Transcript of Proceedings — United States v. Sutton et al. (Dkt. 346, S.D. W. Va.)

Record facts

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia · No. 2:24-cr-00192 · Doc. 346 · 2025-07-28 · Docket on CourtListener

Full text

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA 
AT CHARLESTON 
 
PARTIAL TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS 
 
 
-----------------------------x 
                             : 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,    :         CRIMINAL ACTION 
                             :         NO. 2:24-cr-00192 
vs.                          : 
                             :          
KISHA SUTTON,                :         July 15, 2025 
                             : 
          Defendant.         ; 
                             : 
-----------------------------x 
 
 
CLOSING ARGUMENT BY MR. STORAGE 
 
BEFORE THE HONORABLE IRENE C. BERGER 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 
 
 
APPEARANCES: 
 
For the United States:       MR. JONATHAN TYLER STORAGE 
                             MS. JENNIFER DOWDY GORDON 
                             United States Attorney's Office 
                             Suite 4000 
                             300 Virginia Street, East 
                             Charleston, WV  25301 
 
For the Defendant:           MR. CONNOR D. ROBERTSON 
                             Robertson Law 
                             2702 Main Street 
                             Hurricane, WV  25526 
 
 
 
Court Reporter:              Lisa A. Cook, RPR-RMR-CRR-FCRR 
 
Proceedings recorded by mechanical stenography; transcript 
produced by computer. 
 1
 2
 3
 4
 5
 6
 7
 8
 9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Case 2:24-cr-00192     Document 346     Filed 07/28/25     Page 1 of 19 PageID #: 2312

     2
I N D E X 
 
                                                  PAGE 
CLOSING ARGUMENT BY MR. STORAGE . . . . . 3 - 19 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1
 2
 3
 4
 5
 6
 7
 8
 9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Case 2:24-cr-00192     Document 346     Filed 07/28/25     Page 2 of 19 PageID #: 2313

     3
P R O C E E D I N G S 
* * * * * 
THE COURT:  Mr. Storage, Ms. Gordon, will you go
forward with closing argument?
MR. STORAGE:  May it please the Court, --
THE COURT:  Yes, sir.
MR. STORAGE:  -- ladies and gentlemen of the jury,
there is no such thing as free money.  We all know that.
There's no such thing as free money.  And during the COVID
pandemic when COVID relief was coming out, money was not
just falling from the sky where you could just put out your
hand and receive it.
What we heard today was that in order to get COVID
money, the PPP program, the Paycheck Protection Program, you
had to apply for it.  You had to apply by loan application.
You had to meet requirements, eligibility specifications.
And then and only then if you satisfied all of the
requirements and you used the money per the program's terms,
you could get that loan forgiven.  It was always a loan.  It
was marketed as a loan, never free money.  The Government
doesn't give free money.
Okay.  So here's what we're going to be talking about
here.  We're going to be talking about the charges.  You
heard them from the Judge.  I'm going to summarize them as
well.  We're going to be talking about the fraud and money
 1
 2
 3
 4
 5
 6
 7
 8
 9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Case 2:24-cr-00192     Document 346     Filed 07/28/25     Page 3 of 19 PageID #: 2314

     4
laundering that occurred.  And then we're going to talk
about the verdict that the Government is going to request
that you deliver at the end of your deliberations.  And our
argument is going to be that we've met all of our burden and
have produced sufficient evidence.
First off, we're going to be talking about the charges.
So Count One is aiding and abetting bank fraud.  We heard
briefly what that was.  And this is a direct quote out of
the statute.  "Whoever commits an offense against the United
States or aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces, or
procures its commission, is punishable as a principal."
That means someone who helped another person commit the
crime is as guilty as the person who initiated it and vice
versa.
In this superseding indictment, the Government has
alleged -- well, the grand jury has alleged that Shamiese
Wright and Kisha Sutton aided and abetted one another to
execute the bank fraud scheme.  In other words, they're both
in on it together and they both substantially contributed to
the crime, and they facilitated the crime through each
other's actions.
To convict a defendant of being an aider and abettor,
the Government must show that the defendant's conduct
amounted to counseling, assisting, or facilitating the
commission of the crime.
 1
 2
 3
 4
 5
 6
 7
 8
 9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Case 2:24-cr-00192     Document 346     Filed 07/28/25     Page 4 of 19 PageID #: 2315

     5
A person commits bank fraud when she knowingly executes
or attempts to execute a scheme or artifice to defraud an
institution.  That's one way to do it, or you can also do it
to execute a fraud scheme to obtain any money owned by or
under the custody and control of a financial institution by
means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, and
promises.
In this case, not only did they know that they were
applying for a loan -- that's the fraud against the
financial institution -- Ms. Wright and Ms. Sutton knew that
they were filling out fraudulent loan applications.  They
knew that they were creating fraud on IRS tax documents.
They were lying about income.  And they presented that
knowing or hoping that a lender was going to accept it as
true and provide government funds to them through the loan
process.
The bank fraud statute does not require the Government
to show any ultimate financial loss or a showing of intent
to cause financial loss.  So whether or not a loan is
forgiven or not plays no role in the bank fraud statute.
So in order to commit bank fraud, it has to involve a
financial institution, not a bank per se, not going to
Truist or Chase or Wells Fargo.  It involves things that are
specified by statute.  And a mortgage lending business
qualifies as a financial institution.  And that's under 18,
 1
 2
 3
 4
 5
 6
 7
 8
 9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Case 2:24-cr-00192     Document 346     Filed 07/28/25     Page 5 of 19 PageID #: 2316

     6
U.S.C., Section 20, Subparagraph (10).  
The term "mortgage lending business," what you need to
know and consider is that it basically finances debts
secured in real estate.  It is a loan that the collateral is
land.  That's what it is.  That's what makes a mortgage loan
different from any other business loan, and whose activities
affect interstate or foreign commerce.
The law doesn't require that the mortgage loan itself
affects interstate commerce or has any impact on it, just
that the activities of the mortgage lending business affects
interstate commerce.  And we'll get to that here in a minute
as well.
Count Two is aiding and abetting the concealment of --
concealment of money laundering.  So one of the things that
has to be proven by the Government is that the transaction
had at least a minimal impact on interstate commerce.
I will show you how the Government has proved that in
this case.  The defendant knew that the money represented
the proceeds of some form of activity.  We'll learn that,
you know, there has to be a specified unlawful activity.
But for the purpose of money laundering, the defendant
doesn't have to know specifically what crime or what
specified unlawful activity occurred, only that the proceeds
involved criminal conduct; and the transaction designed --
was designed to conceal or disguise the nature or source of
 1
 2
 3
 4
 5
 6
 7
 8
 9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Case 2:24-cr-00192     Document 346     Filed 07/28/25     Page 6 of 19 PageID #: 2317

     7
the money.  And there's some other qualifying words in there
too that could also apply.  But for the purposes of
complicity to conceal or disguise the nature of the source
of the money, that is the end transaction.  
A transaction had to have involved the proceeds of a
specified unlawful activity, also known as an SUA, and only
proceeds from an SUA can be laundered for the purposes of
the money laundering statute.
If someone commits a crime that results in proceeds and
it is not specified in the statute as a specified unlawful
activity, that doesn't count as money laundering.  But bank
fraud does qualify as a specified unlawful activity per
statute.
A person who instructs others to initiate a payment
involving proceeds of an SUA conducts a financial
transaction.  And when they receive the money, if they are
simply receiving money that other people sent to them and
they know that it involves the proceeds of a specified
unlawful activity and that it was designed in whole or in
part to conceal or disguise the nature and source of that,
that money, the person receiving money, even if they don't
touch anything, is responsible as conducting a transaction,
a financial transaction under -- financial transaction under
the money laundering statute.
So now we're going to be talking about what you all
 1
 2
 3
 4
 5
 6
 7
 8
 9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Case 2:24-cr-00192     Document 346     Filed 07/28/25     Page 7 of 19 PageID #: 2318

     8
heard in trial and the investigation that occurred and the
evidence in the case.
First, we heard about the Paycheck Protection Plan as
administered by the Small Business Administration, a federal
agency.  And we heard about how, for the purposes of this
case, in order to even qualify for a PPP loan, you had to
either be an independent contractor, self-employed, or have
some sort of associated with yourself sole proprietorship.
You had to have been in operation on February the 15th
of 2020.  You had to have an operating business on February
the 15th of 2020.  You had to include evidence of your gross
income for either 2019 or 2020, required.  You could not get
a loan without an IRS -- some sort of evidence of your tax
situation and your reportable income.
And even if you got the loan, you had to use it for
eligible purposes.  You couldn't use it for any old thing.
You had to use it for what the program requires.
So Shamiese Wright.  We saw in evidence that Shamiese
Wright received a PPP loan and submitted with that PPP loan
a form, a Schedule C 1040.  And we saw listed that she had
gross income of $75,000.
Well, we also looked at her 2020 tax return covering
that same period.  And what did we see?  She actually
reported income to the Federal Government of $21,716.  Both
can't be true.  We all know that.
 1
 2
 3
 4
 5
 6
 7
 8
 9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Case 2:24-cr-00192     Document 346     Filed 07/28/25     Page 8 of 19 PageID #: 2319

     9
In addition, Shamiese Wright submitted unemployment
claims to the West Virginia Workforce Office.  And she
certified multiple times during 2020 that she was unemployed
and was not receiving compensation.
So what's the internet connection to all of this?
Because we know from the evidence that this was all done
on-line.  Right?  You can just go on a web portal, fill out
an on-line application.  And, so, all of this was done, you
know, paperless for the most part.
Well, we know the internet connection because we
received the IP address information from Verizon.  And what
did it show?  It showed the address assigned to this
particular account.  There's the IP address right there,
108.53.252.171.
And who was that registered to?  Kisha Sutton, the
defendant.  And it was for the period covered for by the
time of this alleged conduct.  This was registered to her
April the 7th of 2021 through June the 29th of 2021.
It was a common scheme.  It didn't just impact Kisha
and Shamiese.  It impacted -- we got one for Shamiese.  Look
at the IP address.  This is substantive evidence summarizing
the applications that were submitted.  Same IP address for
Shamiese, same IP address for Lydia.
Lydia actually got two PPP loans thanks to Kisha
Sutton, William Powell got one, jasmine Spencer got one,
 1
 2
 3
 4
 5
 6
 7
 8
 9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Case 2:24-cr-00192     Document 346     Filed 07/28/25     Page 9 of 19 PageID #: 2320

    10
Damisha Brown got one, all using the same IP address all
using the same pattern.
What is Benworth Capital Partners, LLC?  Well, we
introduced records of their mortgage lending activity.  We
saw a mortgage loan agreement from March of 2019.  We saw a
mortgage loan agreement from February of 2020.  We saw a
mortgage loan agreement from September of 2021.  Before the
scheme and after the scheme, Benworth Capital Partners was
issuing mortgage loans.
This is a summary chart of those three mortgage loan
documents showing the value and the participants involved in
it.
Of course, we know too that Benworth Capital is the
lender for Shamiese Wright's loan.  There it is right there
on the promissory note introduced into evidence.  And we see
a bank loan number.  $15,625 was the amount of the loan.
And, of course, it was signed "Shamiese Wright" dated April
the 23rd of 2021.
Well, Benworth Capital is Florida based, and Benworth
Capital issued a PPP loan to someone living in the Southern
District of West Virginia.  The activities of Benworth
Capital affected interstate commerce loaning money to people
at minimum in Charleston, West Virginia.
Another thing about Benworth Capital is that we've
heard about aiding and abetting.  Again -- and I want to
 1
 2
 3
 4
 5
 6
 7
 8
 9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Case 2:24-cr-00192     Document 346     Filed 07/28/25     Page 10 of 19 PageID #: 2321

    11
emphasize that again.  I'm going to go back to the previous
slide.  "Whoever commits an offense against the United
States or aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces, or
procures its commission, is punishable as a principal."
Shamiese Wright is just as culpable as Kisha Sutton in
this.  They are charged as aiding and abetting one another
to make the scheme work.  You can't have an effective
scheme -- you can have a scheme, but you can't have an
effective scheme.  You have Shamiese supplying her
information to Kisha with the understanding Kisha applies
for the loan.  The loan proceeds go to Shamiese.  And
Shamiese does her part to kick back the payments to Kisha.
They work in tandem with one another.  Kisha Sutton
gets nothing if Shamiese doesn't do that loan apart from the
other loans she did.  But Kisha Sutton doesn't get anything
if Shamiese doesn't do her end of the bargain.
Kisha Sutton also -- Shamiese can't get anything if she
doesn't submit herself to Kisha to help do the loan because
Kisha knows how to do it.  They are responsible for each
other's conduct.  They are punishable as principals.  And
Shamiese who signed the SBA promissory note knew that
Benworth Capital, knew Benworth Capital was the lender in
this case.
So how did the whole movement of money work?  Well, we
have CashApp.  That was consistent.  We have the State of
 1
 2
 3
 4
 5
 6
 7
 8
 9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Case 2:24-cr-00192     Document 346     Filed 07/28/25     Page 11 of 19 PageID #: 2322

    12
West Virginia, specifically the Southern District of West
Virginia.  It includes Kanawha County and Cabell County,
among other counties, but for the purpose of this case, the
two counties that are subject to the case.  And we see a
movement of money.  And that movement of money went to the
State of New Jersey through Kisha Sutton.
And who was transferring money to Kisha Sutton as part
of this common scheme?  We have Shamiese Wright, the
co-defendant in this case, aiding and abetting Kisha.  We
have Damisha Brown, we have Jasmine Spencer, we have William
Powell, and we have Lydia Spencer, all involved in the same
scheme, all sending money from the Southern District of West
Virginia to Kisha Sutton, all having the same IP address
associated with their loan applications, and all of their
CashApp records match to Kisha Sutton's CashApp deposits.
So we also looked at payments to Kisha Sutton.  So we
have Exhibit 7 that was introduced and admitted.  And this
is a summary chart that shows the CashApp transactions for
Shamiese Wright and the Stride Bank transactions for
Shamiese Wright.
As you may recall, Benworth Capital when they initiated
the deposit of the $15,625, it went into Stride Bank.  It
didn't go to CashApp.  It went to Stride Bank.  And then it
went from Stride Bank to CashApp and CashApp then to Kisha
Sutton.  So let's look specifically at CashApp.
 1
 2
 3
 4
 5
 6
 7
 8
 9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Case 2:24-cr-00192     Document 346     Filed 07/28/25     Page 12 of 19 PageID #: 2323

    13
We see these three transactions to Kisha Sutton of
$1,000 each one week apart.  One week apart that $1,000 came
through.  Specifically, the charged conduct in the
superseding indictment is May the 14th of 2021 in the amount
of $1,000.
Then we also looked at the bottom of that exhibit and
we saw the Stride Bank account information.  And we saw that
on May the 14th, Shamiese Wright was at a McDonald's in
Charleston, West Virginia, on the same day that she
submitted that CashApp application.
Okay.  Well, what does that mean?  What does that mean?
This is what -- where you all are going to use your ability
to consider circumstantial evidence.
The transactions occurred from May 7th to May 21.  And
then let's look at all these other examples.  All the way
through May the 27th, she's in Charleston, West Virginia.
She's not in Ohio.  She's not in Florida.  She's not in New
Jersey.  She is hanging out in Kanawha County, West
Virginia, and she's going to fast food restaurants and
getting beauty supplies and all of these other things here
in Charleston, West Virginia.
And you all have the original.  You will have a disk.
You can put it in there.  If you want to see her Stride Bank
transactions in full, they're part of the evidence.  You can
go look at them.  And I am representing to you that when you
 1
 2
 3
 4
 5
 6
 7
 8
 9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Case 2:24-cr-00192     Document 346     Filed 07/28/25     Page 13 of 19 PageID #: 2324

    14
look at them, you will not see a single transaction in the
month of May, 2021, where she has left or used her account
outside the Southern District of West Virginia.
She didn't go outside the Southern District of West
Virginia to buy gas.  She didn't go outside the Southern
District of West Virginia to eat food.  She didn't go
outside the Southern District of West Virginia to buy a
stick of gum.
The payments were chopped up as part of the scheme.
This is the list of all of the CashApp transactions that
occurred in this case.  And we're looking at Shamiese
Wright's here, May the 7th.  We already saw this already,
the $1,000.  They're chopped up.  Then we see the others as
well.
Look at Damisha Brown.  We see there are six
transactions, 500, 500, 700, 900, 500, 400 all going to
Kisha Sutton.
And then, of course, we have the descriptions.  I'm not
going to read these out loud.  You've heard them enough.
These are profane.  They're, I guess, meant to be funny.  I
don't know.  But what you don't see listed is "for my PPP
loan."  It doesn't say, "Thank you for helping me get a loan
I don't qualify for.  Thank you for helping me do anything."
These are transactions spaced apart with misleading
characterizations about why you're doing it.  Okay?  This is
 1
 2
 3
 4
 5
 6
 7
 8
 9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Case 2:24-cr-00192     Document 346     Filed 07/28/25     Page 14 of 19 PageID #: 2325

    15
concealment; stagger payments through an intermediary
account.  This is CashApp.  Remember, the deposits went
through Stride Bank.  All of the payments to Kisha Sutton
were through CashApp.  This was meant to conceal and
disguise the source and purpose of what was going on here.
And you also heard testimony, when we were looking at
the bank account information for Shamiese Wright and when we
talked about CashApp, that Shamiese Wright -- you heard this
from Greg Lipari, a Special Agent.  Shamiese Wright had
never sent CashApp transactions to Kisha beyond these three.
It's the only time they ever interacted on CashApp.
So having heard all of the evidence, what are the
things that we're going to have you do when you go back into
the jury room?  
Well, first of all, we're going to talk about the
considerations, the evidence.  The Judge talked about the
evidence.  What is the evidence?  The evidence was the
documents that you saw and were admitted in the evidence.
And the evidence is the testimony of the witnesses.
The instructions from the Judge.  The Judge told you
what the appropriate considerations in this case are, and I
urge you to carefully mind those instructions.
But when you go back there to do your deliberations, I
want you to consider whether or not the Government has
proven the crimes as charged.  And I submit we have.
 1
 2
 3
 4
 5
 6
 7
 8
 9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Case 2:24-cr-00192     Document 346     Filed 07/28/25     Page 15 of 19 PageID #: 2326

    16
Let's look at aiding and abetting bank fraud.  What did
we do?  We showed that there was a scheme to defraud
Benworth Capital.  It doesn't matter that Kisha didn't know
specifically that Benworth Capital was involved.  Benworth
Capital was the lender in this particular loan as charged.
Shamiese Wright knew that Benworth Capital was
involved.  You saw her signature on the promissory note.
They aided and abetted each other.  And the fact that Kisha
doesn't know every detail about how the scheme was
implemented on Shamiese's end does not disqualify her from
being held accountable.
Each person played a critical role in executing the
fraud.  I talked about the various roles.  Shamiese supplied
the information, supplied the bank account really because
the money was funneled there, and then paid the kickback.
Each one played their own role and obtained money by
false and misleading representations or promises.  Okay?
So they did it two ways.  Submitting the applications
and the fraudulent documents obviously was meant to induce
Benworth Capital's decision.  If those documents weren't
submitted, the loan would never have occurred.  And, so, it
was material to the, the implementation of the scheme.
Now we're going to look at aiding and abetting the
concealment of money laundering.  They chopped up the
payments.  Why do that?  Why do that if it's legitimate?
 1
 2
 3
 4
 5
 6
 7
 8
 9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Case 2:24-cr-00192     Document 346     Filed 07/28/25     Page 16 of 19 PageID #: 2327

    17
Why do that if it's on the up-and-up?  It's because that's
how Kisha instructed the people to do it.
We heard from Damisha Brown.  Damisha Brown said, "I
did it because Kisha told me to."  We heard from the defense
counsel saying, "Well, you didn't know.  You weren't trying
to conceal anything, were you?"  And she was like, "No, no,
no."  
Well, that's because Kisha is the one who wanted to do
the concealing.  Kisha wanted to protect herself.  She
wanted to structure them because it's her account where all
the money is coming into.  And she wanted to make sure that
it was periodic so it didn't raise any red flags.
Red flags, by the way, is the term that William Powell
used.  William Powell said, "I broke up my $2,000 payment
because I didn't want to raise any red flags.  And I
discussed that with Kisha and that's how it was decided to
be done."
Misleading subjects.  We heard about misleading
subjects on CashApp for hair, for marketing, for employees,
and for all of the things that we saw from Shamiese, as
colorful as they are.
And then we saw interstate commerce.  The interstate
commerce minimum connection is we saw from West Virginia to
New Jersey.  But the Government doesn't even have to prove
that the CashApp actually even left the State of West
 1
 2
 3
 4
 5
 6
 7
 8
 9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Case 2:24-cr-00192     Document 346     Filed 07/28/25     Page 17 of 19 PageID #: 2328

    18
Virginia because CashApp itself is associated with
interstate commerce.  It moves money all the time.  It moves
money across state borders.  It moves it across national
borders.
The use of interstate -- the interstate commerce
connection with using a financial system like CashApp is
enough to meet the interstate commerce connection whether or
not the money went to New Jersey and it was the proceeds of
the SUA.  
The money that was sent as the kickback was the
proceeds, or were the proceeds of the bank fraud against
Benworth Capital.
So when you go back into your jury room and you
deliberate, consider these things.  Use the circumstantial
evidence that we've provided and whether or not it's more
likely that, you know, these facts are true beyond a
reasonable doubt than they're not.
I think you'll go back and you'll find that the
Government has proven the aiding and abetting of the
concealment of money laundering and that the whole purpose
of that was so that Kisha Sutton would not get in trouble
for filling out all of these PPP loans for all of her
friends and family and it was to line her own pockets.  And
I request that -- the Government requests that you return a
verdict of guilty or all counts.
 1
 2
 3
 4
 5
 6
 7
 8
 9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Case 2:24-cr-00192     Document 346     Filed 07/28/25     Page 18 of 19 PageID #: 2329

    19
Thank you.
* * * * * 
 
 
 
 
 
          I, Lisa A. Cook, Official Reporter of the United 
States District Court for the Southern District of West 
Virginia, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and 
correct transcript, to the best of my ability, from the 
record of proceedings in the above-entitled matter.            
 
 
       s\Lisa A. Cook                     July 27, 2025 
           Reporter                                Date 
 1
 2
 3
 4
 5
 6
 7
 8
 9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Case 2:24-cr-00192     Document 346     Filed 07/28/25     Page 19 of 19 PageID #: 2330

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.wvsd.240497.346.0.pdf

Size

131,341 bytes

SHA-256

00c95eb304d8092e6a0710d3d0c21c3dc2c23ca28a4d6d6551564a7ee9fbbca7

Our copy

gov.uscourts.wvsd.240497.346.0.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)