Motion for Preliminary Order of Forfeiture — United States v. Arashio Harris

Record facts

U.S. District Court, Southern District of Florida · No. 1:23-cr-20295-CMA · Doc. 24 · 2023-10-24 · Docket on CourtListener

Summary

The United States' motion for a preliminary order of forfeiture in United States v. Arashio Harris, No. 1:23-cr-20295-CMA, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, entered October 24, 2023 as Document 24. It seeks a forfeiture money judgment of $432,051 under 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(C), 28 U.S.C. § 2461(c), 21 U.S.C. § 853 and Rule 32.2. The motion recounts that an Information filed July 14, 2023 charged wire fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1343 and that the Court accepted the defendant's guilty plea on August 9, 2023. Citing the factual proffer, it states that two EIDL loans and two PPP loans obtained through The Good Family Property Solutions Inc. and Flying Lions LLC total $432,051. A Local Rule 88.9 certification states defense counsel has no objection; it is signed by an Assistant United States 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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 
 
CASE NO. 23-CR-20295-ALTONAGA/DAMIAN 
 
 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 
 
v.  
 
ARASHIO HARRIS, 
 
 
 
Defendant. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
UNITED STATES’ MOTION FOR  
PRELIMINARY ORDER OF FORFEITURE  
 
Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(c) 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, by and 
through the undersigned Assistant United States Attorney, hereby moves for the entry of a 
Preliminary Order of Forfeiture against Defendant Arashio Harris in the above-captioned matter.  
The United States seeks a forfeiture money judgment in the amount of $432,051.  In support of 
this motion, the United States provides the following factual and legal bases. 
I. 
FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY 
On July 14, 2023, the United States filed an Information charging the Defendant in Count 
1 with wire fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343.  Information, 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 to the United States any property, real or personal, which 
constitutes or is derived from proceeds traceable to such offense, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 
981(a)(1)(C), as incorporated by 28 U.S.C. § 2461(c).  Id. at 8.   
Case 1:23-cr-20295-CMA   Document 24   Entered on FLSD Docket 10/24/2023   Page 1 of 6

 
2 
On August 9, 2023, the Court accepted the Defendant’s guilty plea to Count 1 of the 
Information.  See Minute Entry, ECF No. 9; Plea Agreement, ECF No. 10.  As part of the guilty 
plea, the Defendant agreed to the forfeiture of all right, title, and interest to any property, real or 
personal, which constitutes proceeds traceable to the offense of conviction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 
§ 981(a)(1)(C), as made applicable by 28 U.S.C. § 2461(c).  ECF No. 10 at 5.   
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.  Factual Proffer, ECF No. 11.  
The Factual Proffer also provided a basis for the forfeiture of property.  Id. at 5-8.  The United 
States Probation Office has since conducted a presentence investigation, which included 
information on the Defendant’s financial condition.  See Presentence Investigation Report, ECF 
No. 20. 
II. 
MEMORANDUM OF LAW 
A. Directly Forfeitable Property 
 
Any property, real or personal, which constitutes or is derived from proceeds traceable to 
the violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343, is subject to forfeiture to the United States, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 
§ 981(a)(1)(C), made applicable to criminal charges by 28 U.S.C. § 2461(c). 
 
If a defendant is convicted of such violation, the Court “shall order” the forfeiture of 
property as part of the sentence.  See 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(C); 28 U.S.C. § 2461(c).  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 
Case 1:23-cr-20295-CMA   Document 24   Entered on FLSD Docket 10/24/2023   Page 2 of 6

 
3 
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.  
See United States v. McKay, 506 F. Supp. 2d 1206, 1211 (S.D. Fla. 2007) (adopting the majority 
rule).  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 
Case 1:23-cr-20295-CMA   Document 24   Entered on FLSD Docket 10/24/2023   Page 3 of 6

 
4 
submitted by the parties and accepted by the court as relevant and reliable.”  Fed. R. Crim. P. 
32.2(b)(1)(B).   
C. Difference Between Forfeiture and Restitution 
Both forfeiture and restitution are mandatory in criminal cases.  See United States v. 
Brummer, 598 F.3d 1248, 1250-51 (11th Cir. 2010) (the word “shall” does not convey discretion 
and the district court was required to order forfeiture of the property in accordance with Fed. R. 
Crim. P. 32.2); 18 U.S.C. § 3664(f)(1)(A) (requiring district courts to order restitution in the full 
amount of each victim’s losses).  Although sometimes conflated, forfeiture and restitution serve 
different purposes.  “While restitution seeks to make victims whole by reimbursing them for their 
losses, forfeiture is meant to punish the defendant by transferring his ill-gotten gains to the United 
States Department of Justice.”  United States v. Joseph, 743 F.3d 1350, 1354 (11th Cir. 2014) 
(citing United States v. Browne, 505 F.3d 1229, 1281 (11th Cir. 2007), United States v. Venturella, 
585 F.3d 1013, 1019-20 (7th Cir. 2009), and Libretti v. United States, 516 U.S. 29, 39 (1995)).   
D. Property Subject to Forfeiture in Instant Criminal Case 
As set forth in the Factual Proffer, ECF No. 11, and the Presentence Investigation Report, 
ECF No. 20, the Defendant was the owner and president of companies The Good Family Property 
Solutions Inc. and Flying Lions LLC.  ECF No. 11 at 1; ECF No. 20 at ¶¶ 76, 77.  The Defendant 
was the sole signatory on Good Family’s checking account at Wells Fargo Bank and a signatory 
on Flying Lion’s checking account at Wells Fargo Bank.  ECF No. 11 at 5.  The Defendant, through 
Good Family, submitted a fraudulent application to the Small Business Administration (SBA) 
seeking and obtaining an Economic Injury Disaster Loan (EIDL) and an EIDL advance, which 
together totaled $23,500.  ECF No. 11 at 5-6; ECF No. 20 at ¶ 22.  The Defendant, through Good 
Case 1:23-cr-20295-CMA   Document 24   Entered on FLSD Docket 10/24/2023   Page 4 of 6

 
5 
Family, submitted fraudulent applications for two Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) loans, 
allowing him to fraudulently obtain a first-draw PPP loan of $129,275 in July 2020, and a second-
draw PPP loan of $129,276 in April 2021.  ECF No. 11 at 7-8; ECF No. 20 at ¶¶ 24-27.  The 
Defendant, using Flying Lions, fraudulently applied for and obtained from the SBA an EIDL for 
$150,000.  ECF No. 11 at 6; ECF No. 20 at ¶ 23.  All loans were disbursed to the accounts at Wells 
Fargo described above.  ECF No. 11 at 6-8.  
Based on the record in this case, the total value of the proceeds traceable to the offense of 
conviction is of $432,051 in U.S. currency, which sum may be sought as a forfeiture money 
judgment pursuant to Rule 32.2 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. 
Accordingly, the Court should issue the attached proposed order, which provides for the 
entry of a forfeiture money judgment against the Defendant; the forfeiture of specific property; the 
inclusion of the forfeiture as part of the Defendant’s sentence and judgment in this case; and 
permission to conduct discovery to locate assets ordered forfeited. 
WHEREFORE, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(C) and 28 U.S.C. § 2461(c), 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 October 24, 2023, and there is no objection to the relief sought. 
 
Respectfully submitted, 
MARKENZY LAPOINTE 
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY 
Case 1:23-cr-20295-CMA   Document 24   Entered on FLSD Docket 10/24/2023   Page 5 of 6

 
6 
 
By: 
s/ G. Raemy Charest-Turken             
Gabrielle Raemy Charest-Turken 
Assistant United States Attorney 
Florida Bar No. 15939                
 
 
99 N.E. 4th Street, 7th Floor 
Miami FL, 33132-2111 
Telephone: (305) 961-9365 
E-mail: Gabrielle.Charest-Turken@usdoj.gov  
 
Case 1:23-cr-20295-CMA   Document 24   Entered on FLSD Docket 10/24/2023   Page 6 of 6

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.flsd.650685.24.0.pdf

Size

173,467 bytes

SHA-256

60ad89709994720dfaa9493da115b3d4b2afc07f5bd3a4269ca7bd46f5a8e70b

Our copy

gov.uscourts.flsd.650685.24.0.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)