Motion - United States v. David Antonetti

Record facts

U.S. District Court, Middle District of Florida · No. 8:24-cr-00317-VMC-AEP · Doc. 52 · 2024-12-11 · Docket on CourtListener

Full text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 
TAMPA DIVISION 
 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 
 
v. 
 
 
 Case No. 8:24-cr-317-VMC-AEP 
 
 
DAVID ANTONETTI 
 
UNITED STATES’ MOTION 
FOR AN ORDER OF FORFEITURE 
 
 
The United States moves this Court, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(C), 28 
U.S.C. § 2461(c), and Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.2(b)(2), to enter an order of forfeiture 
against the defendant in the amount of $20,136, representing the amount of proceeds 
he personally obtained as the result the wire fraud scheme charged in Count One of 
the Indictment. In support thereof, the United States submits the following. 
MEMORANDUM OF LAW 
I. 
Statement of Facts 
 
A. 
Allegations Against the Defendant  
 
1. 
In pertinent part, the defendant was charged in an Indictment with wire 
fraud (Count One), in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343. Doc. 1.  
 
2. 
The Indictment contained forfeiture allegations putting the defendant 
on notice that, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(C) and 28 U.S.C. § 2461(c), the 
United States would seek to forfeit any property constituting, or derived from 
proceeds the defendant obtained, directly or indirectly, as a result of such violation, 
including, but not limited to, a $20,136 order of forfeiture. Id. at 6.  
Case 8:24-cr-00317-VMC-AEP     Document 52     Filed 12/11/24     Page 1 of 5 PageID 117

2 
 
B.  
Findings of Guilt and Admissions Related to Forfeiture 
 
3. 
The defendant pleaded guilty to Count One of the Indictment. Docs. 
46, 47. The Court accepted the defendant’s plea and adjudicated him guilty. Doc. 51. 
 
4. 
The defendant admitted in his Plea Agreement that he submitted a false 
and fraudulent PPP loan application for his motion picture and video production 
business. Doc. 30 at 21-23. The defendant received $20,136, which is the amount he 
personally obtained from the wire fraud offense charged in Count One of the 
Indictment. Id. 
 
5. 
Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(C) and 28 U.S.C. § 2461(c), the 
defendant admitted and agreed that the United States was entitled to an order of 
forfeiture in the amount of $20,136, representing the amount of proceeds the 
defendant personally obtained as a result of the wire fraud offense. Doc. 38 at 10. 
Moreover, the defendant agreed that the fraudulently obtained proceeds were 
transferred to third parties and could not be located upon the exercise of due 
diligence. Id. Lastly, the defendant agreed that the order of forfeiture would be final 
upon entry. Id. at 11. 
II. 
Applicable Law 
 
A. 
Forfeiture Statute   
 
 
The Court’s authority to order civil forfeiture of property for violations of 18 
U.S.C. § 1343 is found in 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(C). Section 981(a)(1)(C) provides for 
the civil forfeiture of any property, real or personal, which constitutes or is derived 
Case 8:24-cr-00317-VMC-AEP     Document 52     Filed 12/11/24     Page 2 of 5 PageID 118

3 
from proceeds from any offense constituting “specified unlawful activity” as defined 
in 18 U.S.C. § 1956(c)(7), or a conspiracy to commit such offenses. A “specified 
unlawful activity,” as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 1956(c)(7), includes offenses listed in 18 
U.S.C. § 1961(1). Specifically, 18 U.S.C. § 1961(1) includes violations of 18 U.S.C. § 
1343. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2461(c), the government is authorized to forfeit this 
property criminally, and the procedures for the forfeiture and disposition of the 
property are governed by 21 U.S.C. § 853. 
 
B. 
Court’s Determination of Forfeiture  
Pursuant to Rule 32.2(b)(2), because the United States could not locate all of the 
specific property constituting or derived from the proceeds the defendant obtained 
from his wire fraud offense, the United States seeks an order of forfeiture against the 
defendant in the amount of proceeds he obtained from his offense. Indeed, for cases in 
which a defendant no longer has the actual dollars or property traceable to proceeds in 
his/her possession, or the government cannot locate those assets, the obligation to 
forfeit simply takes the form of an order of forfeiture in favor of the United States. See 
United States v. Padron, 527 F.3d 1156, 1161-62 (11th Cir. 2008). 
Rule 32.2(b)(1) provides that the court must determine the amount of money 
that the defendant will be ordered to pay. The Court’s determination may be  
based on evidence submitted by the parties and accepted by the Court as relevant  
and reliable. Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.2(b)(1)(B). As the defendant has agreed, he 
personally obtained $20,136 in proceeds as a result of the wire fraud offense. If the 
Case 8:24-cr-00317-VMC-AEP     Document 52     Filed 12/11/24     Page 3 of 5 PageID 119

4 
Court finds that the defendant obtained at least $20,136 as a result of his wire fraud 
offense and that the defendant has dissipated those proceeds, then it is appropriate 
for the Court to enter an order of forfeiture against the defendant in that amount 
pursuant to Rule 32.2(b)(2).  
III. 
Conclusion 
 
For the reasons stated above, the United States requests that the Court, 
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(C), 28 U.S.C. § 2461(c), and Fed. R. Crim. P. 
32.2(b)(2), enter an Order of Forfeiture against the defendant in the amount of 
$20,136. 
 
As required by Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.2(b)(4)(B), the United 
States requests that the Court include the forfeiture when orally pronouncing the 
sentence and include the forfeiture order, directly or by reference, in the judgment. 
See Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.2(b)(4)(A) and (B).  
 
In accordance with Rule 32.2(b)(4) and the defendant’s plea agreement (Doc. 
38 at 11), the United States asks that the order of forfeiture be made final as to the 
defendant at the time it is entered. 
 
Finally, the United States further requests that the Court retain jurisdiction to 
address any third-party claims that may be asserted in these proceedings, and to  
 
 
Case 8:24-cr-00317-VMC-AEP     Document 52     Filed 12/11/24     Page 4 of 5 PageID 120

5 
order any substitute assets forfeited to the United States up to the amount of the 
order of forfeiture.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
By: 
Respectfully Submitted, 
 
ROGER B. HANDBERG 
United States Attorney 
 
 
s/James A. Muench                      
 
JAMES A. MUENCH 
Assistant United States Attorney 
Florida Bar Number 472867 
400 North Tampa Street, Suite 3200 
Tampa, Florida 33602 
(813) 274-6000 – telephone 
E-mail: james.muench2@usdoj.gov 
 
 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 
 
I hereby certify that on December 11, 2024, I electronically filed the 
foregoing with the Clerk of the Court by using the CM/ECF system that will send a 
notice of electronic filing to counsel of record. 
 
s/James A. Muench                           
JAMES A. MUENCH 
Assistant United States Attorney 
 
Case 8:24-cr-00317-VMC-AEP     Document 52     Filed 12/11/24     Page 5 of 5 PageID 121

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.flmd.429938.52.0.pdf

Size

91,041 bytes

SHA-256

5751624d1f14c0777eee2fb0bd246c4c27a8e06cdf4d61916592eb06bd69f763

Our copy

gov.uscourts.flmd.429938.52.0.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)