Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Order of Forfeiture — United States v. David T. Hines (S.D. Fla.)

Record facts

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida · No. 1:21-cr-20011-DPG · Doc. 44 · 2021-03-01 · Docket on CourtListener

Summary

The United States' unopposed motion for a preliminary order of forfeiture against David Tyler Hines in United States v. Hines, No. 1:21-cr-20011-DPG, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, entered on the docket March 1, 2021 as Document 44. Brought under 18 U.S.C. § 982(a)(2)(A), 21 U.S.C. § 853 and Rule 32.2, it seeks a forfeiture money judgment of $3,984,557.00. The motion recounts that an Information filed January 8, 2021 charged wire fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1343 and that the court accepted a guilty plea to Count 1 on February 10, 2021, with the defendant agreeing to forfeiture. It cites the factual proffer on Paycheck Protection Program loan applications and seeks forfeiture of funds from four Bank of America accounts and a 2020 Lamborghini Huracán. A Local Rule 88.9 certification states defense counsel does not oppose.

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 
 
CASE NO. 21-CR-20011-COOKE 
 
 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 
 
v.  
 
DAVID TYLER HINES,  
 
 
 
Defendant. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
UNITED STATES’ UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR  
PRELIMINARY ORDER OF FORFEITURE  
 
Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 982(a)(2)(A) and the procedures set forth in 21 U.S.C. § 853 and 
Rule 32.2 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, the United States of America (the “United 
States”), by and through the undersigned Assistant United States Attorney, hereby moves for the 
entry of a Preliminary Order of Forfeiture against Defendant David Tyler Hines (the “Defendant”) 
in the above-captioned matter.  The United States seeks a forfeiture money judgment in the amount 
of $3,984,557.00 and the forfeiture of certain property in satisfaction thereof.  In support of this 
motion, the United States provides the attached Declaration of Postal Inspector Bryan Masmela of 
the United States Postal Inspection Service (“USPIS”) and the following factual and legal bases. 
I. 
FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY 
On January 8, 2021, the United States filed an Information charging the Defendant in Count 
1 with wire fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343, ECF No. 1.  The Information also contained 
forfeiture allegations, which alleged that upon conviction of a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343, the 
Defendant shall forfeit any property constituting, or derived from, proceeds the defendant obtained 
directly or indirectly, as the result of such violation.  See id. at 4.  The Information alleged that the 
Case 1:21-cr-20011-DPG   Document 44   Entered on FLSD Docket 03/01/2021   Page 1 of 5

2 
property subject to forfeiture as a result of the alleged offense includes, but is not limited to 
(collectively, the “Property”): 
i. All funds held by Bank of America formerly on deposit in account number 898077556016 
held in the name of Cash in Holdings LLC;  
 
ii. All funds held by Bank of America formerly on deposit in account number 898096330857 
held in the name of Unified Relocation Solutions, LLC; 
 
iii. All funds held by Bank of America formerly on deposit in account number 898099756470 
held in the name of Promaster Movers, Inc.;  
 
iv. All funds held by Bank of America formerly on deposit in account number 898105927423 
held in the name of Unified Relocation Solutions LLC; and 
 
v. a 2020 Lamborghini Huracán with vin ZHWUF4ZF3LLA13255.  
See id.  
On February 10, 2021, the Court accepted the Defendant’s guilty plea to Count 1 of the 
Information.  See Minute Entry, ECF No. 38; Plea Agreement ¶ 2, ECF No. 40.  As part of the 
guilty plea, the Defendant agreed to the forfeiture of the Property and a forfeiture money judgment 
in the amount of $3,984,557.00.  Plea Agreement ¶ 12, ECF No. 40.   
In support of the guilty plea, the Defendant executed a Factual Proffer, and the Court found 
that there was a factual basis to support the Defendant’s conviction.  See Factual Proffer, ECF No. 
41.  The Factual Proffer also provided a basis for the forfeiture of property.  See id. at ¶7.  
II. 
MEMORANDUM OF LAW 
A. Directly Forfeitable Property 
 
All property constituting, or derived from, proceeds the defendant obtained directly or 
indirectly, ash the result of a wire fraud offense affecting a financial institution is subject to 
forfeiture.  18 U.S.C. § 982(a)(2)(A).   
 
If a defendant is convicted of such violation, the Court “shall order” the forfeiture of 
Case 1:21-cr-20011-DPG   Document 44   Entered on FLSD Docket 03/01/2021   Page 2 of 5

3 
property as part of the sentence.  See 18 U.S.C. § 982(a)(2).  Criminal forfeiture is governed by 
the preponderance standard.  See United States v. Hasson, 333 F.3d 1264, 1277 (11th Cir. 2003).  
Upon finding that property is subject to forfeiture by a preponderance, the Court:    
. . . must promptly enter a preliminary order of forfeiture setting forth the amount 
of any money judgment, directing the forfeiture of specific property, and directing 
the forfeiture of any substitute property if the government has met the statutory 
criteria.  The court must enter the order without regard to any third party’s interest 
in the property.  Determining whether a third party has such an interest must be 
deferred until any third party files a claim in an ancillary proceeding under Rule 
32.2(c). 
 
Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.2(b)(2)(A).   
B. Forfeiture Money Judgments 
A forfeiture order may be sought as a money judgment.  See Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.2(b)(1)(A), 
(2)(A);  see also United States v. Padron, 527 F.3d 1156, 1162 (11th Cir. 2008) (holding that 
Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure “explicitly contemplate the entry of money judgments in 
criminal forfeiture cases”).  The forfeiture money judgment is final as to the defendant “[a]t 
sentencing—or at any time before sentencing if the defendant consents.”  See Fed. R. Crim. P. 
32.2(b)(4)(A).  No ancillary proceeding is required when forfeiture consists solely of a money 
judgment.  See Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.2(c)(1).  As additional property is identified to satisfy the 
forfeiture money judgment, the Court must order the forfeiture of such property.  See Fed. R. Crim. 
P. 32.2(e)(1) (“[T]he court may at any time enter an order of forfeiture or amend an existing order 
of forfeiture to include property that . . . is subject to forfeiture under an existing order of forfeiture 
but was located and identified after that order was entered; or . . . is substitute property . . . .”); see 
also Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.2(b)(2)(C). 
The amount of the money judgment should represent the full sum of directly forfeitable 
property, regardless of the defendant’s ability to satisfy the judgment at the time of sentencing.  
Case 1:21-cr-20011-DPG   Document 44   Entered on FLSD Docket 03/01/2021   Page 3 of 5

4 
See United States v. McKay, 506 F. Supp. 2d 1206, 1211 (S.D. Fla. 2007) (adopting the majority 
rule); see also United States v. Blackman, 746 F.3d 137, 143-44 (4th Cir. 2014) (“The fact that a 
defendant is indigent or otherwise lacks adequate assets to satisfy a judgment does not operate to 
frustrate entry of a forfeiture order.”).  The Court determines the amount of the money judgment 
“based on evidence already in the record, including any written plea agreement, and any additional 
evidence or information submitted by the parties and accepted by the court as relevant and 
reliable.”  Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.2(b)(1)(B).  The Court in imposing a forfeiture money judgment 
may rely on an agent’s reliable hearsay.  See United States v. Stathakis, 2008 WL 413782, at *14 
n.2 (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 13, 2008).   
C. Property Subject to Forfeiture in Instant Criminal Case 
According to the Defendant’s factual proffer, the Defendant applied for multiple Paycheck 
Protection Program (“PPP”) loans to Bank A on behalf of his companies (“the Companies”).  
Factual Proffer at ¶ 6, ECF No. 41.  In his PPP loan applications, the Defendant made a number of 
false and fraudulent representations.  Id. As discussed in Postal Inspector Masmela’s attached 
declaration, based on those false and fraudulent representations, Bank A disbursed $3,984,557.00 
to the Companies’ accounts.  Id. at ¶ 7.  Further, Postal Inspector Masmela’s declaration also 
described how PPP loans were used to fund and/or purchase the Property. 
Based on the record in this case, the total value of the proceeds traceable to the offense of 
conviction is $3,984,557.00, which sum may be sought as a forfeiture money judgment pursuant 
to Rule 32.2 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. 
In addition, also based on the record in this case, the following specific property is directly 
subject to forfeiture, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 982(a)(2)(A):  
i. All funds held by Bank of America formerly on deposit in account number 898077556016 
held in the name of Cash in Holdings LLC;  
Case 1:21-cr-20011-DPG   Document 44   Entered on FLSD Docket 03/01/2021   Page 4 of 5

5 
 
ii. All funds held by Bank of America formerly on deposit in account number 898096330857 
held in the name of Unified Relocation Solutions, LLC; 
 
iii. All funds held by Bank of America formerly on deposit in account number 898099756470 
held in the name of Promaster Movers, Inc.;  
 
iv. All funds held by Bank of America formerly on deposit in account number 898105927423 
held in the name of Unified Relocation Solutions LLC; and 
 
v. a 2020 Lamborghini Huracán with vin ZHWUF4ZF3LLA13255.  
WHEREFORE, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 982(a)(2)(A), and the procedures set forth in 21 
U.S.C. § 853 and Rule 32.2 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, the United States 
respectfully requests the entry of the attached order.  
LOCAL RULE 88.9 CERTIFICATION 
Pursuant to Local Rule 88.9, I hereby certify that the undersigned counsel has conferred 
with defense counsel via e-mail on February 26, 2021, and there is no opposition/objection to the 
relief sought.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Respectfully submitted, 
 
ARIANA FAJARDO ORSHAN 
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY 
 
By: 
/s/ Nicole Grosnoff                
Nicole Grosnoff 
Assistant United States Attorney 
Court ID No. A5502029 
nicole.s.grosnoff@usdoj.gov 
U.S. Attorney’s Office 
99 Northeast Fourth Street, 7th Floor 
Miami, Florida 33132-2111 
Telephone: (305) 961-9294 
Facsimile: (305) 536-4089 
 
Case 1:21-cr-20011-DPG   Document 44   Entered on FLSD Docket 03/01/2021   Page 5 of 5

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.flsd.584464.44.0.pdf

Size

57,407 bytes

SHA-256

ac98228562c7896dbe07923a5df16007d7b9ffb4965c4b80c25756bcf7438ce5

Our copy

gov.uscourts.flsd.584464.44.0.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)