Court filing
Motion to Dismiss Count Eight for Lack of Venue as to Kisha Sutton — United States v. Sutton et al. (Dkt. 191, S.D. W. Va.)
Summary
Kisha Sutton's motion to dismiss Count Eight of the superseding indictment for lack of venue, filed 05/08/25 as Document 191 in United States v. Sutton et al., Case 2:24-cr-00192, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia. Through counsel Connor Robertson, Sutton says Count Eight alleges she caused the submission of a pandemic loan application for Jasmine Spencer that falsely claimed a sole proprietorship with income over $75,000.00, which a lender funded for $15,625. She says the government alleges Spencer, while in the Southern District of West Virginia, sent her $3,000 of the proceeds in exchange. She argues that the charged bank fraud did not occur in that district, so the government cannot establish venue for Count Eight. These are the defendant's arguments.
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
Filed May 8, 2025 in United States v. Sutton et al.; one of 235 filings from this case.
Record facts
| Court | U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia |
|---|---|
| Filed | 2025-05-08 |
Cite this document
“Motion to Dismiss Count Eight for Lack of Venue as to Kisha Sutton — United States v. Sutton et al. (Dkt. 191, S.D. W. Va.).”
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, No. 2:24-cr-00192, Doc. 191, filed 2025-05-08. Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/court-filings/full-docket-kisha-sutton-wvsd-240497/2025-05-08-gov-uscourts-wvsd-240497-191-0-doc-191/
, SHA-256 ee71effa408279cb7959444aec351a7e4b21dcdb7433311841276a9f8f055e64.Full text
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA CHARLESTON UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF, V. CASE NO.: 2:24-cr-00192 KISHA SUTTON, DEFENDANT. DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS COUNT EIGHT FOR LACK OF VENUE Now comes the Defendant, Kisha Sutton, by and through counsel, Connor Robertson, and respectfully moves this Honorable Court to Dismiss Count Eight of the Defendant’s Superseding Indictment, charging the Defendant with “Band Fraud” in violationofTitle18U.S.C.§1344(1)and(2),astheGovernmentcannotestablishVenuein the Southern District of West Virginia. In support thereof, the Defendant states as follows: Count Eight This is a fraudulent scheme prosecution with a very simple theory: Kisha Sutton prepared and submitted PPP Loan applications containing false information of her acquaintances in order to receive money from a bank or otherentitieswhichqualifyas financial institutions under federal law.InCountEightoftheSupersedingIndictmentthe Government has alleged that Ms. Sutton, on May 27, 2021, “caused the submission of a PPP loan application and a Schedule C to Financial Institution 1 on behalf of Jasmine Spencer.” SeeSup.Indictment,para.73.TheapplicationfalselystatedthatMs.J.Spencer’s Case 2:24-cr-00192 Document 191 Filed 05/08/25 Page 1 of 9 PageID #: 1030 wasasoleproprietor,thatherbusinesswasestablishedpriortoJanuaryof2017,andhad anincomeofmorethan$75,000.00whichmadeherfictitiouslyeligibleforPPPloanrelief during the Covid pandemic. Id. at para 74. Based on the false information provided, FinancialInstitution1fundedtheloantoMs.J.Spencerfor$15,625onoraboutJune28, 2021.Id.at.Para76. InexchangeforMs.Sutton’sefforts,theGovernmentallegesthatMs. J. Spencer, while in the Southern District of West Virginia, remitted $3,000 of the fraudulent PPP proceeds to Ms. Sutton. Id.atpara.77.Based on these accusations, Ms. Suttonischargedwith“bankfraud”inviolationof18U.S.C.§1344(1)&(2).Assumingfor the purposes of this Motion that the allegations of the above-captioned facts (and Indictment) are true, the Government cannot establish VenueintheSouthernDistrictof West Virginia. Facts AccordingtotheGovernment,Ms.SuttoncausedafraudulentPPPloanapplication and Schedule C tax forms to be submitted electronicallyfromaresidenceinNewJersey City,NewJersey.ThisallegationissupportedbyevidencethatanIPaddresslinkedtoMrs. Sutton’s name was captured when the application was submitted and received by a third-party vendor website called “Womply”. Womply is not a bank or a financial institutionasdefinedbyfederallaw,butinsteadwasafinancialtechnologycompanythat actedasafacilitatortomatchPPPapplicantstolenders.Basedoninformationandbelief, Womply had no servers in the Southern District of West Virginia. With this particular PPPloanapplication,Womplyelectronicallymatchedawilling lender,HarvestSmallBusinessFinance,LLC(“Harvest”),outofLagunaHIlls,California,to fund Ms. J. Spencer’s fictitious PPP loan. Based on information provided by the Case 2:24-cr-00192 Document 191 Filed 05/08/25 Page 2 of 9 PageID #: 1031 Government, Harvest’s servers are located in Laguna Hills, California. East West Bank, which is also located in California may have also funded the loan on behalf of Harvest. However, it is believed that Harvest’s servers never actually received the electronic application because Harvest was relying exclusively on Womply to underwrite and approve the loan applications at that time. Regardless, none of this information was transmitted through the Southern District of West Virginia. UponfundingthePPPLoanonJune28,2021,Harvest(orpossiblyEastWestBank locatedinCalifornia)electronicallydeposited,viaACH,the$15,625PPPproceedsintoMs. J.Spencer’sBancorpBankaccount-akaChime. BancorpBankisregisteredasaDelaware Corporation,butisnotacertifiedbusinessinWestVirginia.Thereisnoreasontobelieve that Bancorp has servers that process electronic ACH money transfers in the Southern District of West Virginia. Finally,allofthefundingforPPPloanswasfederallybackedbytheSmallBusiness Administration. Based on information received from the Government, no servers processingPPPloans,whichwereelectronicallyreceived,resideintheSouthernDistrictof West Virginia. Law Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 18 prescribes that “the government must prosecute an offense in the district where the offense was committed” unless a statute permitsotherwise.Fed.R.Crim.P.18.“BankFraud”asdefinedby18U.S.C.1344(1)&(2)is subject to the general federal venue statute, which states that a federalcriminaloffense which“beg[ins] in one district and completedinanother,orcommittedinmorethanone district,” may be “prosecuted in any district in which such offense begun, continued, or Case 2:24-cr-00192 Document 191 Filed 05/08/25 Page 3 of 9 PageID #: 1032 completed.” 18U.S.C.3237(a).Venue is“determinedfromthenatureofthecrimealleged and the location of the act oractsconstitutingit.”UnitedStatesv.Ebersole,411F.3d517, 524 (4th Cir. 2005). This means that there may be more than one appropriate venue, including“avenueinwhichthedefendanthasneversetfoot.”UnitedStatesv.Bowens,224 F.3d302,309(4thCir.2000).However,venueisgenerallylimitedtotheplaceinwhichthe “essential conduct” elements of the offense occurred. Id. “In order to determine the propriety of venue, we must first identify the conduct constituting the offense and the location of the criminal acts.” UnitedStatesv.Bankole,39 F. App'x 839, 841–43 (4th Cir. 2002)citing United States v. Barnette,211 F.3d 803,813 (4th Cir. 2000). The inquiry into venue has twoparts.First,theCourtsmust“identifytheconduct constitutingtheoffense,UnitedStatesv.Smith,452F.3d323,334(4thCir.2006)(quoting UnitedStatesv.Rodriguez-Moreno,526U.S.275,279(1999)),becausevenueislimited“to the place of the essential conduct of the offense.” UnitedStatesv.Bowens, 224F.3d302, 309(4thCir.2000).Second,theCourtdetermineswherethecriminalconducttookplace. Smith,452 F.2d at 334. In determiningtheessentialconductelementscourtsmay“analyzethekey‘verbs’ oractionssanctionedbythestatute[.]”UnitedStatesv.Sterling,860F.3d233,241(4thCir. 2017) (quoting UnitedStatesv.Rodriguez-Moreno,526 U.S. 275, 279 (1999). “Actswhich are merely ‘preparatory’ to the underlying offense and its essential conduct, however, cannot provide a basis for venue.” Id. at 241. Similarly, acts which occur only in furtherance of the crime or after a crime is complete cannot provide a basis for venue because they are not essential to the underlying offense.” UnitedStatesv.Jefferson, 674 F.3d 332, 367 (4th Cir. 2012) (finding venue improper for a wire fraud case because Case 2:24-cr-00192 Document 191 Filed 05/08/25 Page 4 of 9 PageID #: 1033 althoughactsinfurtheranceofthecrimeoccurredintherelevantdistrict,“thephysicalact of transmitting the wire communication for the purposeofexecutingthefraudscheme,” didnot);UnitedStatesv.Harris,No.3:12-cr-170,2013WL1790140,at*2(E.D.Va.Apr.26, 2013)(actiontakenafteracrimeiscomplete“doesnotqualifyasessentialconductofthe offense for the simple reason that the crime has already been completed”). Argument The essential conduct element of “Bank Fraud” is the execution of a scheme to defraudafinancialinstitution.Asitrelatestothiscase,Ms.Sutton’smouseclicksubmitting the PPP loan application and Schedule CwithknowinglyfalseinformationinNewJersey City,NewJerseytotheWomplyplatformandHarvest’sfundingofthe$15,625inLaguna HIlls,CaliforniatoanaccountwithBancorpwastheessentialconductmakingupthebank fraudallegation.Inotherwords,thiswasallthatwasnecessarytocompletethecrimeand noneofthattouchestheSouthernDistrictofWestVirginia.Thefactthatitisallegedthat Ms. Sutton and Ms. J. Spencer devised a scheme to defraud is irrelevant. You cannot commit bank fraud by devising a scheme to defraud, it is the execution that matters. Likewise,itisirrelevantthatMs.J.SpencermayhavesentMs.Sutton$3,000asakickback, because the crime of bank fraud had already been completed at the point where she submitted the false application. The execution ofaBankFraudschemedoesnotrequire the receiving of funds. At best, the execution began in New Jersey and at worst ended when Harvest received the application in California - if they received it at all. There are multiple cases that support this analysis. In United States v. Bankole, 39 F.App’x 839 (4th Cir. 2002)(per curiam), the Defendant was Indicted on Bank Fraud charges for initiating a debit transaction from Case 2:24-cr-00192 Document 191 Filed 05/08/25 Page 5 of 9 PageID #: 1034 Maryland (in our case New Jersey) which resulted in a transfer of fundstoavendorin NewHampshire(inourcaseBancorp-whereveritsserversare)thatwaseffectedwhen the electronic request was received and processed by the bank in Virginia (in our case wherever WomplyserversareorHarvestServersinCalifornia).TheCourtheldthatthat venuewasproperintheEasternDistrictofVirginia,because“thebankfraudoffensewas begun in Maryland, continued into New Hampshire, and was completed in the Eastern District of Virginia.” Id. This makes sense because the money being moved processed through these jurisdictions. Unlike Bankole, the Government in this caseisattemptingto hitch venue to Ms. C. Suttons’stransactionintheSouthernDistrictofWestVirginiaafter her Bank, Bancorp, received the money outside of West Virginia. UnitedStatesv.Verclas,No.GJH-18-160,2019WL95148(D.Md.Jan.3,2019),isa good example of what the Governmentistryingtodointhiscase-whichis,basevenue off of Ms. J. Spencer’s act of transferring portions of the PPP loan proceeds in the Southern District of West Virginia backtoMs.SuttonaftertheessentialconductofBank Fraud had been completed. The Court would not allow it. TheDefendantinVerclassubmittedagrantapplicationthatfalselyrepresentedthat her Delaware based corporation was a New York non-profit organization with the legal authoritytoapplyforthegrant.Basedontheapplication,theStateDepartmentawarded Verclas’ corporation the grant money. She later withdrew it and used it on personal expenses.Thisisexactlytheconductinthecasebeforethiscourt. Todistributethegrant funds, the State Department used a Payment Management System located in Maryland. Verclas used the Payment Management System to withdraw the funds for her personal use.TheGovernmentchargedherwithaviolationoftheMajorFraudAct18U.S.C.§1031. Case 2:24-cr-00192 Document 191 Filed 05/08/25 Page 6 of 9 PageID #: 1035 Verclas moved to dismiss the Indictment challenging venue and arguing that the Indictment fails to allege facts showing that she committed the charged offense in the DistrictofMaryland.TheGovernmentarguedthatheraccessingthePaymentManagement System to withdraw the funds, which were processed in Maryland, after they were received gave Maryland jurisdiction. The Court first determined what the conduct element to Major Fraud was and determined it was not the scheme to defraud, buttheknowingexecutionofthescheme. The Court held thatVerclasexecutedherschemetodefraudandobtainmoneyfromthe GovernmentwhenshesubmittedherfraudulentgrantapplicationfromherofficesinNew York. There was no allegation that this submission occurred or involved Maryland. The schemetodefraudwastoobtainthegrantmoneybysubmittingafraudulentapplication. The Court further, and more importantly, held that once the Defendant submitted the application, the scheme had been executed and she did not need to engage in any additional conduct to commit the crime. Because actually obtaining the money isnotan element of Major Fraud, much lessanessentialconductelement,itisnotrelevanttothe venue inquiry that the State Department awarded the funds through a Maryland based PaymentSystem.TheCourtheldthatactiondidnotcontributetoanyelementofthecrime and was not an essential conduct element. Conclusion WHEREFORE, the Defendant respectfully requests the Court enter and Order dismissing Count Eight for lack of venue and for other such relief as is necessary and proper. Case 2:24-cr-00192 Document 191 Filed 05/08/25 Page 7 of 9 PageID #: 1036 Respectfully submitted, By Counsel S://Connor D. Robertson________ Connor Robertson (11460) ROBERTSON LAW PLLC 2939 Virginia Avenue, Suite 2010 Hurricane, WV 25526 (304) 557-1601 cdr@croblaw.com Case 2:24-cr-00192 Document 191 Filed 05/08/25 Page 8 of 9 PageID #: 1037 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA CHARLESTON UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF, V. CASE NO.: 2:24-CR-000192-01 KISHA SUTTON, DEFENDANT. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Connor Robertson, certify that on the 8th day of May, 2025, a copy of the foregoing motion was served on theUnitedStatesbyECF,toJonathanStorage,Assistant United States Attorney to the following: Jonathan Storage Assistant United States Attorney Jonathan.Storage@usdoj.gov S:// Connor D. Robertson Connor Robertson (11460) ROBERTSON LAW PLLC 2939 Virginia Avenue, Suite 2010 Hurricane, WV 25526 (304) 557-1601 CDR@CROBLAW.COM Case 2:24-cr-00192 Document 191 Filed 05/08/25 Page 9 of 9 PageID #: 1038
File and source
- File
- gov.uscourts.wvsd.240497.191.0.pdf
- Size
- 117,872 bytes
- SHA-256
- ee71effa408279cb7959444aec351a7e4b21dcdb7433311841276a9f8f055e64
- Original
- PACER (login required)