MOTION for Forfeiture of Property by USA… — MOTION for Forfeiture of Property by USA as to Anuli Okeke — USA… (Dkt. 60)

Record facts

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York · No. 1:22-cr-00020-FB · Doc. 60 · 2025-02-27 · Docket on CourtListener

Summary

A government letter motion for forfeiture in United States v. Anuli Okeke, No. 1:22-cr-00020-FB, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, filed February 27, 2025 as Document 60 and addressed to Judge Frederic Block. Citing Rule 32.2 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, it submits a proposed Order of Forfeiture following the defendant's jury-trial conviction on or about June 18, 2024 on four counts under 18 U.S.C. § 1349, § 1343, § 1344 and § 1956(h). The letter seeks a forfeiture money judgment of $24,422.00 under 18 U.S.C. § 982(a)(2), § 982(a)(1), § 982(b)(1) and 21 U.S.C. § 853(p). It sets out the legal framework and the facts the government relies on from the Presentence Investigation Report, and asks that forfeiture be pronounced at sentencing and attached to the judgment. The four-page letter is signed by an Assistant U.S. Attorney.

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Full text

U.S. Department of Justice 
 
 
United States Attorney 
Eastern District of New York 
 
TRP 
271 Cadman Plaza East 
F. #2020R00955 
Brooklyn, New York 11201 
 
 
February 27, 2025 
 
By ECF 
Honorable Frederic Block 
United State District Judge 
Eastern District of New York 
225 Cadman Plaza East 
Brooklyn, New York 11201 
 
Re: 
United States v. Anuli Okeke 
 
Criminal Docket No. 22-0020 (FB) 
 
Dear Judge Block: 
 
Pursuant to Rule 32.2 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, the 
government respectfully submits the enclosed proposed Order of Forfeiture (“Order”) 
against Anuli Okeke (the “defendant”) in the above-referenced case.  The defendant was 
convicted on or about June 18, 2024 following a jury trial of: conspiracy to commit wire 
and bank fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1349 (Count One); conspiracy to commit wire 
fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343 (Count Two); conspiracy to commit bank fraud, in 
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1344 (Count Three); and conspiracy to commit money laundering, 
in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h) (Count Four).  The proposed Order provides for the 
entry of a forfeiture money judgment in the amount of $24,422.00 pursuant to 18 U.S.C.          
§§ 982(a)(2), 982(a)(1) and 982(b)(1) and 21 U.S.C. § 853(p). 
 
I. 
Legal Framework 
 
A. 
Applicable Forfeiture Statutes and Rules 
 
As a result of the defendant’s conviction of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1343, 1344, 1349 
and 1956(h), the defendant is liable to forfeit: (a) any property constituting, or derived from, 
proceeds obtained directly or indirectly as a result of the defendant’s violations of 18 U.S.C. 
§§ 1349, 1343, and 1344, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 982(a)(2); (b) any property, real or 
personal, involved in the defendant’s violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h), pursuant to 18 
U.S.C. § 982(a)(1), or any property traceable to such property; and/or (c) a substitute asset, 
pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 853(p), as incorporated by 18 U.S.C. § 982(b)(1).  
 
Case 1:22-cr-00020-FB     Document 60     Filed 02/27/25     Page 1 of 4 PageID #: 1462

2 
Rule 32.2(b)(1)(A) provides that the court must determine what property is 
subject to forfeiture under the applicable statute.  If the government seeks forfeiture of 
specific property, the court must determine whether the government has established the 
requisite nexus between the property and the offense. Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.2(b)(1)(A).  If the 
government seeks a personal money judgment, the court must determine the amount of 
money that the defendant will be ordered to pay. Id.   
 
Any outstanding forfeiture amount may be reduced to an in personam 
forfeiture money judgment.  United States v. Awad, 598 F.3d 76, 78 (2d Cir. 2010) 
(A[W]hen a defendant lacks the assets to satisfy the forfeiture order at the time of 
sentencing, the money judgment [against the defendant] is effectively an in personam 
judgment in the amount of the forfeiture order . . . .@) (internal quotation marks omitted); 
United States v. Kalish, 626 F.3d 165, 168-69 (2d Cir. 2010) (same); United States v. 
Roberts, 696 F. Supp. 2d 263, 268 (E.D.N.Y. 2010) (Irizarry, J.) (same), aff=d and forfeiture 
order vacated on other grounds, 660 F.3d 149, 168 (2d Cir. 2011).  Courts in the Second 
Circuit have routinely imposed forfeiture money judgments pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 
§§ 981(a)(1)(C) and 982(a)(1).  See, e.g., United States v. Marsh, Nos. 10–CR–0480, 10–
CR–0697, 10–CR–0700, 10–CR–0800, 10–CR–0801, 2011 WL 5325410 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 
26, 2011) (Weinstein, J.); United States v. Dipascali, No. 09 Cr. 764, 2010 WL 9002774 
(S.D.N.Y. June 18, 2010); United States v. Capoccia, No. 1:03-CR-35-01, 2009 WL 
2601426 (D. Vt. Aug. 19, 2009), aff’d, 402 Fed. Appx. 639 (2d Cir. 2010).   
 
In contrast to the guilt phase of the criminal trial, the government bears the 
burden of establishing the amount of money subject to forfeiture only by a preponderance 
of the evidence.  United States v. Capoccia, 503 F.3d 103,116 (2d Cir. 2007) 
([S]entencing courts determine forfeiture amounts by a preponderance of the evidence); 
United States v. Bellomo, 176 F.3d 580, 595 (2d Cir. 1999) (upholding trial court’s 
application of preponderance standard on grounds that criminal forfeiture is part of 
sentencing). 
 
Further, Rule 32.2(b)(1)(B) provides that the court’s determination of 
forfeiture may be based on evidence already in the record, and on any additional evidence 
or information submitted by the parties and accepted by the court as relevant and reliable.  
See Capoccia, 503 F.3d at 109; United States v. Roberts, 660 F.3d 149, 166 (2d Cir. 2011) 
(“district courts may use general points of reference as a starting point for a forfeiture 
calculation and ‘make reasonable extrapolations’ supported by a preponderance of the 
evidence”).  The government is not required to provide a precise calculation of the 
amount of money a defendant must forfeit. United States v. Treacy, 639 F.3d 32, 48 (2d 
Cir. 2011).  Instead, the money judgment amount can be reasonably estimated based upon 
the available information. Id.  Sentencing courts may consider trial evidence, hearsay, as 
well as “evidence or information submitted by the parties and accepted by the court as 
relevant and reliable,” in determining forfeiture. Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.2(b)(1)(B); Capoccia, 
503 F.3d at 109-10 (citing United States v. Gaskin, 364 F.3d 438, 462-63 (2d Cir. 2004)). 
 
Case 1:22-cr-00020-FB     Document 60     Filed 02/27/25     Page 2 of 4 PageID #: 1463

3 
II. 
Relevant Facts 
The facts of this case were presented at trial and are summarized in the U.S. 
Department of Probation’s Presentence Investigation Report (“PSR”) dated January 31, 
2025.  
 
The defendant was a former vice president at Popular Bank and the manager 
of its branch located at 231 West 125th Street in New York. PSR ¶ 16.  In or about 2020, the 
defendant exploited the COVID-19 pandemic’s unprecedented economic crisis to enrich 
herself by orchestrating a scheme in which she and her co-conspirators prepared and 
submitted fraudulent loan applications and received funding through the Paycheck 
Protection Program (“PPP”) and the Economic Injury Disaster Loan (“EIDL”) program. Id. 
 
The investigation revealed that between June 2020 and August 2020, the 
defendant and her co-conspirators submitted fraudulent PPP loan applications on behalf of 
11 entities and 10 individual sole proprietor applicants. PSR ¶ 17.  The defendant further 
recruited tax preparers to create fraudulent supporting tax documents with the PPP loan 
applications. Id.  As branch manager, the defendant was responsible for reviewing and 
approving each application and signed each PPP loan agreement, despite knowing that that 
they contained false statements and fraudulent supporting documentation. Id.  
 
 In total, the fraudulent business PPP loan applications were funded for 
$1,966,750.00 and the fraudulent PPP loan applications were funded for $203,670.00. Id.  
After the SBA deposited loan proceeds into the borrowers’ Popular Bank accounts, the 
defendant and her co-conspirators received unauthorized commissions from the fraudulent 
loans. PSR ¶ 18.  Additionally, the defendant and her co-conspirators were involved in 
dozens of other fraudulent loans worth more than $750,000.00. PSR ¶ 19. 
 
The evidence has revealed that the defendant and her co-conspirators stole at 
least $3,000,000.00 from pandemic assistance programs. PSR ¶ 21.  The defendant 
personally obtained approximately $24,422.00 in earnings from the scheme. Id. 
 
III. 
The Forfeiture Money Judgment Should be Entered against the Defendant 
 
As detailed above, the evidence in this case has established that the defendant 
personally obtained approximately $24,422.00 in illegal proceeds as a result of her 
involvement in the wire fraud, bank fraud and money laundering offenses for which she 
was convicted.  Accordingly, a forfeiture money judgment in the amount of $24,422.00 
should be entered against the defendant as: (a) property constituting, or derived from, 
proceeds obtained directly or indirectly as a result of the wire and bank fraud offenses, 
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 982(a)(2); (b) property, real or personal, involved in the defendant’s 
money laundering offenses, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 982(a)(1), or any property traceable to 
such property; and/or (c) a substitute asset, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 853(p), as incorporated 
by 18 U.S.C. § 982(b)(1).  
 
 
Case 1:22-cr-00020-FB     Document 60     Filed 02/27/25     Page 3 of 4 PageID #: 1464

4 
Based on the foregoing, the government respectfully requests that the Court 
enter the enclosed Order of Forfeiture directing the entry of a forfeiture money judgment in 
the amount of $24,422.00.  The government further requests that forfeiture be pronounced 
at the time of the defendant’s sentence and that the Order of Forfeiture be attached to the 
defendant’s Judgment of Conviction. 
 
Thank you for your Honor’s consideration of this request. 
 
Respectfully submitted, 
 
JOHN J. DURHAM 
United States Attorney 
 
By: 
 /s/   Tanisha R. Payne         
Tanisha R. Payne 
Assistant U.S. Attorney 
(718) 254-6358 
 
 
cc: 
Counsel of Record (By ECF) 
 
Case 1:22-cr-00020-FB     Document 60     Filed 02/27/25     Page 4 of 4 PageID #: 1465

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.nyed.474435.60.0.pdf

Size

162,899 bytes

SHA-256

6f463a27bb0ab2c87e8a0ed4c910f38bd134b7f4622fdbdc6c87e8b74ebdb36d

Our copy

gov.uscourts.nyed.474435.60.0.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)