goal of the conspiracy. This is because the success or failure 
of a conspiracy is not material to the question of guilt or innocence of the 
Case 1:22-cr-00020-FB     Document 51     Filed 06/20/24     Page 36 of 54 PageID #: 332

 
37 
 
conspirator. The crime of conspiracy is complete once the unlawful agreement is 
made and an act is taken in furtherance of that agreement. 
To establish a conspiracy, the government is not required to show that two 
or more persons sat around a table and entered into a solemn compact, orally or in 
writing, stating that they have formed a conspiracy to violate the law and setting 
forth details of the plans and the means by which the unlawful project is to be 
carried out or the part to be played by each conspirator. Indeed, it would be 
extraordinary if there were such a formal document or specific oral agreement. 
Your common sense will tell you that when people in fact undertake to enter 
into a criminal conspiracy, much is left to unexpressed understanding. Conspirators 
do not usually reduce their agreements to writing or acknowledge them before a 
notary public, nor do they publicly broadcast their plans. From its very nature, a 
conspiracy is almost invariably secret in its origin and execution. I remind you that 
a conspiracy must include two or more persons. 
It is sufficient if two or more persons in any way, either explicitly or 
implicitly, come to a common understanding to violate the law. Express language 
or specific words are not required to indicate assent or attachment to a conspiracy. 
Nor is it required that you find that any particular number of alleged co-
conspirators joined in the conspiracy in order to find that a conspiracy existed. You 
need only find two or more persons entered into the unlawful agreement alleged in 
Case 1:22-cr-00020-FB     Document 51     Filed 06/20/24     Page 37 of 54 PageID #: 333

 
38 
 
the indictment and that an act was committed in furtherance of that agreement in 
order to find that a conspiracy existed. 
In determining whether there has been an unlawful agreement, you may 
judge acts and conduct of the alleged co-conspirators that are done to carry out an 
apparent criminal purpose. The saying “actions speak louder than words” is 
applicable here. In this regard, you may, in determining whether an agreement 
existed here, consider the actions and statements of all of those you find to be 
participants as proof that a common design existed on the part of the persons 
charged to act together to accomplish an unlawful purpose. 
Often, the only evidence of a conspiracy available is that of disconnected 
acts that, when taken together and considered as a whole, show a conspiracy or 
agreement to secure a particular result as satisfactorily and conclusively as more 
direct proof, such as evidence of an express agreement. 
Of course, proof concerning the accomplishment of the object or objects of 
the conspiracy may be the most persuasive evidence of the existence of the 
conspiracy itself. But it is not necessary that the conspiracy actually succeed in its 
purpose in order for you to conclude that the conspiracy existed. 
In considering whether a conspiracy existed, you should consider all of the 
evidence that has been admitted with respect to the conduct and statements of each 
Case 1:22-cr-00020-FB     Document 51     Filed 06/20/24     Page 38 of 54 PageID #: 334

 
39 
 
alleged co-conspirator and any inferences that may reasonably be drawn from that 
conduct and those statements. 
It is sufficient to establish the existence of the conspiracy if, after 
considering all of the relevant evidence, you find beyond a reasonable doubt that 
the minds of at least two alleged conspirators agreed, as I have explained, to work 
together in furtherance of one or more of the objects alleged in Count One of the 
indictment. 
In this case, Count One of the indictment charges that there were two 
objectives of the conspiracy: wire fraud and bank fraud. I have already instructed 
you on the elements of these substantive crimes in connection with my instructions 
for Count Two and Count Three.  
If you find that the conspirators agreed to accomplish either one or both of 
these two objectives, then the illegal purpose element will be satisfied. In other 
words, you need not find that the conspirators agreed to accomplish both these two 
objectives, as any one is sufficient. 
However, you must be unanimous as to that objective or those objectives. 
That is, you must all be in agreement with respect to at least one of the two alleged 
objectives of the conspiracy. You all have to be in agreement on the specific object 
Case 1:22-cr-00020-FB     Document 51     Filed 06/20/24     Page 39 of 54 PageID #: 335

 
40 
 
of the conspiracy that you find to exist before you can find the conspiracy charged 
in the indictment existed. 
Second Element: Membership in the Conspiracy 
The second element the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt 
is that the defendant unlawfully, willfully, and knowingly entered into the 
conspiracy, that is, that the defendant agreed to take part in the conspiracy with 
knowledge of its unlawful purposes and in furtherance of its unlawful objectives. 
“Unlawfully” simply means contrary to law. A defendant need not have 
known that she was breaking any particular law or any particular rule, but she must 
have been aware of the generally unlawful nature of her acts. 
I have already provided you with the definitions of “knowingly” and 
“willfully,” and you should apply those same definitions here. 
Again, knowledge is a matter of inference from the proven facts. You do 
have before you the evidence of certain acts and conversations alleged to have 
taken place involving the defendant or in her presence. You may consider this 
evidence in determining whether the government has proven beyond a reasonable 
doubt the defendant’s knowledge of the unlawful purposes of the conspiracy. 
It is not necessary for the government to show that a defendant was fully 
informed as to all the details of the conspiracy in order for you to infer knowledge 
on her part. To have guilty knowledge, a defendant need not have known the full 
Case 1:22-cr-00020-FB     Document 51     Filed 06/20/24     Page 40 of 54 PageID #: 336

 
41 
 
extent of the conspiracy or all of the activities of all of its participants. It is not 
even necessary for a defendant to know every other member or activity of the 
conspiracy. Furthermore, a defendant need not have joined in all of the 
conspiracy’s unlawful objectives. 
Nor is it necessary that a defendant received any monetary benefit from her 
participation in the conspiracy or had a financial stake in the outcome. However, 
although proof of a financial interest in the outcome of a scheme is not essential or 
determinative, if you find that a defendant had a financial or other interest, that is a 
factor you may properly consider in determining whether a defendant was a 
member of the conspiracy. 
The duration and extent of a defendant’s participation has no bearing on the 
issue of her guilt. She need not have joined the conspiracy at the outset. A 
defendant may have joined it at any time in its progress, and she will be held 
responsible for all that was done before she joined and all that was done during the 
conspiracy’s existence while she was a member, if those acts were reasonably 
foreseeable and within the scope of the defendant’s agreement. 
Each member of a conspiracy may perform separate and distinct acts and 
may perform them at different times. Some conspirators may play major roles, 
while others play minor roles in the scheme. One participating in a conspiracy is no 
less liable because her part is minor and subordinate. An equal role or an important 
Case 1:22-cr-00020-FB     Document 51     Filed 06/20/24     Page 41 of 54 PageID #: 337

 
42 
 
role is not what the law requires. In fact, even a single act can be sufficient to make 
a defendant a participant in an illegal conspiracy. 
A person’s mere association with a member of the conspiracy, however, 
does not make that person a member of the conspiracy, even when that association 
is coupled with knowledge that a conspiracy is taking place. A person may know, 
work with, or enter into business or friendship with an individual who is 
committing a crime without being a criminal herself. You may not find that the 
defendant is a member of a conspiracy merely because of a friendship or business 
association with alleged co-conspirators. Furthermore, mere presence at the scene 
of a crime, even coupled with knowledge that a crime is taking place, is not 
sufficient to support a conviction. In other words, knowledge without agreement 
and participation is not sufficient. What is necessary is that a defendant participate 
in the conspiracy with knowledge of its unlawful purposes, and with an intent to 
aid in the accomplishment of its unlawful objectives. 
A conspiracy once formed is presumed to continue until its objective is 
accomplished or until there is some affirmative act of termination by its members. 
So too, once a person is found to be a participant in the conspiracy, that person is 
presumed to continue being a participant in the venture until the venture is 
terminated, unless it is shown by some affirmative proof that the person withdrew 
and dissociated herself from it. 
Case 1:22-cr-00020-FB     Document 51     Filed 06/20/24     Page 42 of 54 PageID #: 338

 
43 
 
It is not essential that the government prove that a particular conspiracy 
alleged in the indictment started or ended on any of the specific dates described for 
that conspiracy. It is sufficient if you find that the conspiracy was formed and that 
it existed for some time around or within the dates set forth in the indictment. 
In sum, the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a 
defendant, with an understanding of the unlawful nature of the conspiracy, 
knowingly and intentionally engaged, advised, or assisted in the conspiracy for the 
purpose of furthering an illegal undertaking. Only through that does a defendant 
become a knowing and willing participant in the unlawful agreement—that is to 
say, a conspirator. 
Liability for Acts and Declarations of Co-Conspirators 
I have admitted into evidence the acts and statements of certain individuals 
who the government alleges were co-conspirators of the defendant. 
You may consider as evidence against a defendant the acts and statements of 
those who were co-conspirators of that defendant. The reason for this rule has to do 
with the nature of the crime of conspiracy. A conspiracy is often referred to as a 
partnership in crime. Thus, as in other types of partnerships, when people enter 
into a conspiracy to accomplish an unlawful end, each member becomes an agent 
for the other conspirators in carrying out the conspiracy. Accordingly, the 
reasonably foreseeable acts, declarations, statements, and omissions of any 
Case 1:22-cr-00020-FB     Document 51     Filed 06/20/24     Page 43 of 54 PageID #: 339

 
44 
 
member of the conspiracy in furtherance of the common purpose of the conspiracy 
are deemed, under the law, to be the acts of all of the members, and all of the 
members are responsible for such acts, declarations, statements, and omissions. 
In determining the factual issues before you, you may consider against the 
defendant any acts or statements made by any of the people who you find, under 
the standards I have already described, to have been her co-conspirators, even 
though such acts or statements were not made in her presence or were made 
without her knowledge. 
COUNT FOUR: MONEY LAUNDERING CONSPIRACY 
Count Four reads as follows: 
In or about and between March 2020 and August 2020, both dates 
being approximate and inclusive, within the Eastern District of New 
York and elsewhere, the defendant ANULI OKEKE, together with 
others, did knowingly and intentionally conspire to engage in one or 
more financial transactions in and affecting interstate commerce, to 
wit: deposits, withdrawals and transfers of funds and monetary 
instruments, in and affecting interstate and foreign commerce, by, 
though and to one or more financial institutions; in criminally derived 
property that was of a value greater than $10,000 and that was derived 
from specified unlawful activity, to wit: wire fraud, in violation of 
Title 18, United States Code, Section 1343, and bank fraud, in 
violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1344, contrary to 
Title 18, United States Code, Section 1957(a). 
 
 
I already instructed you on the law of conspiracies in connection with my 
instructions concerning Count One. You should apply those instructions here. 
Case 1:22-cr-00020-FB     Document 51     Filed 06/20/24     Page 44 of 54 PageID #: 340

 
45 
 
As a reminder, the two elements the government must prove beyond a reasonable 
doubt are: 
 First, that there was an agreement or understanding to 
accomplish the unlawful objective alleged in the indictment, 
which, for Count Four, is money laundering, a crime I will 
define for you; and 
 
 Second, that the defendant knowingly and willfully became a 
member of the conspiracy. 
 
For Count Four, unlike Count One, the defendant is not charged with 
the substantive crime, money laundering, that is the alleged object of the 
conspiracy. Recall that conspiracy, standing alone, is a separate crime, even 
if the conspiracy is not successful and even if you find that the defendant 
never actually committed the substantive crimes that were the objects of the 
conspiracy. Rather, this type of conduct alleges only that a defendant 
conspired to commit the offense of money laundering. 
 
I will now instruct you on the elements on the alleged object of the 
conspiracy in Count Four, which is money laundering. I describe for you the 
elements of the unlawful act only so you can understand what the 
government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt was the objective of the 
conspiracy. 
Money Laundering: Definition and Elements 
 
In this case, money laundering means knowingly engaging in a monetary 
Case 1:22-cr-00020-FB     Document 51     Filed 06/20/24     Page 45 of 54 PageID #: 341

 
46 
 
transaction in criminally derived property of a value greater than $10,000. 
The relevant statute regarding transactions in criminally derived property is 
Section 1957(a) of Title 18 of the United States Code, which provides: 
Whoever . . . knowingly engages . . . in a monetary transaction in 
criminally derived property that is of a value greater than $10,000 and 
is derived from specified unlawful activity [and does so either] in the 
United States . . . [commits a crime]. 
 
To prove that a defendant is guilty of this offense, the government must 
prove each of the following five elements beyond a reasonable doubt: 
 First, that the defendant engaged in a “monetary transaction” in 
or affecting interstate commerce; 
 
 Second, that the monetary transaction involved criminally 
derived property of a value greater than $10,000; 
 
 Third, that the criminally derived property was derived from 
unlawful activity specified in the Indictment; 
 
 Fourth, that the individual acted knowingly, that is, with 
knowledge that the transaction involved proceeds of a criminal 
offense; and 
 
 Fifth, that the transaction took place in the United States. 
 
Money Laundering - First Element: Engaging in Money Transaction 
The first element is that the defendant engaged in a monetary transaction in 
or affecting interstate commerce. 
The term “monetary transaction” means the deposit, withdrawal, transfer, or 
exchange, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, of funds or a monetary 
Case 1:22-cr-00020-FB     Document 51     Filed 06/20/24     Page 46 of 54 PageID #: 342

 
47 
 
instrument by, through, or to a financial institution. The term “financial institution” 
includes a bank insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”) and 
an agency or branch of a foreign bank in the United States. 
The term “interstate or foreign commerce” means commerce between any 
combination of states, territories or possessions of the United States, or between the 
United States and a foreign country. 
You must find that the transaction affected interstate commerce in some way, 
however minimal. This effect on interstate commerce can be established in several 
ways. First, any monetary transaction with a bank insured by the FDIC affects 
interstate commerce, so if you find that that any financial institution involved in the 
transaction was insured by the FDIC that is enough to establish that the transaction 
affected interstate commerce. Second, if the source of the funds used in the 
transaction affected interstate commerce, that is sufficient as well. Third, if the 
transaction itself involved an interstate transfer of funds, that would also be 
sufficient. 
Money Laundering - Second Element: Transaction Involved Criminally Derived 
Property 
The second element is that the monetary transaction involved criminally 
derived property having a value in excess of $10,000. 
The term “criminally derived property” means any property constituting, or 
Case 1:22-cr-00020-FB     Document 51     Filed 06/20/24     Page 47 of 54 PageID #: 343

 
48 
 
derived from, proceeds obtained from a criminal offense. The term “proceeds” has 
the same meaning as I just explained.  
To satisfy this element, the government is not required to prove the defendant 
knew that the offense from which the criminally derived property was derived was 
specified unlawful activity. All of the property involved in the transaction need not 
be criminally derived property. However, more than $10,000 of the property 
involved must be criminally derived property. 
Money Laundering - Third Element: Property Derived From Unlawful Activity 
The third element is that the criminally derived property involved in the 
financial transaction was derived from specified unlawful activity.  I instruct you 
as a matter of law that wire fraud and bank fraud are “specified unlawful activities” 
under the law.  
Money Laundering - Fourth Element: Knowledge 
The fourth element is that the individual knowingly engaged in the monetary 
transaction involving criminally derived property, as defined above. 
I have previously defined the term “knowingly” for you and you should 
apply that definition here. I further instruct you that in a prosecution for an offense 
under this section, the individual does not need to know the particular offense from 
which the criminally derived property was derived. However, the individual must 
know that the transaction involved criminally derived property, which, I remind 
Case 1:22-cr-00020-FB     Document 51     Filed 06/20/24     Page 48 of 54 PageID #: 344

 
49 
 
you, means any property constituting, or derived from, proceeds obtained from a 
criminal offense. 
Money Laundering - Fifth Element: Transaction Took Place in the United States 
The fifth element which the government must prove beyond a reasonable 
doubt is that the transaction took place in the United States. A transaction takes place 
in the United States if it involves the transfer or transmission of funds into or out of 
or through accounts located in the United States. 
VENUE 
In addition to the elements I have described, you must also consider venue. 
Venue refers to the location of the charged crimes.  
The Indictment alleges that the crimes charged in Counts One through Four 
occurred in part in this judicial district, which is the Eastern District of New York. 
This district encompasses the boroughs of Brooklyn, Queens, and Staten Island, as 
well as Nassau and Suffolk Counties on Long Island, as well as the air space above 
the district or the waters in the district.   
To establish that venue for a charged crime is appropriate in this district, the 
government must prove that some act in furtherance of the crime occurred here, in 
the Eastern District of New York. This means that with respect to each crime 
charged, even if other acts were committed outside this district or if the crime was 
completed elsewhere, venue is established in the Eastern District of New York so 
Case 1:22-cr-00020-FB     Document 51     Filed 06/20/24     Page 49 of 54 PageID #: 345

 
50 
 
long as some act in furtherance of the crime took place in this district. Indeed, a 
defendant need not personally have been present in the district for venue to be 
proper.  
Venue turns on whether any part of the crime or any act in furtherance of the 
offense was committed in the district. Venue is proper in a district where the 
defendant intentionally or knowingly causes an act in furtherance of the charged 
offense to occur or where it is foreseeable that such an act would occur in the district. 
In a conspiracy, such as those charged in Counts One and Four, actions of 
coconspirators, as well as actions caused by coconspirators, may be sufficient to 
confer venue if it was reasonably foreseeable to the defendant that the acts would 
occur in the Eastern District of New York. 
In determining whether some act in furtherance of the crime you are 
considering occurred in the Eastern District of New York, you may consider a 
number of things. Venue can be conferred based on physical presence or conduct. 
Venue can also be based on electronic impulses, including email communications 
and electronic transfers of funds such as banking transfers, beginning or ending in a 
district. Venue lies in any district where electronic communications are sent or 
received and any district through which electronic financial transactions are routed. 
Venue is proper where a telephonic communication in furtherance of a crime was 
made and where it was received. The government need not prove all of these bases 
Case 1:22-cr-00020-FB     Document 51     Filed 06/20/24     Page 50 of 54 PageID #: 346

 
51 
 
of venue; any one is sufficient. 
In order to establish venue for the wire fraud charge in Count Two, the 
government must prove the defendant caused an interstate wire, such as an e-mail, 
phone call, or financial transaction to be transmitted into or out of the Eastern 
District. The wire need not itself be criminal so long as it was transmitted in 
furtherance of the scheme or artifice to defraud. 
In order to establish venue for the bank fraud charge in Count Three, the 
government must prove that an act in furtherance of a scheme to defraud a bank 
occurred in the Eastern District. The act itself need not be criminal so long as it was 
in furtherance of the scheme or artifice to defraud. 
In order to establish venue for money laundering conspiracy in Count Four, 
the government must prove that an act, which need not be criminal itself, in 
furtherance of an agreement to deposit, withdraw, transfer, or exchange funds 
derived from criminal activity occurred in the Eastern District. 
While the government’s burden as to everything else in the case is proof 
beyond a reasonable doubt, a standard that I have already explained to you, the 
government must prove venue by the lesser standard of preponderance of the 
evidence. To establish a fact by a preponderance of the evidence means to prove that 
the fact is more likely true than not. A preponderance of the evidence means the 
greater weight of the evidence, both direct and circumstantial. 
Case 1:22-cr-00020-FB     Document 51     Filed 06/20/24     Page 51 of 54 PageID #: 347

 
52 
 
III. CONCLUDING REMARKS 
 
Before I ask you to retire to the jury room to begin your deliberations, there 
are a few additional matters that I would like to speak to you about. 
PUNISHMENT 
 
First, the question of possible punishment of the defendant is of no concern to 
the jury and should not, in any sense, enter into or influence your deliberations. The 
duty of imposing sentence, if there is a conviction, rests exclusively upon the Court. 
Your function is to weigh the evidence in the case and to determine whether or not 
the defendant is guilty, solely upon the basis of such evidence. Under your oath as 
jurors, you cannot allow a consideration of the punishment which may be imposed 
upon the defendant, if convicted, to influence your verdict in any way or to enter in 
any sense into your deliberations. 
SELECTION OF A FOREPERSON 
 
Before you begin your deliberations, you should select someone to be the 
foreperson. The foreperson will be responsible for signing the verdict form and 
announcing the verdict in Court. 
RIGHT TO SEE EXHIBITS AND HEAR TESTIMONY; 
COMMUNICATIONS WITH THE COURT 
 
If, during your deliberations, you want to see any of the exhibits, they will be 
sent to you in the jury room upon request. If you want any of the testimony read back 
to you, that can also be done; in the alternative, in my discretion, I may send the 
Case 1:22-cr-00020-FB     Document 51     Filed 06/20/24     Page 52 of 54 PageID #: 348

 
53 
 
relevant portions of the transcript in to you. Please remember that it is not always 
easy to locate what you might want, so be as specific as you possibly can in 
requesting exhibits or portions of testimony which you may want. You may also 
inquire of the Court if you are confused about any part of my instructions. 
 
Your requests for exhibits or testimony, or questions about the jury 
instructions —in fact any communication with the Court—should be made to me in 
writing, signed by your foreperson, and given to the designated marshal. I will 
respond to any questions or requests you have as promptly as possible, either in 
writing or by having you return to the courtroom so I can speak to you in person. In 
any event, do not tell me or anyone else how the jury stands until after a unanimous 
verdict is reached. 
DUTY TO CONSULT AND NEED FOR UNANIMITY 
 
As I have repeatedly told you, the government, to prevail, must prove beyond 
a reasonable doubt each of the elements of the offenses charged. If the government 
succeeds with respect to a particular count, your verdict should be guilty on that 
count; if the government fails with respect to a particular count, your verdict should 
be not guilty on that count. 
 
Each juror is entitled to his or her opinion; however, you should exchange 
views with your fellow jurors. That is the very purpose of jury deliberation—to 
discuss and consider the evidence; to listen to the arguments of fellow jurors; to 
Case 1:22-cr-00020-FB     Document 51     Filed 06/20/24     Page 53 of 54 PageID #: 349

 
54 
 
present your individual views; to consult with one another; and to reach an 
agreement based solely and wholly on the evidence—if you can do so without 
violence to your own individual judgment. 
 
Each of you must decide the case for yourself, after consideration, with your 
fellow jurors, of the evidence in the case. You should not hesitate to change an 
opinion which, after discussion with your fellow jurors, appears erroneous. On the 
other hand, if, after carefully considering all the evidence and the arguments of your 
fellow jurors, you still entertain a conscientious view that differs from the others, 
you are not to yield your belief simply because you are outnumbered. 
 
Your final vote must reflect your conscientious belief as to how the issues 
should be decided. Your verdict on each count, whether guilty or not guilty, must be 
unanimous. 
 
Your oath sums up your duty: That, without fear or favor, you will well and 
truly try the issues between these parties according to the evidence given to you in 
court and the laws of the United States. 
Case 1:22-cr-00020-FB     Document 51     Filed 06/20/24     Page 54 of 54 PageID #: 350

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.nyed.474435.51.0.pdf

Size

637,482 bytes

SHA-256

9b990451869a5204e77e972fdea544e029203c3c2bfee1d77fd43cf73646057c

Our copy

gov.uscourts.nyed.474435.51.0.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)