Court filing
Jury Trial Transcript — Day 3: Closing Arguments, Jury Charge, and Verdict (March 30, 2023) — United States v. Bernard Okojie
Summary
A jury trial transcript in United States of America v. Bernard Okojie, Case No. 4:22-CR-00084-LGW-BWC-1, for proceedings held March 30, 2023 at Brunswick, Georgia before Judge Lisa Godbey Wood in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Georgia, Savannah Division, filed April 30, 2023 as Document 110. Its index lists the court's jury charge and the verdict. The opening pages record the charge conference: the court removes the word special from the verdict form title, adds the phrase so say we all above the foreperson's signature line, and states that no 404(b) instruction was included. Government counsel then ask to drop an instruction about a defendant's statement or admission after arrest and raise the definition of a financial institution as an insured bank. The transcript ends with bond conditions continued pending sentence and runs 84 pages.
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
No. 4:22-cr-00084-LGW-BWC · Doc. 110 · Docket on CourtListener
Full text
Case 4:22-cr-00084-LGW-BWC Document 110 Filed 04/30/23 Page 1 of 84 308 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA SAVANNAH DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) ) ) CASE NO. ) 4:22-CR-00084-LGW-BWC-1 ) ) ) v. BERNARD OKOJIE, Defendant. JURY TRIAL BEFORE THE HONORABLE LISA GODBEY WOOD March 30, 2023; 8:39 a.m. Brunswick, Georgia APPEARANCES: For the Government: MATTHEW A. JOSEPHSON, Esq. JENNIFER STANLEY, Esq. U. S. Department of Justice United States Attorney's Office P. O. Box 8970 Savannah, Georgia 31401 (912) 652-4422 matthew.josephson@usdoj.gov jennifer.stanley@usdoj.gov For the Defendant: JOHN J. OSSICK, JR., Esq. John J. Ossick, Jr., PC P. O. Box 1087 Kingsland, Georgia 31548-9190 912.729.5864 ossick@tds.net Reported by: Debbie Gilbert, RPR, CCR Official Court Reporter 801 Gloucester Street Post Office Box 1894 Brunswick, GA 31521-1894 (912) 262-2608 or (912) 266-6006 debra_gilbert@gas.uscourts.gov - - - Case 4:22-cr-00084-LGW-BWC Document 110 Filed 04/30/23 Page 2 of 84 309 I N D E X PAGE Court's Jury Charge 359 Verdict 381 Case 4:22-cr-00084-LGW-BWC Document 110 Filed 04/30/23 Page 3 of 84 310 1 P R O C E E D I N G S 2 (Call to order at 8:39 a.m.) 3 THE COURT: Good morning, counsel. Have a seat. This 4 is our charge conference, and last night, I passed out a draft 5 court's instructions to the jury and a draft verdict form. 6 want to start with the verdict form and tell you of two changes 7 that I think need to be made to it. 8 technical, but the title of it is called "Special Verdict Form" 9 understandably because that's what it is. 10 certain options to be selected by the jury. 11 the word "special" because the jury doesn't understand that 12 distinction, and I don't want them to be thinking "Wait, there's 13 something special about this." 14 for them. I They are very minor and It does ask for I'd like to remove Just removes a possible mystery 15 So the only change from what you've been passed out is 16 to remove the word "special" and then above the line where the 17 foreperson signs at the very end of the verdict form, "so say we 18 all" to emphasize that the whole thing must be unanimous. 19 With those two understandings, let me turn first to the 20 United States, any suggestion or exceptions with regard to the 21 verdict form? 22 MS. STANLEY: No, Your Honor. 23 THE COURT: On behalf of the Defense, Mr. Ossick? 24 MR. OSSICK: No, Your Honor. 25 THE COURT: Then, the verdict form as announced with Case 4:22-cr-00084-LGW-BWC Document 110 Filed 04/30/23 Page 4 of 84 311 1 those two changes, to remove the word "special" and to add at 2 the end the phrase "so say we all." 3 Turning next to the proposed instructions to the jury, 4 again, two items that I wanted to flag. 5 instruction, I haven't included one here because I don't believe 6 we heard any 404(b). 7 an issue that the Defense wouldn't want them to be wondering 8 about, and I didn't include a 404(b) in here. 9 know what alternative reason we would have selected from the 10 drop-down menu to select for the accepted purposes of 11 introducing some other act. 12 wanted to highlight that for both sides. 13 With regard to a 404(b) We think it would, if anything, maybe flag I wouldn't even So I didn't include it. I just And also, the order that I will read it to the jury is 14 not in this order that you see. This is just in the order that 15 you requested so that you could follow along better with what I 16 have accepted, but, of course, I will give them the instructions 17 about filling out the verdict and so forth at the end. 18 So with those two explanations -- and I will say I did 19 receive from Ms. Sharp a note that the Government had something 20 to say about "A financial institution this morning means an 21 insured bank" but I will hear from you. 22 the United States. 23 MS. STANLEY: Let me turn first to Thank you, Your Honor. Just starting from 24 the beginning in the instructions, we do have a couple of 25 changes that we would suggest or ask for. Case 4:22-cr-00084-LGW-BWC Document 110 Filed 04/30/23 Page 5 of 84 312 1 On Page 12, these are instructions about Defendant 2 making a statement or admission to someone after being arrested 3 or detained, and I don't think there's been any evidence of that 4 kind of statement here, and so we don't think it's necessary. 5 THE COURT: I thought that was requested perhaps with 6 the telephone call, and, of course, that wasn't an arrest and 7 detained, but then the border patrol incident, was he detained 8 at the time he said some things to them? 9 MS. STANLEY: I think that gets into difficult questions 10 of when someone is legally detained. I think I would say he was 11 free to leave during that encounter under the legal definition 12 of the law, under the legal definition. 13 of an abundance of caution would like to leave it in, we're fine 14 with that. Your Honor, if you out 15 THE COURT: Mr. Ossick, do you still request it? 16 MR. OSSICK: No. 17 based on the case. 18 THE COURT: I also had thought we didn't need it Then I think it was borderline, and because 19 both sides request that it be removed, then we will remove what 20 appears on Page 12 in its entirety. 21 MS. STANLEY: All right. On Page 18, defining "wire fraud," Element 22 1 at the bottom of the page, "accomplish a common and unlawful 23 plan to commit wire," it should say "to commit wire fraud." 24 25 THE COURT: I think that what you say is accurate. Ossick, any objection to adding the word "fraud"? Mr. Case 4:22-cr-00084-LGW-BWC Document 110 Filed 04/30/23 Page 6 of 84 313 1 MR. OSSICK: No. 2 THE COURT: All right. 3 MS. STANLEY: And then that last line on the page, it 4 says "unlawful plan or the names and identities all of the other 5 alleged coconspirators," should say "of all." 6 7 THE COURT: MR. OSSICK: No, but on that same page or do you want me THE COURT: Well, go ahead on that since we are on that MR. OSSICK: Under paragraph, "The Government does not to wait? 10 11 Transpose "of" and "all," Mr. Ossick any objection to that? 8 9 The very last line on Page 18? page. 12 13 have to prove" it says "all of the people named." 14 that's misleading. 15 and I think that would create confusion about, well, it's about 16 him, so I don't believe that that's adjusted to what the 17 evidence in this case or the indictment is. 18 THE COURT: I think There's only one name in this indictment, They would have to. I think what they are referring to is they 19 are named by, for example, Number 4, Number 5, Number 6; is that 20 correct? 21 MS. STANLEY: 22 THE COURT: That's correct, Your Honor. All right. Mr. Ossick, I will overrule that 23 suggestion to change that part of Page 18, but I do -- I 24 understand what you're requesting. 25 Stanley. All right, continue, Ms. Case 4:22-cr-00084-LGW-BWC Document 110 Filed 04/30/23 Page 7 of 84 314 1 MS. STANLEY: Page 23, this is where we would add that 2 definition of what a financial institution is. 3 the pattern and was inadvertently excluded here, and per the 4 pattern, that definition should be in between that first 5 paragraph defining "monetary transaction" and the second 6 defining "proceeds." 7 THE COURT: 8 you're requesting. 9 10 Tell me exactly what the language that MS. STANLEY: I did put it in the e-mail to Ms. Sharp. It says "'financial institution' means an insured bank." 11 THE COURT: 12 MS. STANLEY: 13 THE COURT: 14 That is part of And with "financial institution" in quotes? Yes, Your Honor. "A, quote, financial institution means an insured bank." 15 MS. STANLEY: Yes, Your Honor. 16 THE COURT: Mr. Ossick, any objection to that change? 17 MR. OSSICK: No. 18 THE COURT: Then we will make that as well on Page 23. 19 That will follow the first full paragraph, that one sentence, 20 "financial institution," in quotes, "means an insured bank," all 21 right. 22 MS. STANLEY: On Page 24, the first full sentence at the 23 top of the page, this is that sentence we had taken out of the 24 conspiracy charge. 25 statute, so just to keep it consistent with Count 1, that first It is pattern language but not for this Case 4:22-cr-00084-LGW-BWC Document 110 Filed 04/30/23 Page 8 of 84 315 1 full sentence, "The Government does not have to prove that the 2 members planned together all the details of the plan," we would 3 just take that out. 4 THE COURT: Mr. Ossick, any objection to that? 5 MR. OSSICK: No. 6 THE COURT: Then we will take that full sentence on Page 7 24 out, "The Government does not have to prove that the members 8 planned together all the details of the plan." 9 removed. 10 MS. STANLEY: That will be On Page 26, the instruction about a human 11 conspiring with a corporation, there's been no evidence or 12 argument about this, and so we would ask that The Court take it 13 out. 14 THE COURT: Mr. Ossick? 15 MR. OSSICK: I think that it's needed because there are 16 entities that are mentioned and someone could conclude that 17 there's an entity that's a party to the conspiracy. 18 THE COURT: And Ms. Stanley, the reason I opted to 19 include this is that, although understandably that's not your 20 focus -- you're not contending that the conspiracy is Mr. Okojie 21 and Kojie9, LLC -- we wouldn't want the jury, even though you 22 didn't try to argue that, we wouldn't want the jury to think, 23 "Oh, wait, I don't think he conspired with other humans but I 24 think he conspired with Kojie9, LLC." 25 MS. STANLEY: Understand, Your Honor. Case 4:22-cr-00084-LGW-BWC Document 110 Filed 04/30/23 Page 9 of 84 316 1 THE COURT: I understand it's not your focus but just to 2 head off any misunderstanding, I think it's important to 3 include. 4 All right. MS. STANLEY: And finally the last page, I think you did 5 read this instruction at the beginning of trial. 6 reference to "I'll give you additional instructions at the end 7 of trial." 8 contained earlier. 9 THE COURT: 10 MS. STANLEY: 11 THE COURT: 12 MS. STANLEY: 13 It makes I think the substance of this last instruction is Which page are you? 27, Your Honor. And so your argument is? There are instructions to this point on Page, earlier in the charges, on Page 6. 14 THE COURT: Okay. Yes, this, actually 27 is taken from 15 an in-trial instruction. Are you requesting that all of Page 27 16 be removed? 17 MS. STANLEY: I think it's fine to include it, Judge. 18 think it is unnecessary given what's contained earlier in the 19 instructions, and if it is included, we would just ask that you 20 tweak that language about additional instructions at the end of 21 trial. I 22 THE COURT: Yes. 23 MR. OSSICK: Just remove the last paragraph if we could. 24 THE COURT: Then if that's agreeable to both sides -- I 25 Mr. Ossick, what is your position? understand that it is -- we will just remove the last paragraph Case 4:22-cr-00084-LGW-BWC Document 110 Filed 04/30/23 Page 10 of 84 317 1 of Page 27. 2 MS. STANLEY: That's fine, Your Honor. Nothing further. 3 THE COURT: All right, Mr. Ossick. 4 MR. OSSICK: The same objection I had about all of the 5 people named also is on Page 23, I believe, when you're talking 6 about the money-laundering conspiracy. 7 THE COURT: Yes, and for the same reasons I will 8 overrule that exception and keep that as a part of the charge. 9 Anything further, Mr. Ossick? 10 MR. OSSICK: No, ma'am. 11 THE COURT: Then, counsel, with those changes as 12 discussed, that will be the charge to the jury. 13 will be in a little different order. 14 form. 15 to allow for all our jurors to be present and I will look 16 forward to hearing terrific closing arguments from both sides. We've got our charge. As I say, it So we've got our verdict We will break until nine o'clock 17 All right, we will be in recess. 18 (Recess from 8:52 a.m. to 9:10 a.m.) 19 THE COURT: Counsel, just before we bring the jury in, 20 we did find one other passage that was repeated, and it is the 21 definition of "proceeds" we were giving twice. 22 removed one of those duplicate definitions, and it's right where 23 we added the identification of a financial institution. 24 25 And so we've If you will look right where we added that on Page 23, we have the definition of "proceeds," but we also have that same Case 4:22-cr-00084-LGW-BWC Document 110 Filed 04/30/23 Page 11 of 84 318 1 definition on Page 22, and so we've removed one of those 2 duplicates. Any objection to that on behalf of the Government? 3 MS. STANLEY: No, Your Honor. 4 THE COURT: 5 The other, I gave more thought to Mr. Ossick's objection On behalf of the Defense? 6 about the phrase that appears twice in relation to the 7 conspiracy charges about other individuals named in the 8 indictment, and his concern is that there's no other names of 9 individuals that appear, and so I'm going to overrule it in part 10 and sustain it in part, and instead of using "other individuals 11 named in the indictment" say "other individuals identified in 12 the indictment" because he is correct that Mr. Okojie is the 13 only conspirator who is given a name in the indictment, but 14 there are others identified, and so I think that's a way to 15 clear up his concerns and be more accurate but still retain the 16 meaning conveyed in the pattern charge. 17 that change? So any objection to 18 MS. STANLEY: 19 THE COURT: And Mr. Ossick, any objection to that 21 MR. OSSICK: No. 22 THE COURT: All right. 20 23 No, Judge. change? With that, let's bring in the jury. 24 (The jury enters the courtroom.) 25 THE COURT: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen of the Case 4:22-cr-00084-LGW-BWC Document 110 Filed 04/30/23 Page 12 of 84 319 1 jury, and welcome back. 2 morning counsel at this stage will be making their final 3 arguments to you. 4 opening argument followed by counsel for the defendant. 5 conclusion, counsel for the Government will have an opportunity 6 to reply in rebuttal to the argument of counsel for the Defense. 7 This is in accord with the rules and proper because, as 8 you've previously been instructed, it is the Government who has 9 the burden of proving its case. 10 As you recall from yesterday, this Counsel for the Government will have the Then in Now in making these arguments to you, counsel will be 11 commenting on the testimony that you've heard and all the 12 evidence that's been presented in the case. 13 recalling the evidence in the case. 14 try to mislead you. 15 differs from your recollection of the case, it is your 16 recollection of the case that controls. 17 They as you will be They will not intentionally However, if their recollection of the case These final arguments by counsel are not to be construed 18 by you as evidence or as instructions on the law. They are 19 simply designed to summarize what each party believes the 20 evidence showed. 21 you give them your full attention. They are important and it is important that 22 On behalf of the United States, Mr. Josephson. 23 MR. JOSEPHSON: 24 I want to start by thinking back to 2020. 25 COVID hit. Yes, Your Honor. We were all there. That's when We know what it was like. Case 4:22-cr-00084-LGW-BWC Document 110 Filed 04/30/23 Page 13 of 84 320 1 Schools were closing; businesses were closing. 2 how long the pandemic was going to last. 3 meant, can you visit your family, do you not, how far do you 4 stand from someone, do you wear a mask, or not. 5 uncertainty. 6 We didn't know We didn't know what it Tremendous Tremendous. You had businesses that had to make decisions that were 7 very difficult. 8 employees who lost their jobs who had to go home to their 9 families and say, "I don't know what we're going to do but I 10 don't have a job; business shut down; they can't open." 11 Can I keep this person on payroll? These were all real challenges. You had They were real 12 struggles for real people who had real businesses. 13 knew that and decided to do something about it. They passed the 14 CARES Act. It was a big 15 law, one of the biggest relief measures in the history of our 16 country. 17 designed to help those real people make it through, help them 18 get through the pandemic so this virus does not cripple the 19 American economy. 20 to get real businesses through a crisis. 21 It was a bold piece of legislation. Congress It was a lot of money and a lot of funding, and it was That's what Congress did. They were trying As in all crises, some people exploit them for their own 22 personal purposes. They use that period of uncertainty and fear 23 and anxiety to make money, to take money from a program that is 24 well-intentioned and designed to get people through this period 25 of time and they take it and they just put it in their pocket. Case 4:22-cr-00084-LGW-BWC Document 110 Filed 04/30/23 Page 14 of 84 321 1 That's what happened in this case. 2 The defendant, Bernard Okojie, exploited a program 3 designed to help people and he used it to help himself. 4 as that. 5 Now we're going to go through the evidence. I want to 6 outline it. 7 through why the defendant committed fraud and how he involved a 8 lot of other people and a lot of loans to do it. 9 You're going to remember it. Simple Make no mistake. And we're going This was not a one-person crime. He played his part for sure. This 10 is not just the defendant. He's 11 at the center of it, but he couldn't do all of this by himself. 12 He needed some people to go along with it. 13 people to give him their information. 14 look the other way and ask no questions whatsoever when they got 15 hundreds of thousands of dollars into their bank account, 16 knowing that they don't have a business that ever made close to 17 that amount. 18 We're going to learn about that. He needed some He needed some people to He had to find those people to go along with it. 19 We're going to go through all of the evidence and talk 20 about how this was a conspiracy, a conspiracy that was massive, 21 that was orchestrated by the defendant but that involved a lot 22 of people and a lot of loans and a lot of taxpayer money right 23 out the door. 24 25 I want to start with the big picture. lot of documents. We showed you a We heard from a lot of witnesses. We're Case 4:22-cr-00084-LGW-BWC Document 110 Filed 04/30/23 Page 15 of 84 322 1 going to talk about some specific documents but first let's look 2 at the big picture of this scheme. 3 showing Government Exhibit 6 and you'll recall that Government 4 Exhibit 6 was a summary chart. 5 We're going to start by Now a summary chart is a document that under the Federal 6 Rules of Evidence comes into evidence. 7 evidence, and it is used to collect lots of information and 8 condense it to put it all in one place so you can make sense of 9 it. 10 to see exactly how much money was on a particular form or how 11 much money was in a particular bank account. 12 been done ahead of time and it's been condensed for you in one 13 sheet. 14 You can consider it as We don't make you go through 30 boxes of financial records All that work has We're going to zoom out on the entire chart and we're 15 going to look at all the information that's on there. Can we 16 zoom in so it's a little easier to see? 17 start by talking about the type of business industry or 18 activity. 19 The bottom is for the defendant. 20 conspirators who received loans with the assistance of the 21 defendant, and let's just look at the industries that are 22 represented on the defendant's application: 23 freight, business services, automotive sales and gas service 24 station, transportation, health services, construction and 25 contractors, automotive sales and gas stations, freight, All right, I want to And you'll recall that there's two sections here. The top is for the Transportation, Case 4:22-cr-00084-LGW-BWC Document 110 Filed 04/30/23 Page 16 of 84 323 1 freight, food services, trucking, food services, real 2 estate/property management and health services, all at the same 3 time. 4 The contention was, the representation was "I do all of 5 these businesses in 2019." 6 taking all of your jobs, which we learned about when you were 7 selected and qualified to serve on this jury, real jobs that you 8 go to every day to support your family, if you combined all of 9 them he's claiming to do all of them at one time in one year. 10 That's fraud. 11 That is quite a list. That's like Now fraud in financial crimes is a little bit different 12 than violent crimes. 13 don't have, you don't have DNA or physical evidence that you 14 often see on TV. 15 fingerprint evidence. 16 like to call them they're fingerprints of fraud because you see 17 the documents and you see that these numbers don't make sense. 18 These numbers are lies. 19 the fingerprints of fraud and we are going to go through all of 20 those fingerprints today to show you that there is proof beyond 21 a reasonable doubt that fraud was committed. 22 This is one fingerprint right here: 23 24 25 They are a lot different, in fact. They But what you do have, we don't have But what you do have are documents and I They are misrepresentations. They are All these industries in one year at the same time. Now the next column I want to talk about is "Employees Claimed." We have 82 employees that the defendant claimed to Case 4:22-cr-00084-LGW-BWC Document 110 Filed 04/30/23 Page 17 of 84 324 1 employ in 2019. 2 courtroom with 82 people. 3 business, and you know what, none of them exist, made up, 4 numbers on an application to get money. 5 82 people. You could fill this entire That's a lot of people. That's a big There is no evidence whatsoever that any of those people 6 exist, no taxes paid, no taxes withheld, no retirement records, 7 no payroll records, nothing, numbers on a form made up to get 8 money. 9 claimed to get money, 50 people, and they all testified, 10 everybody listed on this form that testified got up there and 11 said, "That application is false; I don't own that business; I 12 don't employ that number of people; I've never made close to 13 those revenues; all false; he put that on this form." 14 50 people that the loan conspirators went along with and He helps fill it out; he put it on this form; they got 15 the money and then they paid him a kickback to do it. 16 got up on that witness stand and said that. 17 this list. 18 lists all the people who got assistance from the defendant. 19 Many of them testified. 20 not for a variety of reasons. Some of them have passed away. 21 Some of them are unavailable. There are reasons why you did not 22 hear from witnesses. 23 hear from. 24 25 You can look at it. Everybody So you can go on It's Government Exhibit 6. Some of them did not. It Some of them did Don't think about the witnesses you didn't Think about the witnesses you did. And everybody on the list -- if we could zoom out, Ms. Roper -- everybody in the top left-hand corner who testified Case 4:22-cr-00084-LGW-BWC Document 110 Filed 04/30/23 Page 18 of 84 325 1 testified that those applications were false. 2 claimed, that's another fingerprint of fraud. 3 And so employees Can we zoom in on the "Gross Revenues in One Year"? We 4 have the defendant claiming to generate 2.4 millions dollars, 5 $2,415,273.00 before the pandemic. That is not small business. 6 That is not a little bit of money. That is a big lie. 7 a lot of made-up money that didn't exist. 8 That is If you really made two million dollars, it would show up 9 in a bank account. 10 should show up somewhere. 11 no evidence at all that the defendant made 2.4 million dollars. 12 It would show up in financial records. You would pay taxes on it. It There is Likewise, the people who went along with this scheme, 13 who agreed to it, who got money that they didn't deserve, 14 claimed a total of 2.1 million dollars. 15 stand and said, "I didn't make $246,800.00 a year; $233,900.00 a 16 year; $242,800.00 a year." 17 Nobody said that. They got on the witness They all said no. Most of those 18 businesses either didn't exist at all or they were side 19 businesses. 20 side while somebody is working at NASA. 21 business that somebody was doing to make some extra money, 10 or 22 15 thousand dollars a year. 23 It was a life coach business that was done on the It was a cookware And on their applications, they represent hundreds of 24 thousands of dollars, all made up by the defendant to get money, 25 taxpayer money. Case 4:22-cr-00084-LGW-BWC Document 110 Filed 04/30/23 Page 19 of 84 326 1 Can we zoom in on "Gross Revenues in One Year"? 2 final point on this. 3 million dollars. One The total there for the defendant is 2.4 We just talked about it. 4 Can you show 5C2? 5 tell you what you're about to see. 6 2019. 7 is on there is an adjusted gross revenue on Line 8B -- y'all pay 8 taxes; you have to tell the United States Government how much 9 money you make in a year -- on his tax form, we have an adjusted 10 revenue on Line 8B of $17,914.00. 11 doesn't add. 12 $17,914.00 from the IRS. 13 And while she's pulling it up, I will 5C2 is the tax return for You know what's not on there? Two million dollars. The math tells the story. It Two million claimed in SBA applications, And you know what's even more interesting about this 14 thing? 15 didn't even make it. 16 employee at McDonald's who is making the money. 17 made no money at all in 2019. 18 claimed millions of dollars in revenue. 19 fingerprint of fraud. 20 What Agent Dye testified that the 17,000.00, the defendant It was his wife who works as a W-2 His wife did. The defendant $17,000.00 and he That's a lie and it's a There's also not a single entity -- one last point with 21 the tax return -- not a single entity, not one that's listed, 22 Kojie9, LLC, B&K Freight, Kojie9 Plumbing, whatever business is 23 added to Kojie and a number, none of those are listed on the tax 24 return, none of them, not one. 25 They are made up to get pandemic money, but it's not Case 4:22-cr-00084-LGW-BWC Document 110 Filed 04/30/23 Page 20 of 84 327 1 2 documented with the IRS. It's another fingerprint of fraud. These lies, too, those misrepresentations, they 3 mattered. 4 He explained the program, he explained what the SBA considers. 5 We also got some testimony on that from Special Agent Lott and 6 Special Agent Dye. 7 trivial things. 8 that directly affected how much money the SBA would pay out in 9 loan monies. 10 11 We heard from the SBA attorney, Mr. Raymond Brown. These weren't representations on small These were lies about central financial figures In the law that means they are material, they matter. These lies directly affect the payment of money. 12 Ms. Roper, can we go back to Government 6 and I want to 13 zoom in on approved loan amounts, so what was the consequence of 14 all this? 15 really lose because of all this? 16 but in terms of actual money, dollars that went out the door, 17 1.4 million dollars. 18 States Treasury. 19 out to all these people, and we will talk in a minute about how 20 it was spent. 21 variety of other ways but that 1.4 million is real loss. 22 real harm to a program designed to help people during a crisis. 23 Can we zoom in on the "Kickback" column, please. 24 learned about checks, checks written out to B&K Freight, Kojie9, 25 LLC, text messages talking about "Just say it's for leasing if What happened? How much money did we as a country It depends how you look at it, None of that should have left the United None of that taxpayer money should have gone It wasn't spent on businesses. It was spent in a That's You Case 4:22-cr-00084-LGW-BWC Document 110 Filed 04/30/23 Page 21 of 84 328 1 anybody asks." 2 were not eligible to get, paid exorbitant kickbacks to get it. 3 The fraud wasn't free. 4 $17,000.00, $30,000.00, 15,000.00, 14,000.00, 15,000.00, 5 18,000.00 for a total of $165,935.00 to the defendant for what? 6 For filling out paperwork, for filling out a form and you heard 7 Agent Dye testify that if you just penciled in a bunch of 8 numbers, made them up, that's five minutes of work, nine forms, 9 five minutes of work. 10 you're paid $165,000.00. 11 All those people paid, who got loans that they They paid for it, $18,000.00, That's less than an hour of time and There is not a legitimate job in the country that pays 12 $165,000.00. That is massive fraud, and it's in the numbers, 13 the fingerprint, fraud, his fingerprints, the defendant's. 14 To just drive the point home, if you got a mortgage, if 15 you bought a house and the house cost a hundred thousand dollars 16 and the bank said you owe me 20, like a down payment? 17 20 just to fill out the form; you would be like "No, it's a 18 form, I will pay you a processing fee but not $20,000.00, not 19 $18,000.00, not 30." 20 a legitimate financial transaction. 21 somebody to commit a crime. 22 a form, to make up numbers, to make up gross revenues. 23 kickback. 24 25 No, no, It wouldn't make any sense because that's This isn't. This is paying This is paying somebody to fill out That's a That's not legitimate financial activity. We saw a lot of fake documents in the case, a lot of fake documents, just made up, made up. Case 4:22-cr-00084-LGW-BWC Document 110 Filed 04/30/23 Page 22 of 84 329 1 Let's first talk about 3A71. Looks like a real Schedule 2 C. It has the name of the defendant on it at the top. 3 Okojie. 4 leave off Line C. 5 listed, so when you really look at it, it's like they didn't 6 even thoroughly fill this one out. 7 this form to the SBA. 8 get money, he submits the form. 9 taxes on the money that you allegedly made, not submitted and 10 it's not submitted because this document, fake, made up. 11 It's got food services. Bernard Of course, they completely There's not even a business name that's 3C6, please. Line C is empty. He submits He doesn't submit it to the IRS. So to But when it comes to paying 3C6 is another profit and loss from a 12 business Form Schedule C that is completely made up. 13 at the top is the defendant's. 14 dealer. 15 can zoom out and see that he claimed $181,222.00 in gross 16 revenues. 17 submitted to the IRS. 18 document. 19 The name He claims to be a used car B&K Automobile Sale, Incorporated is his company. You He submitted this form to get pandemic money, not Nowhere in the tax return is this It's made up. It's fake. 3D101, I guess I could just leave that up because it 20 would apply. 21 for Southern A1 Preservation claiming to -- claiming to have 22 payroll, average payroll, of $41,167.00 seeking a loan of 23 102,917.00. 24 25 3D101, we have a PPP loan application submitted This form also is based on fake documents. 3E61, please. Another Form Schedule C, not submitted to the IRS, submitted to get pandemic loan money. At the top we Case 4:22-cr-00084-LGW-BWC Document 110 Filed 04/30/23 Page 23 of 84 330 1 have the defendant's wife, Shekitha Okojie, food services 2 business. 3 she claims to have $100,000.00 in gross revenues. 4 is also fake. 5 Ms. Okojie is the general manager of McDonald's and And it wasn't just the tax records. 3B21. Fake payroll 6 records. 7 little bit like what you would submit if you had a real 8 business. 9 and the defendant claims to be an employee of this business. 10 have "hours worked," pay period there is December the 1st, 2019 11 through December 31st, 2019. 12 earnings. 13 withholdings on 108.00. 14 taxes were withheld. 15 taxes were paid and withheld. 16 for 401(k) match and then direct deposit numbers. 17 So this would be what you would submit. This document It looks a This is a purported payroll report for Kojie9, LLC, We We've got 160 hours, 15,000.00 in We've got 401(k) withholdings of 300.00 and insurance We have representations that employee We have representations that employer We've got employer contributions What's interesting about this document is, first, 18 Kojie9, LLC, which is listed at the top here is not listed in 19 any tax return and let's display 5E, just to see the point. 20 In order to prove the lack of records, you have to ask 21 whatever entity would normally have those records if they, in 22 fact, have them, and what they provided is a certification of 23 lack of records and what it says is, "We understand that you've 24 requested these records but we don't have them; we've looked for 25 them; they don't exist; they're not in our files." This is a Case 4:22-cr-00084-LGW-BWC Document 110 Filed 04/30/23 Page 24 of 84 331 1 certification of a lack of records of Kojie9, LLC from the 2 Internal Revenue Service saying they do not have any tax records 3 for Kojie9, LLC. 4 Can we go back to 3B21, please, and, of course, the 5 defendant says otherwise and makes up documents in order to get 6 loan money. 7 information that is not submitted to the IRS at all. 8 also have Georgia Department of Labor records showing that this 9 is false. 10 Taxes represented, all kinds of business And we 3B21 shows that Georgia state unemployment taxes were 11 paid at the bottom, the bottom right-hand corner, but, of 12 course, the GDL, when you ask them, "Hey, are there any 13 unemployment taxes that Kojie9 paid," they provided a 14 certification of no records as well. 15 Can we pull up Government Exhibit 7? Employer taxes at 16 the bottom we have Georgia state unemployment insurance. 17 heard from Agent Dye about the documents that the GDOL generally 18 requires. 19 payrolls that the SBA has that the defendant submitted that says 20 that there are a lot of employees; do you have any records of 21 that?" 22 Care; Kojie9 Plumbing; B&K Automobile; B&K Freight. 23 from the GDOL, they don't have any records because that record 24 is completely made up. 25 You We asked the Georgia Department of Labor, "We see No, none, no records at all for Kojie9, LLC; Kojie Home No records It's fake. I want to talk about kickbacks again. The kickbacks, Case 4:22-cr-00084-LGW-BWC Document 110 Filed 04/30/23 Page 25 of 84 332 1 Agent Lott meticulously traced the money in this case along with 2 Kim Johnson from the FBI and the pattern that was displayed is 3 that the defendant fills out false loan information. 4 information from some of the people, their personal information, 5 social security number, name, address, submits the application. 6 They often text about it. 7 to him. 8 He gets And the person pays a cashier's check Well, the check is always -- it's never made out to the 9 defendant in his personal name and it's never made out to a 10 financial brokerage or a legitimate financial entity. 11 out to Kojie9, LLC and B&K Freight, LLC every single time, and 12 you can see all of these checks. 13 12L. 14 It's made It's in Exhibit 12A through I'm not going to go through every single check but I am 15 going to go through a few highlights. 16 E2, sorry. 17 Can we display 12E2, 12E, 12E2 is a check made out to B&K Freight, LLC. Can we 18 zoom in on the top of the cashier's check there, the whole 19 check, please. 20 And this is the front of the check, and as that's being 21 pulled up, I want you to focus on two things. One, it's B&K 22 Freight. 23 Everybody that wrote these checks testified, "The defendant told 24 me to do that; he told me to write the check in that name." 25 They didn't make it up themselves. B&K Freight is the entity that this is made out to. They didn't come up with B&K Case 4:22-cr-00084-LGW-BWC Document 110 Filed 04/30/23 Page 26 of 84 333 1 Freight. 2 put that company name. 3 went along with this to write a freight company a check for 4 $18,000.00 for preparing a loan. 5 They were specifically directed by the defendant to They were specifically directed and they And not only that, in the memo line -- can we zoom in on 6 "leasing payment" on the memo line? "Leasing payment." 7 money is not for a leasing payment. That money is illegal money 8 paid for an illegal loan and this is another fingerprint of 9 fraud. 10 There is no reason to put "leasing payment." 11 lie. 12 and the person who made it knows that. 13 knows that, and he directed them to do it. 14 That is deceptive. Can we see 16C6? That That's a It's designed to conceal the payment, The defendant certainly 16C6 is a text message between Angela 15 Lovelady and Bernard Okojie, and we have yet another example, 16 they are discussing how he was going to be paid and we have a 17 specific text message that says that "The cashier's check should 18 be made out to B&K Freight, LLC, and if they ask for the 19 purposes, just tell them it's for truck leasing." There is 20 nothing legitimate about that text message at all. "Just tell 21 them it's for truck leasing." 22 that the payment is illegitimate. 23 for truck leasing. 24 nobody got up there and said "I really thought it was for truck 25 leasing; I thought I was paying for that." That's designed to hide the fact And everybody knows it's not Everybody knows that. No one is confused, No, they knew Case 4:22-cr-00084-LGW-BWC Document 110 Filed 04/30/23 Page 27 of 84 334 1 exactly what they were paying for. 2 they participated in the conspiracy, by agreeing to conceal the 3 nature of their payment, which was exorbitant. 4 conspiring to commit fraud. 5 They went along with it, That's Kim Johnson from the FBI conducted an extensive 6 financial analysis. 7 together some charts. 8 and she made it look real simple. 9 You heard from Ms. Johnson and she put She analyzed a lot of financial records I want to pull up 710D. 17D is a chart that she 10 prepared and the key takeaway from the chart is when the 11 defendant got all this money from people illegitimately, did he 12 announce it to the world? 13 paid me for filling out these loans"? 14 at one time? 15 Answer, no. Did he say "Look how much money they Did he withdraw all of it He didn't because if he did that, that 16 withdrawal would be reported to the Government and would create 17 an investigation, which is ultimately what happened anyway, but 18 that was the attempt, to try to hide the money that he 19 illegitimately made when he was withdrawing it. 20 Let's go through the pattern here. Ms. Johnson traces 21 deposits and withdrawals over and over and over and what do we 22 see? We saw -- actually can we zoom back out, please? 23 We saw a pattern where the money would be withdrawn in 24 increments that were carefully designed to be under $10,000.00 25 so when you look at this chart and you go back to the jury room Case 4:22-cr-00084-LGW-BWC Document 110 Filed 04/30/23 Page 28 of 84 335 1 you will see, man, over and over and over, he just withdrew the 2 money just under 10,000.00 or around $10,000.00 on the same day. 3 If you wanted to withdraw money, if you wanted to withdraw 4 $10,000.00 or more and it's legitimate, you just do it. 5 just do it because you're not worried about where it came from 6 and you withdraw the money at one time. 7 ATM, withdraw $6,000.00 and then wait, walk inside to the bank 8 ask them to draw out another 2,000.00, wait a couple of hours 9 and withdraw another 1,000.00. 10 You You don't go to the You can see the pattern and the numbers, but it's clear 11 that there is an intent to stay under $10,000.00 in order to 12 withdraw out the $160,000.00 that he illegitimately made. 13 That is structuring transactions in order to avoid a 14 federal reporting requirement. 15 money. 16 It is an intent to conceal the You heard from some CBP officers and I will give you the 17 big takeaway on the CBP officers. 18 of the money started with the checks. 19 people going along with the truck leasing. 20 LLC, checks written out for loan preparation services to a 21 trucking company. 22 The first is the concealment It started with the B&K Freight, Kojie, That's where it started, right? But the layers of concealment kept going, so it starts 23 there. What's the next step? Well, now I have the money but I 24 can't report this to the Government so let's carefully withdraw 25 it under the 10,000.00. Now I have the cash but I want to leave Case 4:22-cr-00084-LGW-BWC Document 110 Filed 04/30/23 Page 29 of 84 336 1 the country. 2 will ask where I got it from, so I'm just going to put it in a 3 suitcase and go to Nigeria, try to hide it. 4 layer of concealment. 5 I can't declare it with the CBP because then they That's another CBP takes the cash, and you would think once that 6 happened someone would just give up, like "They got me; they 7 took the cash; let it go." 8 to get it back, files a petition, all in evidence, with the CBP 9 under oath and says, "This money you took, give it back; it's 10 all legitimate," and attaches two checks, kickback checks, from 11 the fraud as evidence that he legitimately made the money. 12 He doubles down on the fraud, tries That is stunning, to lie again to the CBP about the 13 source of the funds under oath in a notarized document, under 14 penalty of perjury. 15 The lies continued throughout the trail. That's the big takeaway from Officer Matheson and Ms. 16 Kassandra Haley-Fields. They seized $40,000.00. He didn't 17 declare it. 18 tries to get it back and says, "You guys shouldn't have taken 19 it; it's all legit money," knowing it wasn't, knowing that the 20 checks that he attached were part of a fraud scheme. He's then caught and doubles down on the fraud and 21 The second part with the CBP witnesses, there was a trip 22 later, another encounter, also between Atlanta and Nigeria where 23 CBP encounters the defendant and they interview him, and they 24 find a notebook in his pocket, and the notebook, the officer 25 read it out, but you'll see it. It's Exhibit 19. It looks like Case 4:22-cr-00084-LGW-BWC Document 110 Filed 04/30/23 Page 30 of 84 337 1 this. It's a copy of a notebook. This was seized from the 2 defendant's pocket and it's a list of basically financial 3 prayers, and it's relevant for these reasons. 4 the state of mind of the defendant. It goes to show 5 There was an extreme obsession with -- there is an 6 extreme obsession with money, like getting money however you can 7 get it, and you see it on the list. 8 Give my wife a business that gives her income." 9 his intent to commit fraud to steal money if given the 10 opportunity. 11 12 "Make me a million dollars. This goes to It's very rare that you have someone's thoughts written out on a page, but you do in this case. 13 It's laid out. It's also relevant for this reason. There are several 14 lines in here that completely contradict what he told the SBA. 15 "Lord, make me a million dollars in 2021." 16 made millions of dollars in 2021 to the SBA in order to get 17 loans, but in personal thoughts, you're actually asking for the 18 money, direct contradiction. You just said you 19 There is also loan application after loan application 20 for his wife's purported businesses and then there's a request 21 to help her start a business. 22 and now the notebook, the private thought notebook, says you 23 don't. 24 get. 25 Like you just said she has one It's one of the clearest indications of fraud you could I also want to talk briefly about what we didn't hear, Case 4:22-cr-00084-LGW-BWC Document 110 Filed 04/30/23 Page 31 of 84 338 1 what documents we didn't see. 2 that witness stand and tell a legitimate story of financial 3 struggle during the pandemic. 4 We didn't hear anybody get up on Not one. Some people mentioned it. "Oh, yeah, COVID was hard." 5 You didn't hear anybody say "couldn't open up; forced closure; 6 had to lay off people; had to tell them 'I don't have any money; 7 I can't pay you'." 8 Nobody got up there telling about how they got laid off. 9 Had to tell their family "I don't know what we're going to do 10 but I don't have a job." 11 Didn't hear any of that. That's why the law exists. It's why it was passed, for 12 those people that we all agree needed help during a pandemic 13 that we were all confused about, how long it's going to last, 14 what it means, can I open up? 15 Not one person got up there and told a legitimate story 16 about needing the money, about truly struggling, not one person. 17 It was -- what do we hear? 18 testify that she spent the money on a house. 19 consultations. 20 I remember hearing Ginell Adams Car for her son. I love dogs. Love them. Plastic surgery A toy poodle. A toy poodle. That is not a business 21 expense. 22 you know when you're spending thousands of dollars on a dog 23 you're not doing the right thing, not spending loan money 24 appropriately. 25 We can all agree that is not a business expense, and I didn't hear any true story of struggle at all. I Case 4:22-cr-00084-LGW-BWC Document 110 Filed 04/30/23 Page 32 of 84 339 1 heard Wanda Adams testify that she spent pandemic money on a 2 car. I heard Angela Lovelady testify that she spent money on a 3 car. I heard her testify that she was taking a salary from the 4 loan money while she worked at NASA. 5 good job. 6 Didn't need this. That's a job. That's a Didn't need it at all. I heard Katina Banks testify that she spent the money on 7 a car, credit cards, rent. 8 real financial struggles during the pandemic. 9 they may claim not to know certain things. 10 they weren't aware exactly what was on the form. 11 they didn't have these businesses and they knew they weren't 12 going through the real financial struggles that this loan 13 program was designed to address. 14 None of those people went through They took the money. None of them, and They may claim that But they knew They knew that. Took a lot of money. It wasn't a 15 small amount of money. Hundreds of thousands of dollars that 16 they took knowing that they don't have businesses that would 17 justify those loan proceeds. They didn't give the money back. 18 No one gave the money back. They all kept it. 19 Dogs. Spent it, cars. 20 And the defendant, we heard about his spending. 21 trips, a Mercedes Benz, Escalade in the driveway when Agent Dye 22 starts asking questions. 23 Versace $850.00 moccasins. I mean, it's not against the law to like nice things. 24 It's not, but you have to earn the money to pay for it. 25 guys know that. You $850.00 shoes that you didn't earn, you didn't Case 4:22-cr-00084-LGW-BWC Document 110 Filed 04/30/23 Page 33 of 84 340 1 work for. Robinhood investments in stock and crypto currency, 2 throwing the money in crypto. 3 evidence, definitely not struggling during COVID, definitely not 4 laying people off, definitely not going to foreclosure, 5 definitely not telling people, "I'm sorry, I just can't pay 6 you." Only Fans payments. All in 7 None of that, taking the money and spending it on 8 himself, and the painful part of this is there were real people 9 that actually needed it, and the money ran out. 10 there. 11 It wasn't Raymond Brown testified that that money that people 12 desperately needed wasn't there because you had this fraud going 13 on. 14 crisis knowing that the Government can't check everything like 15 they normally do, exploiting a crisis for yourself. You had people just taking anything they could get during a 16 I also didn't hear anything that resembled hard work. 17 People got a bunch of money, and I heard no one say, "Man, I 18 worked some long hours; really wish I could have gone to my 19 kid's softball game," sacrifices that it takes to make ends 20 meet. 21 None of that. You get up every day to work to provide for your family. 22 It was all easy money. Fill out a form, get money from 23 the Government. And in the United States of America, we work. 24 We work. 25 life for ourselves and our families, not filling out paperwork We are known for our hard work and making a better Case 4:22-cr-00084-LGW-BWC Document 110 Filed 04/30/23 Page 34 of 84 341 1 to get cash. 2 Rita Addo-Minta, Brandon Richardson, you may be 3 wondering how do they fit in. 4 primary fraud scheme involves the defendant and the people who 5 paid these kickbacks. 6 involved. 7 Richardson. 8 Here's how they fit in. The Rita and the defendant were romantically Ms. Addo-Minta introduces Mr. Okojie to Brandon Brandon Richardson himself, we've learned through the 9 SBA analyst, has submitted SBA loan applications. 10 as well. 11 evidence, all in the testimony -- introduces the defendant to 12 Brandon Richardson. 13 money. 14 Ms. Minta has Ms. Minta -- loan applications, a lot of them all in We know the defendant got a lot of loan We also heard from Ms. Dedra from the SBA that those 15 loan applications associated with Brandon Richardson have tons 16 of IP addresses, so the applications were filled out at 17 different computer locations, Internet protocol locations all 18 over, hundreds. 19 It's relevant in this sense. 20 crime. 21 agreeing or involving anybody." 22 but a bunch of people connected. 23 This isn't a one-person This isn't one person, one loan. "It's just me; I'm not This is one guy at the center, It's a conspiracy, and you're going to be instructed on 24 some of the law on that, but that's the general idea. 25 lot going on outside of the defendant. There's a He can't do all of this Case 4:22-cr-00084-LGW-BWC Document 110 Filed 04/30/23 Page 35 of 84 342 1 by himself. 2 He's got to get people to go along with it. I want to end by talking about the charges and the 3 verdict form. 4 you're going to go back to the jury room. 5 deliberate and you're doing to have the indictment. 6 going to have a verdict form and you're going to see three 7 charges, and I just want to go through the charges that you're 8 going to be discussing, and I want to start with Count 2. 9 After you're done hearing from the attorneys, You're going to You're I'm starting with Count 2 because that's the substantive 10 wire-fraud count involving the Katina Banks application. You 11 will see in the indictment there are various individuals listed. 12 They are listed by Individual 1, Individual 2, Individual 3. 13 That's done to protect certain names from being on a 14 public docket, but you will find all of those people identified 15 in Exhibit 17. 16 Actually let me check the number. You will find all of these people identified in Exhibit 17 12, the flow of money charts that Agent Lott did. 18 at the top there the indictment number and the paragraph of each 19 person is listed. 20 So Paragraph 2, what does it allege? You will see It alleges that 21 the defendant filed a false application for Katina Banks. 22 Katina Banks testified. 23 her application. 24 revenue?" She said no. 25 said no. "Did you spend the money on legitimate things?" I asked her a bunch of questions about I asked her, "Did you make that gross "Did you employ all those people?" She No. Case 4:22-cr-00084-LGW-BWC Document 110 Filed 04/30/23 Page 36 of 84 343 1 Credit cards, personal spending. 2 Count 2 is just her application. Count 2 is a stand- 3 alone count. It doesn't require you to consider the sort of 4 agreements that were surrounding the application. 5 hers. Did the defendant submit a false application for Katina 6 Banks? That's it. 7 application is false. 8 application is in the records. 9 reasonable doubt, that Katina Banks' application was submitted 10 by the defendant; it's false and loan money was disbursed as a 11 result. That's Count 2. It's just He absolutely did. She said he submitted it. The The We have proven that beyond a 12 The charge also requires the interstate wire. 13 means that there was an interstate transmission, wire 14 transmission, as a part of the scheme. 15 that we've entered into the record regarding PPP loans. 16 also heard some testimony from the SBA regarding Mr. Brown, 17 testified that the EIDL applications bounced around servers from 18 multiple states, Colorado, Texas, Kansas City, makes their way 19 from the applicant to all these states in order to be processed. 20 That just There's a stipulation That triggers the interstate wire. You That meets the 21 interstate wire requirement. 22 case. 23 Count 2, Katina Banks received a false EIDL application that was 24 filed by the defendant. 25 It's not really disputed in this We have submitted evidence to meet that element. Count 1 is a conspiracy count. That's What that means is that Case 4:22-cr-00084-LGW-BWC Document 110 Filed 04/30/23 Page 37 of 84 344 1 other people agreed to commit fraud. 2 how this was not a one-person operation. 3 lots of loans, money that was being hidden deceptively, money 4 that was misspent by the people who got it. 5 We've talked a lot about There were kickbacks, It's a large agreement to commit a crime. You will get 6 instructions on this. It's not required under the law that 7 someone knows all aspects of the scheme. 8 that people don't, but they know enough to know that this is an 9 unlawful agreement. 10 that there was a conspiracy to commit wire fraud. 11 certain things that people didn't know, but they certainly knew 12 that they didn't have businesses that grossed these type of 13 revenues and employed these amounts of people. 14 Count 1 is the conspiracy count. We've shown that. It's often the case We've shown evidence We're going to ask you 15 to return a verdict of guilty on that count. 16 conspiracy to commit wire fraud. 17 conspiracy to commit money laundering. 18 There may be Count 3 alleges I'm sorry, Count 3 alleges Money laundering is a legal term that means somebody is 19 trying to hide the proceeds of the crime. 20 conceal it and we talked about the layers of concealment. 21 They are trying to From the beginning, there were companies that were set 22 up that were fake that were used to filter the money, checks are 23 coming in not to the defendant personally, not to financial 24 brokerage firms, but to made-up companies that are designed to 25 conceal that transaction and it's purposeful. Case 4:22-cr-00084-LGW-BWC Document 110 Filed 04/30/23 Page 38 of 84 345 1 It's purposeful. You have text messages that show he 2 was intending to direct that. 3 themselves that show in the memo line the purpose for it. 4 is an agreement to conceal or disguise the nature or control the 5 proceeds of fraud. 6 You also have the checks That There is also a type of money laundering that involves 7 transactions of fraudulent proceeds over $10,000.00, so if 8 there's a transaction of more than $10,000.00 and it involves 9 fraudulent proceeds, that can be a separate crime. 10 alleged as an object of the conspiracy. 11 That is also There's two boxes, and I'm going to show you on the 12 verdict form. There's two boxes that you will see for that. 13 I'm going to ask you to check both boxes because he did both 14 conceal the nature and source of the funds and the monetary 15 transactions all exceeded $10,000.00, checks that people wrote 16 all over $10,000.00. 17 You will see that on the financial chart. 18 it on the checks themselves that they are over $10,000.00. 19 You will have a verdict form. 20 will come to a verdict. 21 guilty because that's the evidence. 22 shows; that's what it requires. 23 because I'm saying it. 24 25 You will see After you deliberate, you I'm asking that you return a verdict of That's what the evidence I'm not asking you to do it I'm asking because the evidence shows the defendant committed these crimes, so when you go back there, you're going Case 4:22-cr-00084-LGW-BWC Document 110 Filed 04/30/23 Page 39 of 84 346 1 to fill out this form. 2 1; Count 2, the Katina Banks application, I'm going to ask that 3 you write "guilty" in that box; and Count 3, I'm going to ask 4 that you find that the defendant concealed the money and engaged 5 in transactions more than $10,000.00, and I'm going to ask that 6 you write "guilty." 7 8 You're going to write "guilty" on Count Thank you for your attention in this case. for your time. Thank you Thank you for your service. 9 THE COURT: Mr. Ossick, on behalf of the defendant? 10 MR. OSSICK: If it please The Court, Your Honor. 11 Good morning. When I made a few remarks to you in 12 opening, I said that the Government in the indictment hadn't 13 named anyone as a coconspirator and I said that it would be 14 interesting to see perhaps why that was. 15 didn't mean a whole lot because you hadn't seen the indictment 16 and you hadn't read it and you still haven't, but you will have 17 it when you begin your deliberations, and as The Court 18 instructed, it's not evidence but it is the way in which the 19 Government frames the charge that you're called upon to decide. 20 Well, that probably Now, when you start to make those decisions, you're 21 using what The Court gives you as the legal standards to sort of 22 the questions that are formed by the indictment. 23 In this particular indictment, as Mr. Josephson 24 indicated, Counts 1 and 3 are conspiracy charges. 2 is what is 25 known, as indicated, as the substantive offense, so wire fraud. Case 4:22-cr-00084-LGW-BWC Document 110 Filed 04/30/23 Page 40 of 84 347 1 It's important that you distinguish between what they are 2 because the legal requirements that you have to comply with to 3 determine the correct verdict to each varies. 4 The conspiracy is something that requires in addition to 5 a substantive crime an agreement by the defendant with someone 6 else who is knowledgeable of what that unlawful objective is and 7 some actions in furtherance of it. 8 It's not and doesn't include things where people may 9 just work together, each having a separate agenda unless they 10 are knowledgeable of the other's plans. 11 objectives individually are appropriate or not is not what 12 determines it. 13 Whether their Similarly a conspiracy is not like a collection of 14 substantive offenses. For instance, as I think he explained 15 very well, Count 2 is were these documents that were sent false. 16 The Government could have brought a charge like that if they 17 wanted to for every document that was sent that they think the 18 evidence is going to show is false. 19 That would be a series of various counts of substantive 20 charges, and then that's under the context of this, the various 21 wire fraud counts, but conspiracy is not a collection of counts. 22 Again, the conspiracy is whether or not there is an 23 agreement between people in this case, between people, knowing 24 what they are doing to commit the substantive offense. 25 Now, when you're trying to decide, well, you know, did Case 4:22-cr-00084-LGW-BWC Document 110 Filed 04/30/23 Page 41 of 84 348 1 they just happen to act in a way that furthered the objectives 2 or were they knowledgeable of each other's plan and wanted to be 3 part of the plan, because it's like a partnership in crime. 4 You're doing it together and you know you're doing it together. 5 Not that it just helps my own separate plan or not. 6 the conspiracy. That's not 7 But let's look at what sort of factors we should 8 consider to try to determine whether or not we're comfortable in 9 saying there was a knowing agreement to an unlawful plan. 10 I mean, you use the same sort of things. You look, you 11 know, in life, I mean, how well do you know each other, how long 12 have you known each other, how much do you communicate with one 13 another, you know, what are the sort of real facts you can kind 14 of look at and say, "Am I comfortable deducing from this?" 15 You know, I think there was reference that, well, for 16 instance, there's checks made to a trucking company. That 17 suggests that they somehow know something is going on. 18 Well, it suggests that they don't care perhaps, but it 19 doesn't say that "Oh, well, geez, because I'm directed to write 20 something a particular way that means that I know what the 21 other's plan is, that I know that there's some plan about hiding 22 money"? 23 You know, you look, look at the things that, just think 24 about what the witness could tell us on this. I think all of 25 them at one point indicated that they met him generally only Case 4:22-cr-00084-LGW-BWC Document 110 Filed 04/30/23 Page 42 of 84 349 1 2 when payment was being made. Some said that they talked to him -- really didn't even 3 have a conversation with him on the phone. 4 believe was on the phone, and they said, "Well, my social 5 security number is" or "my address is." 6 The husband I I mean, that's the extent of the conversation that the 7 evidence is showing you some of these people had -- some 8 testified -- and I'm sure collectively I know you're going to 9 remember the evidence way better than I did. 10 might have been two calls; there might have been one. 11 didn't know each other ahead of time; they didn't go to school 12 together; didn't grow up together; didn't ever work somewhere 13 together. 14 Some said there They Mr. Okojie's name came up because of another person at a 15 truck stop knew of what he does. 16 believe, well, these people knew and joined in, knowing that, 17 when the evidence about all the kind of factors -- and I know 18 you will have your own and you will decide whether or not, you 19 know, what would it take for someone to decide to take a chance 20 involving an unlawful agreement and I want to be part of it. 21 The Government wants you to Well, that's what's required for you to be able to find 22 that there is a conspiracy. Look at things that even sort of 23 show contract, Ms. Lovelady's text, you know, after the fact, 24 what do you even put down? 25 familiar with the plan and knows it and joined it; look at how Does that sound like somebody who is Case 4:22-cr-00084-LGW-BWC Document 110 Filed 04/30/23 Page 43 of 84 350 1 did the Government treat these people? 2 coconspirators, codefendants, list them in the indictment, say, 3 "Look, it's part of this; we will prove it." 4 Did they make these They are not even named in the indictment. There is a 5 section that names unidentified individuals, but it doesn't even 6 tell you there that there are unindicted coconspirators, which 7 they can do. 8 The Government can, you know -- I also mentioned in the 9 opening about look at what some of the witnesses' own concerns 10 are; they have their own concerns and should. 11 have had their own plans, and the Government has got ways to 12 deal with that. 13 They may well It's completely appropriate under the law. The law 14 specifically authorizes that you can make agreements with people 15 who have committed offenses and give them, you know, immunity, 16 which is an agreement never to prosecute them, make deals with 17 them and have them testify, when they have immunity, compel them 18 to testify, and if they are -- and say, you know, this is what 19 it was and they can also choose not to prosecute someone, but 20 what they have to do when they want to convict somebody of a 21 conspiracy is to have sufficient proof that there was a knowing 22 agreement with someone else, and that's just not present when 23 you look at the kind of factors that are involved here. 24 25 Who had any idea as a witness that Mr. Okojie would go to Nigeria with currency? Who had any idea, when you're talking Case 4:22-cr-00084-LGW-BWC Document 110 Filed 04/30/23 Page 44 of 84 351 1 about -- money laundering is the same. It's not just about 2 Count 1 but Count 3. 3 about how, after being paid, he would make withdrawals in cash 4 from various accounts or even what accounts he might have or 5 when he was going to do it over the weekend or close together to 6 be some sort of structuring. It's also a conspiracy. Who had any idea 7 Now you don't have to know all the details and 8 everything about a plan in a conspiracy to be part of it, but 9 you have to be knowledgeable of its unlawful purpose and 10 intentionally want to be part of that, become a partner. 11 When you look at these, whether or not -- it takes 12 coordination and communication. 13 understanding to be reached and it's got to be reached in 14 advance and it's not just because you have your own agenda, and 15 I don't believe that you see evidence at all here sufficient to 16 show that there is ever an agreement to be part of a plan. 17 witnesses said they were. 18 It takes some sort of No No witnesses were treated like they -- if they had some 19 sort of agreement or benefit with the Government, they would 20 have had to say that in connection with giving testimony because 21 that's something that would affect their credibility. 22 one of the factors just like all the others about them and how 23 they handled themselves and what they did with the money that 24 you can look at and see. 25 Maybe they had their own problems. That's Maybe they have Case 4:22-cr-00084-LGW-BWC Document 110 Filed 04/30/23 Page 45 of 84 352 1 their own problems, but how is that evidence of the plan? 2 not. It's And it's not evidence of their knowingly joining. 3 You know, I would think for most of you probably that 4 the wire fraud in Count 2, that when you're deciding that, 5 that's an easy decision. 6 fraudulent documents submitted, that may be an easy decision for 7 you. 8 hesitation, and that's what proof beyond a reasonable doubt is. 9 You know, it's without hesitation; you know it immediately, you 10 know, when you think about it. 11 say that each of those which require this common plan that you 12 know and join that everybody feels a bit of hesitation and 13 you'll need to talk about it. You know, if you think that there was That's the kind of decision that you make probably without But Counts 1 and 3, I venture to 14 Well, that's what you're supposed to do, but that 15 hesitation, that's exactly what reasonable doubt means, and when 16 you have that, you are supposed to, in accordance with the duty 17 the law imposes upon you in your service as a juror, to find not 18 guilty as to those counts where you have that hesitation and 19 doubt. 20 Reasonable doubt will be defined by The Court but an 21 easy way to think about it is when you're handling the most 22 serious of your own affairs what kind of certainty would you 23 need before you make big life decisions? 24 of certainty that's required in order to convict and we believe 25 it's clear as to Counts 1 and 3 that those are hesitations, Well, that's the kind Case 4:22-cr-00084-LGW-BWC Document 110 Filed 04/30/23 Page 46 of 84 353 1 those are without sufficient evidence to support and ask you to 2 return verdicts of not guilty as to those. 3 Thank you, Your Honor. 4 THE COURT: 5 MR. JOSEPHSON: 6 The defense that I just heard was that the defendant may 7 have committed all that fraud, may have falsified documents, may 8 have filled out false applications, may have gotten hundreds of 9 thousands of dollars himself after falsely representing that he 10 made millions of dollars, the defendant may have received 11 kickbacks and laundered money and tried to leave the country 12 with it and then lie to the Customs and Border Protection to get 13 it back, he may have done all of that, but don't worry about any 14 of that that he did, that he's here today to be held accountable 15 for and find him not guilty because the other people didn't 16 really know what was going on. 17 Yes, Your Honor. Here's a response. 18 on. 19 loans on them. 20 Rebuttal closing, Mr. Josephson? They did. That's the defense I just heard. First, they did know what was going They reached out to him. Nobody forced these Nobody said, "You must have an SBA EIDL loan." They reached out to him. It was word of mouth. It 21 started at a truck stop and they didn't -- they got no 22 assurances at all that this person knew what they were doing, no 23 certifications, no trainings. 24 friend that so-and-so can get you money from the Government and 25 they go along with it. They take word of mouth from a Case 4:22-cr-00084-LGW-BWC Document 110 Filed 04/30/23 Page 47 of 84 354 1 Second, they knew it was a business loan. They signed 2 paperwork. 3 Now they may not read it and we will get to the jury 4 instructions in a minute -- because I think it's important -- 5 you can't turn a blind eye to a fact to avoid knowing it. 6 can't just deliberately decide "Oh, well, I'm not going to care 7 that this person has no credentials; I'm not going to care to 8 look at the documents; I don't know anything; I don't know; it's 9 legitimate to me." 10 after decision to not know things. 11 responsibility as an adult to realize that people will commit 12 fraud and you will be part of it and benefit from it. 13 They log in and sign loan authorization agreements. You You can't make a decision after decision You have to take They knew it was a business loan, and they didn't have a 14 business. 15 salon that grosses 200K. 16 modest income. 17 income. 18 Ginell Adams is a hair stylist. She doesn't own a She's a hairstylist. She makes a May not be living on it, but makes a modest Wanda Anderson and her boyfriend, Charlie Bey, they work 19 at DaVita Dialysis. 20 they sell medical equipment on the side, but those sales were 21 nowhere near 200K. 22 this. 23 money they are getting. 24 25 They are employees of DaVita Dialysis, and It's not a surprise to them. They know They know how much money they make and they know how much Katina Banks works in a medical service company as well and she sells pots and pans on the side. Makes $10,000.00 a Case 4:22-cr-00084-LGW-BWC Document 110 Filed 04/30/23 Page 48 of 84 355 1 year doing it. And she gets a hundred-thousand-dollar loan from 2 the SBA after talking to a guy she's never met, she doesn't 3 know. 4 to do it. 5 checks, massive checks that we talked about, 18, 20, 30 thousand 6 dollars that they have never written before for any financial 7 service in their life. 8 least deliberately tried to close their eyes to what was going 9 on. 10 That's what happened. She's deciding to take that loan. No one is forcing her She is, under these circumstances, and they all write They knew what was going on or they at They asked no questions, none, and they took the money. 11 Charlie and Wanda filed four loan applications for the 12 same business, four applications for the same business that was 13 not making much money. 14 was going on? 15 with loan money. 16 right; I'm trying to get one over on the Government to make some 17 extra money"? 18 You don't think that they knew something You have people buying dogs and paying for cars You don't think that they knew "This isn't That's what they were doing and they knew it. 19 it. 20 a federal court but they knew it. 21 defendant? 22 They knew None of them thought they would ever have to be sitting in No. Are they as culpable of the Do they have to be conspire? No. They can play a minor role in the conspiracy. They can 23 be less culpable, but they are part of it. It doesn't work 24 without them. 25 with the defendant and it is a huge part, but it's not the only When you look at that chart, you have the part Case 4:22-cr-00084-LGW-BWC Document 110 Filed 04/30/23 Page 49 of 84 356 1 part. 2 people, lots of loans, and it's probably still going out. 3 probably still -- there's probably still people out there who 4 got loans that could be traced, but what we know is that the 5 evidence shows that the people that testified did and they knew 6 what was going on. 7 You've got tentacles to this thing that go out to lots of We're Now I want to read a couple jury instructions for you. 8 The Court is going to instruct you on the law. 9 copy of the jury instructions. 10 Judge tells you, but this is what you're going to hear. 11 find that a conspirator knew about the unlawful purpose of a 12 plan if you determine beyond a reasonable doubt that the 13 conspirator, Number 1, actually knew about the unlawful purpose 14 of the plan or, 2, had every reason to know but deliberately 15 closed his or her eyes. 16 That's what happened. You'll have a Obviously, listen to what the I think they knew. You may I think they 17 knew because I don't think you engage in that kind of spending 18 and take that kind of money without knowing "I don't really have 19 a business loan; I hope nobody asks any questions." 20 I think they knew. But at a minimum they asked no 21 questions. 22 money they weren't entitled to. 23 They deliberately closed their eyes and they took You're also going to be instructed with respect to a 24 conspiracy that the Government does not have to prove that all 25 the people named in the indictment were members of the plan, Case 4:22-cr-00084-LGW-BWC Document 110 Filed 04/30/23 Page 50 of 84 357 1 okay. So it's not necessary that you go back there and decide 2 that absolutely everybody involved knew. 3 decide that to convict. 4 least one. 5 person that agreed to participate in this conspiracy to make it 6 work. 7 respect to that key conspiracy point. Just one. That's it. You don't have to All you have to decide is there was at It wasn't him alone. It was at least one You will be instructed by the Judge with 8 Defense counsel also mentioned that, well, the 9 Government hasn't charged certain people in this case; they are 10 not in this indictment. 11 instruction. 12 alleged in the conspiracy are not on trial. 13 requirement that all members of the conspiracy be charged or 14 tried together in one proceeding. 15 this case. 16 whether he committed the crimes alleged in the indictment. 17 don't have to decide whether all the other people committed 18 various crimes that haven't been charged yet. 19 different question for a different jury for a different day. 20 You're going to receive this The evidence may show that some of the people There is one defendant in There is one defendant that you have to decide It's not something you have to decide. 21 irrelevant. 22 the focus of your deliberations. 23 There is no You That is a So it's You will be instructed that that's not going to be A lot of lies in this case, a lot of them, lies to the 24 SBA, lies to Customs and Border Patrol, lies to the IRS, the 25 Georgia Department of Labor. Deception all over the place. But Case 4:22-cr-00084-LGW-BWC Document 110 Filed 04/30/23 Page 51 of 84 358 1 you can't lie in this room. 2 there's evidence before you that says, "The scam is up; the scam 3 is over; you're caught." 4 They can't lie to you because The documents are what they are. The lie stops here. The testimony is what 5 it is. 6 to return a verdict of guilty on every single count in that 7 indictment. 8 Thank you. 9 THE COURT: That's why we're going to ask you All right, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, 10 it is time for our mid-morning break. 11 piece left until you retire finally to deliberate. 12 We really only have one On this last mid-morning break here today, don't yet 13 make up your mind. 14 We will be in recess for about 15 minutes. 15 will give you instructions on the law. 16 Don't yet discuss the case. It is 10:35. When you return, I From time to time during the case the attorneys may have 17 said "I think this about the evidence, I think that about the 18 evidence." 19 the evidence and not what either me as the Judge or either 20 attorney might think. 21 that matters. You will recall what matters is your recollection of It's your recollection of the evidence 22 With that, let's rise for the jury. 23 (The jury exits the courtroom.) 24 THE COURT: 25 arguments. All right, counsel, excellent closing I thought I may have heard something close to Case 4:22-cr-00084-LGW-BWC Document 110 Filed 04/30/23 Page 52 of 84 359 1 vouching, and so I just wanted to make sure they recalled that 2 it is their impression of the evidence that matters. 3 With that, we will be in recess for 15 minutes. 4 (Recess from 10:34 a.m. to 10:58 a.m.) 5 THE COURT: 6 (The jury enters the courtroom.) 7 THE COURT: Let's bring in the jury. Members of the jury, it's now my duty to 8 instruct you on the rules of law that you must use in deciding 9 this case. 10 to your jury room and begin your discussions, what we call your 11 deliberations. After I've completed these instructions, you will go 12 Let me say in advance that each of you will receive a 13 written copy of these instructions for you to use during your 14 deliberations so you don't have to memorize what I'm saying as I 15 say it. 16 You must decide whether the Government has proved the 17 specific facts necessary to find the defendant guilty beyond a 18 reasonable doubt. 19 evidence presented during the trial. 20 in any way by either sympathy for or prejudice against the 21 defendant or the Government. 22 explain it, even if you don't agree with the law and you must 23 follow all of my instructions as a whole. 24 out or disregard any of The Court's instructions on the law. 25 Your decision must be based only on the You must not be influenced You must follow the law as I You must not single Now the indictment or formal charge against the Case 4:22-cr-00084-LGW-BWC Document 110 Filed 04/30/23 Page 53 of 84 360 1 defendant is not evidence of guilt. The law presumes every 2 defendant is innocent. 3 innocence or produce any evidence at all. 4 have to testify, and if the defendant chose not to testify, you 5 cannot consider that in any way while making your decision. 6 The Government must prove guilt beyond a reasonable The defendant does not have to prove his A defendant does not 7 doubt. If it fails to do so, you must find the defendant not 8 guilty. The Government's burden of proof is heavy, but it 9 doesn't have to prove a defendant's guilt beyond all possible 10 doubt. 11 reasonable doubt concerning the defendant's guilt. 12 The Government's proof only has to exclude any A reasonable doubt is a real doubt based on your reason 13 and common sense after you've carefully and impartially 14 considered all the evidence in the case. 15 reasonable doubt is proof so convincing that you would be 16 willing to rely and act on it without hesitation in the most 17 important of your own affairs. 18 defendant has been proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, say 19 so. Proof beyond a If you're convinced that the If you are not convinced, say so. 20 As I said before, you must consider only the evidence 21 that I've admitted in the case. That evidence includes the 22 testimony of witnesses and the exhibits that have been admitted, 23 but anything the lawyers say is not evidence and isn't binding 24 on you. 25 have any opinion about any factual issue in the case. You shouldn't assume from anything I've said that I Except Case 4:22-cr-00084-LGW-BWC Document 110 Filed 04/30/23 Page 54 of 84 361 1 for my instructions to you on the law, you should disregard 2 anything I may have said during the trial in arriving at your 3 own decision about the facts. 4 interpretation of the evidence is what matters. 5 Your own recollection and Now, in considering the evidence, you may use reasoning 6 and common sense to make deductions and reach conclusions and 7 you shouldn't be concerned about whether the evidence is direct 8 or circumstantial. 9 Direct evidence is the testimony of a person who asserts 10 that he or she has actual knowledge of a fact such as an 11 eyewitness. 12 facts and circumstances that tend to prove or disprove a fact. 13 There is no legal difference in the weight you may give to 14 either direct or circumstantial evidence. Circumstantial evidence is proof of a chain of 15 When I say you must consider all the evidence, I don't 16 mean that you must accept all the evidence as true or accurate. 17 You should decide whether you believe what each witness had to 18 say and how important that testimony was. 19 decision, you may believe or disbelieve any witness in whole or 20 in part. 21 particular point doesn't necessarily matter. 22 In making that The number of witnesses testifying concerning a Now, to decide whether you believe any witness, I 23 suggest you ask yourself a few questions. Did the witness 24 impress you as one who was telling the truth? 25 have any particular reason not to tell the truth? Did the witness Did the Case 4:22-cr-00084-LGW-BWC Document 110 Filed 04/30/23 Page 55 of 84 362 1 witness have a personal interest in the outcome of the case? 2 Did the witness seem to have a good memory? 3 have the opportunity and ability to accurately observe the 4 things he or she testified about? 5 understand the questions clearly and answer them directly? 6 the witness' testimony differ from other testimony or other 7 evidence? Did the witness Did the witness appear to Did 8 You should also ask yourself whether there was evidence 9 that a witness testified falsely about an important fact and ask 10 whether there was evidence that at some other time a witness 11 said or did something or didn't say or do something that was 12 different from the testimony the witness gave during the trial. 13 But keep in mind that a simple mistake doesn't mean a 14 witness wasn't telling the truth as he or she remembers it. 15 People naturally forget or tend to forget some things or 16 remember them inaccurately, so if a witness misstated something, 17 you must decide whether it was because of an innocent lapse in 18 memory or rather an intentional deception, and the significance 19 of your decision may depend on whether that misstatement is 20 about an important fact or an unimportant detail. 21 Now each count of the indictment charges a separate 22 crime. You must consider each crime and the evidence relating 23 to it separately. 24 guilty of one crime, that must not affect your verdict for any 25 other crime. If you find the defendant guilty or not Case 4:22-cr-00084-LGW-BWC Document 110 Filed 04/30/23 Page 56 of 84 363 1 I caution you that the defendant is on trial only for 2 the specific crimes charged in the indictment. 3 determine from the evidence in this case whether the defendant 4 is guilty or not guilty of those specific crimes. 5 You're here to You must never consider punishment in any way to decide 6 whether the defendant is guilty. 7 guilty, the punishment will be for me to decide alone later. 8 If you find the defendant As I said, the indictment charges three separate crimes 9 called counts against the defendant. 10 and you will be given a copy of that indictment to refer to 11 during your deliberations. 12 Each count has a number Count 1 charges that the defendant knowingly and 13 willfully conspired to commit wire fraud. 14 the defendant committed what is called a substantive offense, 15 specifically wire fraud. 16 substantive offense in just a minute. 17 Count 2 charges that I will explain the law governing that Count 3 charges that the witness willfully and knowingly 18 conspired to commit money laundering. 19 is not charged in Counts 1 and 3 with committing a substantive 20 offense. 21 and I will also give you specific instructions on conspiracy. 22 Please note the defendant He is charged with conspiring to commit that offense, So, it is a federal crime to use interstate, wire, radio 23 or television communications to carry out a scheme to defraud 24 someone else. 25 The defendant can be found guilty of this crime only if Case 4:22-cr-00084-LGW-BWC Document 110 Filed 04/30/23 Page 57 of 84 364 1 all of the following facts are proved beyond a reasonable doubt: 2 First, that the defendant knowingly devised or participated in a 3 scheme to defraud somebody by using false or fraudulent 4 pretenses, representations or promises; second, that the false 5 pretenses, representations or promises were about a material 6 fact; third, that the defendant acted with the intent to 7 defraud; and fourth, that the defendant transmitted or caused to 8 be transmitted by wire some communication in interstate commerce 9 to help carry out the scheme to defraud. 10 Now, a scheme to defraud means any plan or course of 11 action intended to deceive or cheat someone out of money or 12 property by using false or fraudulent pretenses, representations 13 or promises. 14 A statement or representation is false or fraudulent if 15 it's about a material fact that the speaker knows is untrue or 16 makes with reckless indifference to the truth and makes with the 17 intent to defraud. 18 A statement or representation may be false or fraudulent 19 when it is a half-truth or effectively conceals a material fact 20 and is made with the intent to defraud. 21 A material fact is an important fact that a reasonable 22 person would use to decide whether to do something or not. A 23 fact is material if it has the capacity or natural tendency to 24 influence a person's decision. 25 decisionmaker actually relied on the statement or knew or should It doesn't matter whether the Case 4:22-cr-00084-LGW-BWC Document 110 Filed 04/30/23 Page 58 of 84 365 1 2 have known that the statement was false. To act with the intent to defraud means to act knowingly 3 and with the specific intent to use false or fraudulent 4 pretenses, representations or promises to cause loss or injury. 5 Proving intent to deceive alone without the intent to cause loss 6 or injury is not sufficient to prove intent to defraud. 7 The Government does not have to prove all the details 8 alleged in the indictment about the precise nature and purpose 9 of the scheme. 10 transmitted by interstate wire was itself false or fraudulent or 11 that using the wire was intended as the specific or exclusive 12 means of carrying out the alleged fraud or that the defendant 13 personally made the transmission over the wire, and it doesn't 14 have to prove that the alleged scheme actually succeeded in 15 defrauding anyone. 16 It also doesn't have to prove that the material To use interstate wire communications is to act so that 17 something would normally be sent through wire, radio or 18 television communications in the normal course of business. 19 Each separate use of the interstate wire communications as part 20 of the scheme to defraud is a separate crime. 21 It's a federal crime to knowingly and willfully conspire 22 or agree with somebody to do something that if actually carried 23 out would result in the crime of wire fraud. 24 25 A conspiracy is an agreement by two or more persons to commit an unlawful act. In other words, it's a kind of Case 4:22-cr-00084-LGW-BWC Document 110 Filed 04/30/23 Page 59 of 84 366 1 partnership for criminal purposes. Every member of the 2 conspiracy becomes the agent or partner of every other member. 3 The Government does not have to prove that all the people 4 identified in the indictment were members of the plan or that 5 those who were members made any kind of formal agreement. 6 heart of the conspiracy is the making of the unlawful plan 7 itself, so the Government does not have to prove that the 8 conspirators succeeded in carrying out the plan. The 9 The defendant can be found guilty of the conspiracy 10 offense only if all the following facts are proved beyond a 11 reasonable doubt: 12 way or manner agreed to try to accomplish a common and unlawful 13 plan to commit wire fraud as charged in the indictment; and 14 second, that the defendant knew the unlawful purpose of the plan 15 and willfully joined in it. Number 1, that two or more persons in some 16 A person may be a conspirator even without knowing all 17 the details of the unlawful plan or the names and identities of 18 all the other alleged conspirators. 19 only a minor part in the plan but had a general understanding of 20 the unlawful purpose of the plan and willfully joined in the 21 plan on at least one occasion, that is sufficient for you to 22 find the defendant guilty, but simply being present at the scene 23 of an event or merely associating with certain people and 24 discussing common goals and interests doesn't establish proof of 25 a conspiracy. If the defendant played Case 4:22-cr-00084-LGW-BWC Document 110 Filed 04/30/23 Page 60 of 84 367 1 Also a person who doesn't know about a conspiracy but 2 happens to act in a way that advances some purpose of one 3 doesn't automatically become a conspirator. 4 Now, it is a federal crime to conspire to engage in 5 money laundering or transactions involving the proceeds of 6 specified unlawful activity that violates certain statutes, 7 Title 18 United States Code Section 1956 and 1957. 8 While it's not necessary for you to find the defendant 9 conspired to commit both of the offenses alleged to be objects 10 of the conspiracy, it is necessary that your vote be unanimous 11 that at least one of such intended offenses was the object of 12 the conspiracy. 13 It's a federal crime to knowingly engage in certain 14 kinds of financial transactions commonly known as money 15 laundering under 18 USC Section, that is, United States Code 16 Section 1956 as follows. 17 The defendant can be found guilty of this crime only if 18 all the following facts are proved beyond a reasonable doubt: 19 First, that the defendant knowingly conducted or tried to 20 conduct financial transactions; second, that the defendant knew 21 the money or property involved in the transaction were the 22 proceeds of some kind of unlawful activity; third, the money or 23 property did come from unlawful activity, specifically, the wire 24 fraud scheme charged in Counts 1 and 2 of the indictment; and 25 four, the defendant knew that the transaction was designed in Case 4:22-cr-00084-LGW-BWC Document 110 Filed 04/30/23 Page 61 of 84 368 1 whole or in part to conceal or disguise the nature, location, 2 source, ownership or the control of the proceeds. 3 It's also a federal crime for anyone to engage in 4 certain kinds of financial transactions commonly known as money 5 laundering under 18 United States Code Section 1957 as follows. 6 The defendant can be found guilty of this offense only if all of 7 the following are proved beyond a reasonable doubt: 8 defendant knowingly engaged or attempted to engage in a monetary 9 transaction; second, the defendant knew the transaction involved 10 property or funds that were the proceeds of some criminal 11 activity; third, the property had a value of more than 12 $10,000.00; and fourth, the property was, in fact, proceeds of 13 fraud, schemes involving COVID-19 stimulus funds including EIDL 14 funds and PPP funds, and that the transaction took place in the 15 United States. First, the 16 To conduct a transaction means to start or finish a 17 transaction or to participate in a transaction at any point. 18 transaction means a purchase, sale, loan, gift, promise, 19 transfer or delivery or other disposition of money or property. 20 A A transaction with a financial institution also includes 21 a deposit, withdrawal, transfer between accounts, exchange of 22 currency, loan, extension of credit, use of safe deposit box or 23 purchase or sale of any stock, bonds, certificate of deposit or 24 other monetary instrument. 25 A financial transaction means a transaction that in any Case 4:22-cr-00084-LGW-BWC Document 110 Filed 04/30/23 Page 62 of 84 369 1 way or to any degree affects interstate or foreign commerce by 2 sending or moving money by wire or other means or a transaction 3 that in any way or to any degree affects interstate or foreign 4 commerce by involving one or more monetary instruments. 5 The phrase "monetary instruments" includes coins or 6 currency of any country, travelers or personal checks, bank 7 checks or money orders or investment securities or negotiable 8 instruments in a form that allows ownership to transfer on 9 delivery. 10 Interstate or foreign commerce means trade or other 11 business activity between people or businesses in at least two 12 states or between people or businesses in the United States and 13 people or businesses outside the United States. 14 To know that the money or property involved in the 15 transaction came from some kind of unlawful activity is to know 16 that the money or property came from an activity that's a felony 17 under state, federal or foreign law. 18 The term "proceeds" means any property derived from or 19 obtained or retained directly or indirectly through some form of 20 unlawful activity including the gross receipts of the activity. 21 The phrase "specified unlawful activity" means the wire 22 fraud schemes charged in Counts 1 and 2 of the indictment. The 23 term "monetary transactions" means the deposit, withdrawal, 24 transfer or exchange of funds or monetary instrument by, through 25 or to a financial institute in a way that affects interstate Case 4:22-cr-00084-LGW-BWC Document 110 Filed 04/30/23 Page 63 of 84 370 1 2 commerce. A financial institute means an insured bank. It doesn't matter whether the defendant knew the precise 3 nature of the crime or that the property came from committing 4 fraud schemes involving COVID-19 stimulus funds including EIDL 5 funds and PPP funds, but the Government must prove that the 6 defendant knew that the property involved in the monetary 7 transaction was obtained or derived from committing some crime. 8 Also it doesn't matter whether all the property involved was 9 derived from a crime. 10 $10,000.00 worth of the property was obtained or derived from 11 committing a crime. 12 The Government only has to prove that A conspiracy, as you've heard, is an agreement by two or 13 more people to commit an unlawful act. 14 kind of partnership for criminal purposes. 15 conspiracy becomes the agent of every other member. 16 Government does not have to prove that all the people identified 17 in the indictment were members of the plan or that those who 18 were members made any kind of formal agreement. 19 In other words, it is a Every member of the And the The heart of the conspiracy is the making of the 20 unlawful plan itself. 21 that the conspirators succeeded in carrying out the plan. 22 So the Government does not have to prove The defendant can be found guilty of this crime only if 23 all the following facts are proved beyond a reasonable doubt: 24 Number 1, two or more people agreed to try to accomplish a 25 common and unlawful plan to violate 18 United States Code Case 4:22-cr-00084-LGW-BWC Document 110 Filed 04/30/23 Page 64 of 84 371 1 Sections 1956 and 1957; and second, the defendant knew about the 2 plan's unlawful purpose and voluntarily joined in it. 3 A person may be a conspirator even without knowing all 4 the details of the unlawful plan or the names and identities of 5 all the other alleged conspirators. 6 only a minor part in the plan but had a general understanding of 7 the unlawful purpose of the plan and voluntarily joined in the 8 plan on at least one occasion, that's sufficient for you to find 9 the defendant guilty, but simply being present at the scene of 10 an event or merely associating with certain people and 11 discussing common goals and interests does not establish proof 12 of a conspiracy. 13 conspiracy but happens to act in a way that advances some 14 purpose of one doesn't automatically become a conspirator. 15 If the defendant played Also, a person who doesn't know about a The evidence may show that some of the persons involved 16 in the alleged conspiracy are not on trial. 17 requirement that all members of a conspiracy be charged or tried 18 together in one proceeding. 19 There is no A single human cannot be convicted of a conspiracy 20 involving only that one human and corporate entities he 21 controls. 22 conspire with another human or with an entity which he does not 23 control. To be convicted of a conspiracy, one human must 24 If a conspirator's knowledge of a fact is an essential 25 part of a crime, it's enough that the conspiracy was aware of a Case 4:22-cr-00084-LGW-BWC Document 110 Filed 04/30/23 Page 65 of 84 372 1 high probability that the fact existed unless the conspirator 2 actually believed the fact didn't exist. 3 Deliberate avoidance of a positive knowledge, which is 4 the equivalent of knowledge, occurs, for example, if a witness 5 possesses a package and believes it contains a controlled 6 substance but deliberately avoids learning that it contains a 7 controlled substance so that he or she can deny knowledge of the 8 controlled substance. 9 So you may find the conspirator knew about the unlawful 10 purpose of the plan if you determine beyond a reasonable doubt 11 that the conspirator, one, actually knew about the unlawful 12 purpose of the plan; or, two, had every reason to know but 13 deliberately closed his eyes, but I must emphasize that 14 negligence, carelessness or foolishness isn't enough to prove 15 that the conspirator knew about the unlawful purpose of the 16 plan. 17 Good faith is a complete defense to a charge that 18 requires intent to defraud. 19 good faith. 20 a reasonable doubt. 21 A defendant isn't required to prove The Government must prove intent to defraud beyond An honestly held opinion or an honestly formed belief 22 cannot be fraudulent intent even if the opinion or belief is 23 mistaken. 24 error in management or carelessness can't establish fraudulent 25 intent. Similarly, evidence of a mistake in judgment, an Case 4:22-cr-00084-LGW-BWC Document 110 Filed 04/30/23 Page 66 of 84 373 1 But an honest belief that a business venture would 2 ultimately succeed doesn't constitute good faith if the 3 defendant intended to deceive others by making representations 4 the defendant knew to be false or fraudulent. 5 You will see that the indictment charges that a crime 6 was committed on or about a certain date. 7 doesn't have to prove that the crime occurred on an exact date. 8 The Government only has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that 9 the crime was committed on a date reasonably close to the date 10 alleged. 11 The Government The word "knowingly," that means that an act was done 12 voluntarily and intentionally and not because of a mistake or an 13 accident. 14 The word "willfully" means that the act was committed 15 voluntarily and purposely with the intent to do something the 16 law forbids, that is, with the bad purpose to disobey or 17 disregard the law. 18 While a person must have acted with the intent to do 19 something the law forbids, before you can find the person acted 20 willfully, the person need not be aware of the specific law or 21 rule his conduct may be violating. 22 If a witness is questioned about earlier statements or 23 testimony the witness made, the questioning is permitted to aid 24 you in evaluating the truth or accuracy of the witness' 25 testimony at this trial. A witness' earlier testimony or Case 4:22-cr-00084-LGW-BWC Document 110 Filed 04/30/23 Page 67 of 84 374 1 statements are not ordinarily offered or received as evidence of 2 their truth or accuracy. 3 comparison and to help you decide whether you believe the 4 witness' testimony, and whether those prior statements are 5 consistent or inconsistent with the witness' trial testimony is 6 entirely up to you. They are pointed out to give you a 7 You've been permitted to take notes during the trial, 8 and some of you, perhaps most of you, have taken advantage of 9 that opportunity. 10 memory aid during deliberations. 11 priority over your independent recollection of the evidence. 12 Recall that you must use your notes only as a You must not give your notes And you must not allow yourself to be unduly influenced 13 by the notes of other jurors. 14 entitled to any greater weight than your memories or impressions 15 about the testimony. 16 I emphasize that notes are not Now your verdict, whether guilty or not guilty, must be 17 unanimous. 18 deliberations are secret and you will never have to explain your 19 verdict to anyone. 20 In other words, you must all agree. Your Each of you must decide the case for yourself but only 21 after fully considering the evidence with the other jurors. 22 you must discuss the case with one another and try to reach an 23 agreement. 24 25 So While you're discussing the case, don't hesitate to reexamine your own opinion and change your mind if you become Case 4:22-cr-00084-LGW-BWC Document 110 Filed 04/30/23 Page 68 of 84 375 1 convinced that you're wrong but don't give up your honest 2 beliefs just because others think differently or because you 3 simply want to get the case over with. 4 Remember that, in a very real way, you're judges. 5 You're judges of the facts. 6 truth from the evidence in the case. 7 Your only interest is to seek the When you get to the jury room, choose one of your 8 members to act as a foreperson. 9 your deliberations and will speak for you in court. 10 Your foreperson will direct As you've heard, there is a verdict form that has been 11 prepared for your convenience, and each of you will likewise get 12 a copy of the verdict form. It leads you through consideration 13 of each of the three counts. It gives you the option of 14 deciding whether the defendant is either guilty or not guilty as 15 to Count 1, whether the defendant is either guilty or not guilty 16 as to Count 2, and as to Count 3, it likewise gives you the 17 option of finding whether the defendant is guilty or not guilty 18 of that count. 19 If you were to find that the defendant was not guilty of 20 Count 3, that would complete your consideration of that count. 21 If you find that the defendant is guilty of Count 3, then there 22 is a further consideration and they ask you to check boxes that 23 apply. 24 25 Once you have reached a unanimous verdict, your foreperson will fill out the verdict form according to that Case 4:22-cr-00084-LGW-BWC Document 110 Filed 04/30/23 Page 69 of 84 376 1 unanimous verdict. 2 and you will let the marshal know that you've reached a verdict. 3 4 That foreperson will sign and date the form At that point you will be returned to the courtroom so that we can hear the verdict. 5 Counsel, to sidebar very quickly. 6 (The following occurred at sidebar.) 7 THE COURT: 8 My question to you is simply: Did I read that correctly? 9 MR. OSSICK: Yes. 10 THE COURT: All right, thank you. 11 (The following occurred in open court.) 12 THE COURT: Mr. Tiller, Juror Number 52, and Mr. 13 Scherrer, Juror Number 47, you are our alternates, and so during 14 the deliberation, I'm going to ask the marshal to keep you in a 15 separate area. 16 As for the remaining 12, it is now time to discuss the 17 case with one another to reach a verdict. 18 Let's rise for this jury. 19 (The jury exits the courtroom.) 20 THE COURT: Counsel, two points, I do require that you 21 remain in the courthouse until we receive a verdict or if we get 22 any questions. 23 certain distance, I will excuse you for lunch for a certain 24 amount of time. 25 There will come a point where, if we've gone a I'm not going to do that just yet. Second point is I need you when we recess to approach Case 4:22-cr-00084-LGW-BWC Document 110 Filed 04/30/23 Page 70 of 84 377 1 Ms. Sharp and together confirm on the record that the evidence 2 we have to send back to the jury room is all the evidence and 3 only the evidence that they should be considering during their 4 deliberations, so I will have you take a look at that, confirm 5 on the record that we have the right evidence going back. 6 7 With that, we will be in recess pending receipt of a verdict or a question by the jury. 8 (Honorable Lisa Godbey Wood exits the courtroom.) 9 THE CLERK: Ms. Gilbert, I'm going to try to go in 10 order. So let's start with -- I'm going to stand in between 11 you. And then you can look. 12 Will that work? So as I will just flip through the each exhibit, the tag 13 on the front, I will go through and call them out by number. 14 there's a mistake or if there's a wrong one, if you will please 15 say, "That's the wrong one." 16 I'm going to assume it is the correct one. 17 MS. STANLEY: 18 THE CLERK: If If not, if you don't say anything Okay. We will start with Government's Exhibit 1A, 19 1B, 1C, 1D, 1E, 1F, 1G, 1H, 1I, 1J, 2A, 2B, 2C. 20 for the first notebook? 21 MR. OSSICK: Yes. 22 THE CLERK: Yes for the Defense? 23 MR. OSSICK: Yes. 24 THE CLERK: Yes for the Government? 25 MS. STANLEY: Yes. Is that correct Case 4:22-cr-00084-LGW-BWC Document 110 Filed 04/30/23 Page 71 of 84 378 1 THE CLERK: So we will pick up with Government's 2D, 2E, 2 2F, 2G, 2H, 2I, and 2J. Is that correct, for the second 3 notebook for the Defense? 4 MR. OSSICK: Yes. 5 THE CLERK: For the Government? 6 MS. STANLEY: 7 THE CLERK: Yes. So we will pick up with Government's 3A, 3B, 8 3C, 3D, and if you need to -- 9 MR. OSSICK: No. 10 THE CLERK: If either one of you -- 3E, 4A, 4B, that 11 concludes this notebook; is that correct, for the Defense? 12 MR. OSSICK: Yes. 13 THE CLERK: Correct for the Government? 14 MS. STANLEY: 15 THE CLERK: 16 That doesn't have a tag. 17 5F. Yes. This is Government's 5A, 5B, 5C, 5D, 5E, 5F. Back up, 5E, and this is 5F so Government's 6. 18 MR. JOSEPHSON: 19 THE CLERK: 20 MS. STANLEY: 21 THE CLERK: 22 23 24 25 This is Government's 5E. No, that's Good? Yeah. Government 7. Yeah. Government 8, which will go back in electronic form. MS. STANLEY: Where is the signed one? actually entered but it's the same thing. THE CLERK: Okay. Good? This is only Case 4:22-cr-00084-LGW-BWC Document 110 Filed 04/30/23 Page 72 of 84 379 1 MS. STANLEY: 2 THE CLERK: 3 Yes. We move on to Government's 10, 11A, 11B, 11C, 11D, 11E, and 11F. 4 MR. OSSICK: Okay. 5 THE CLERK: That concludes this notebook; is that 6 correct, for the Defense? 7 MR. OSSICK: Yes. 8 THE CLERK: Correct for the Government? 9 MS. STANLEY: 10 THE CLERK: Yes. Next to the last one. The last notebook, so 11 we will start with Government's 11G, 11H, 12A, 12B, 12C, 12D, 12 12E, 12F, 12G, 12H, 12I, 12J, 12K, 12L, 13, 14, 15, which is 13 electronic evidence only, not in the notebook. 14 15 MS. STANLEY: I'm so sorry, that signed disk is 15, not 8. 16 THE CLERK: 17 MS. STANLEY: 18 THE CLERK: 19 MS. STANLEY: 20 THE CLERK: 21 Government's 16A, 16B, 16C, 17A, 17B, 17C, 17D, 18, 19 22 That's my disk, I'm going to put that there. I apologize. I'm confusing them. This one is marked 15. Yes. Has a tag on the back. and 20. 23 MR. OSSICK: Okay, yes. 24 THE CLERK: Correct for the Defense? 25 MR. OSSICK: Correct. Case 4:22-cr-00084-LGW-BWC Document 110 Filed 04/30/23 Page 73 of 84 380 1 THE CLERK: Correct for the Government? 2 MS. STANLEY: 3 THE CLERK: Yes. One last thing, I will have you look at this 4 form of the indictment and confirm that is the correct one to go 5 back to the jury. 6 MR. OSSICK: No, it is not. 7 MS. STANLEY: It should be the clean copy. 8 THE CLERK: 9 already have it. 10 11 I will forward it to you, although I think I MS. STANLEY: That's the one that goes with the set, John. 12 (Off the record.) 13 THE CLERK: If you will all take a look at that. 14 MR. OSSICK: You check it. 15 THE CLERK: Please make sure to go page by page. 16 MS. STANLEY: Okay, it's fine with us. 17 MR. OSSICK: I'm good. 18 MS. STANLEY: It was right. 19 THE CLERK: It was right. The bank fraud. Mr. Ossick, if you will look over it to 20 confirm on the record that is the correct indictment to go back 21 to the jury. 22 MR. OSSICK: Yes. 23 THE CLERK: This is the correct copy. 24 25 you-all. (Recess from 11:57 a.m. to 12:18 p.m.) All right, thank Case 4:22-cr-00084-LGW-BWC Document 110 Filed 04/30/23 Page 74 of 84 381 1 THE COURT: Counsel, the jury has reached a verdict. 2 One thing I will say before we have them come in, I want to 3 again commend all the attorneys for an excellent job. 4 Ossick and Mr. Josephson have tried cases before me before and 5 so I knew they would be their customary excellent advocate, but 6 Ms. Stanley, it's her first time in my court and you have done a 7 very professional and impressive job, and so I commend all three 8 attorneys. Mr. 9 With that, let's bring in the jury. 10 (The jury enters the courtroom.) 11 THE COURT: 12 Mr. Foreperson, has the jury reached a verdict? 13 JUROR NUMBER 32: 14 THE COURT: 15 JUROR NUMBER 32: 16 THE COURT: 17 marshal. 18 Good afternoon, members of the jury. We have, Your Honor. Is it unanimous? It is, Your Honor. If you will hand the verdict sheet to the Ms. Sharp, publish the verdict. THE CLERK: In the United States District Court for the 19 Southern District of Georgia Savannah Division, United States of 20 America versus Bernard Okojie, 4:22-CR-84, verdict form. 21 Count 1, conspiracy to commit wire fraud, 18 USC Section 22 1349. 23 charged in Count 1. 24 25 We the jury find the defendant Bernard Okojie guilty as Count 2, wire fraud, 18 USC Section 1343 and 2. We the jury find the defendant Bernard Okojie guilty as charged in Case 4:22-cr-00084-LGW-BWC Document 110 Filed 04/30/23 Page 75 of 84 382 1 Count 2. 2 Count 3, conspiracy to commit money laundering, 18 USC 3 Section 1956(h). We the jury find the defendant Bernard Okojie 4 guilty as charged in Count 3. 5 defendant Bernard Okojie guilty of the offense charged in Count 6 3, further find with respect to Count 3 that the objects of the 7 conspiracy were to conceal or disguise the nature, location, 8 source, ownership or the control of the proceeds of fraud 9 schemes involving COVID-19 programs, to engage in monetary 10 transactions with a financial institution and proceeds of fraud, 11 schemes involving COVID-19 program in the amount of more than 12 $10,000.00. We the jury, having found the So say we all, signed this date by the foreperson. 13 THE COURT: Ms. Sharp, if you will poll the jurors. 14 THE CLERK: As your name is read, if you will please 15 stand and answer the questions that shall be asked of you. 16 17 Denise Carter, is the verdict as read and published still your verdict? 18 JUROR NUMBER 11: 19 THE CLERK: 20 JUROR NUMBER 11: 21 THE CLERK: Yes. Was it freely and voluntarily given? Yes. Thank you. You may be seated. Heather 22 Stanley, is the verdict as read and published still your 23 verdict? 24 JUROR NUMBER 50: 25 THE CLERK: Yes. Was it freely and voluntarily given? Case 4:22-cr-00084-LGW-BWC Document 110 Filed 04/30/23 Page 76 of 84 383 1 JUROR NUMBER 50: 2 THE CLERK: 3 Chelsea Boone, is the verdict as read and published 4 Thank you. still your verdict? 5 JUROR NUMBER 5: 6 THE CLERK: 7 JUROR NUMBER 5: 8 THE CLERK: 9 Yes. Yes. Was it freely and voluntarily given? Yes. Gregory Skipper, is the verdict as read and published still your verdict? 10 JUROR NUMBER 48: 11 THE CLERK: 12 JUROR NUMBER 48: 13 THE CLERK: 14 Michael Norris, is the verdict as read and published 15 Was it freely and voluntarily given? Yes. Thank you. still your verdict? 16 JUROR NUMBER 39: 17 THE CLERK: 18 JUROR NUMBER 39: 19 THE CLERK: 20 Yes. Yes. Was it freely and voluntarily given? Yes. Honey Hall, is the verdict as read and published still your verdict? 21 JUROR NUMBER 23: Yes. 22 THE CLERK: 23 JUROR NUMBER 23: 24 THE CLERK: 25 Christopher Long, is the verdict as read and published Was it freely and voluntarily given? Yes. Thank you. Case 4:22-cr-00084-LGW-BWC Document 110 Filed 04/30/23 Page 77 of 84 384 1 still your verdict? 2 JUROR NUMBER 32: 3 THE CLERK: 4 JUROR NUMBER 32: 5 THE CLERK: 6 Was it freely and voluntarily given? published still your verdict? JUROR NUMBER 18: 8 THE CLERK: 9 JUROR NUMBER 18: 10 THE CLERK: Yes. Was it freely and voluntarily given? Yes, ma'am. Travis Cristobal, is the verdict as read and published still your verdict? 12 JUROR NUMBER 16: 13 THE CLERK: 14 JUROR NUMBER 16: 15 THE CLERK: 16 Yes, ma'am. Patrick Dempsey, is the verdict as read and 7 11 Yes. Yes. Was it freely and voluntarily given? Yes. Leonard Hepburn, is the verdict as read and published still your verdict? 17 JUROR NUMBER 25: 18 THE CLERK: 19 JUROR NUMBER 25: 20 THE CLERK: Yes. Was it freely and voluntarily given? Yes. Anthony Berry, is the verdict as read and 21 published still your verdict? 22 JUROR NUMBER 3: 23 THE CLERK: 24 JUROR NUMBER 3: 25 THE CLERK: Yes. Was it freely and voluntarily given? Yes. Thank you. Case 4:22-cr-00084-LGW-BWC Document 110 Filed 04/30/23 Page 78 of 84 385 1 2 Alexander McIntosh, is the verdict as read and published still your verdict? 3 JUROR NUMBER 37: 4 THE CLERK: 5 JUROR NUMBER 37: 6 THE COURT: Yes. Was it freely and voluntarily given? Yes. Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I can 7 excuse you and I will excuse you with the sincere thanks of the 8 court, not for a particular verdict because that's entirely your 9 province, but for your sustained professionalism, attention, 10 punctuality. 11 actions there in the jury box. 12 appointed occasion. 13 perform your civic duty when called upon because you have done 14 so this week. It was clear that you listened carefully by your All of you were on time at each No one will have to ask whether you will 15 Let's rise for this jury. 16 (The jury exits the courtroom.) 17 THE COURT: 18 19 Mr. Ossick and Mr. Okojie, if you will approach the lectern. Mr. Okojie, as you've heard, the jury has found you 20 guilty as to Counts 1, 2 and 3 of the indictment. Their verdict 21 will be made the judgment of The Court. 22 days from today's date in which to file any motion such as a 23 motion for new trial or a motion for judgment of acquittal. 24 Should you desire to do that, you're entitled to an attorney to 25 help you make that, any such motion, at no charge to you if you You have a period of 14 Case 4:22-cr-00084-LGW-BWC Document 110 Filed 04/30/23 Page 79 of 84 386 1 can't afford one. Mr. Ossick, you are to continue in your role. 2 I understand you're appointed; is that correct? 3 MR. OSSICK: Yes. 4 THE COURT: So you're instructed to continue in your 5 role as Mr. Okojie's appointed counsel to help him with any such 6 motion. 7 At some time in the future, Mr. Okojie, you will meet 8 with the presentence investigating officer who will conduct a 9 report and issue a report to the Defense and to the Government, 10 and at some point thereafter, after you've had a chance to 11 discuss it with Mr. Ossick and make any objections that you see 12 fit, we will meet again to have your sentencing. 13 After sentence is pronounced, if you are dissatisfied 14 with your conviction, you will have a period of 14 days from the 15 date of your sentencing to file a notice of appeal, and again if 16 you do want to file an appeal, you're entitled to make one with 17 the assistance of an attorney if you can't afford one, and Mr. 18 Ossick, you are instructed to remain as his appointed attorney 19 to assist him with any appeal; understand? 20 THE DEFENDANT: 21 THE COURT: 22 THE DEFENDANT: 23 THE COURT: 24 25 Yes, ma'am. Any questions about that? No. Let me hear from all concerned regarding custody status beginning with you, Mr. Riggs? MR. RIGGS: Your Honor, Mr. Okojie resides in McDonough, Case 4:22-cr-00084-LGW-BWC Document 110 Filed 04/30/23 Page 80 of 84 387 1 and he is actually under supervision in the Northern District of 2 Georgia. 3 surety, Mr. McAlpin of Lithonia. 4 between Mr. Okojie and Mr. McAlpin, whether he's a family member 5 or some other relationship. 6 We do have his passports so we would recommend that he be 7 allowed to remain on bond. 8 THE COURT: His bond is $10,000.00 secured by a third-party I don't know the relationship There have been no bond violations. You spoke in the plural. Is there a 9 Nigerian and American passport? 10 PROBATION OFFICER RIGGS: 11 THE COURT: 12 PROBATION OFFICER RIGGS: 13 THE COURT: Are there any aliases that are -- 14 MR. RIGGS: Not that I am aware of. 15 THE COURT: Mr. Josephson? 16 MR. JOSEPHSON: 17 18 There are, Your Honor. And you have both? Yes, Your Honor. Your Honor, Ms. Stanley is going to address that. MS. STANLEY: Your Honor, we would request that the 19 defendant be remanded. 20 He possesses I believe a US passport and a Nigerian passport. 21 THE COURT: He is most seriously a risk of flight. Let me ask you, though, because I've just 22 heard that, although those have been issued to him, they are no 23 longer in his possession. 24 MS. STANLEY: 25 THE COURT: Okay, I apologize, I misunderstood. They are in the possession of Probation. Case 4:22-cr-00084-LGW-BWC Document 110 Filed 04/30/23 Page 81 of 84 388 1 2 3 MR. RIGGS: That's the representation I've been given from the Northern District of Georgia Probation Office. MR. OSSICK: My understanding is that was done in 4 connection with the transfer of the case or the appearance in 5 the district following transfer. 6 THE COURT: 7 THE DEFENDANT: 8 THE COURT: 9 THE DEFENDANT: 10 THE COURT: 11 And Mr. Okojie, is that your understanding? Do you have any passports? possession? THE DEFENDANT: 13 THE COURT: 15 No, ma'am. You only have the two and those are in their 12 14 Yes, ma'am. Yes, ma'am. Given that, Ms. Stanley, what is the Government's position? MS. STANLEY: We would still ask that he be remanded. I 16 believe he is still a flight risk, Your Honor. The testimony 17 we've heard at trial and the evidence shows he's adept at making 18 fake documents, and I think that is relevant in considering 19 whether he might have other means to flee either this district 20 or the country. 21 THE COURT: And Mr. Ossick, what is your position? 22 MR. OSSICK: We would, of course, ask that he be allowed 23 to remain on the conditions that have been imposed. He's been 24 in full compliance and I would expect him to continue to do so. 25 Ask that you do so. Case 4:22-cr-00084-LGW-BWC Document 110 Filed 04/30/23 Page 82 of 84 389 1 THE COURT: Mr. Riggs, is it possible to add with his 2 situation an ankle monitor? 3 MR. RIGGS: Sure, yes, Your Honor. 4 THE COURT: Okay. Well, having heard from everyone, 5 pursuant to 18 USC Section 3143(a), I do find by clear and 6 convincing evidence that with the introduction and utilization 7 of an ankle monitor that Mr. Okojie can remain on bond pending 8 sentencing. 9 be appropriate. 10 safety to anyone. 11 With that additional condition, I find that it will I don't find that there's a risk or a danger of I am for the reasons identified by Ms. Stanley alert to 12 the possibility of flight, but I am convinced that with ankle 13 monitoring that can be ameliorated. 14 MR. RIGGS: Your Honor, just to clarify, the level of 15 restriction, The Court intends home incarceration such that he 16 not leave or home detention such that he's able to leave with 17 the appropriate permission from the probation officer? 18 19 THE COURT: The latter, that he be allowed to leave his home with the permission of Probation. 20 MR. RIGGS: Yes, Your Honor. 21 THE COURT: All right. 22 Any objection to proceeding in that fashion on behalf of the United States? 23 MS. STANLEY: No, Your Honor. 24 THE COURT: On behalf of the Defense? 25 MR. OSSICK: No. Case 4:22-cr-00084-LGW-BWC Document 110 Filed 04/30/23 Page 83 of 84 390 1 THE COURT: Mr. Okojie, you understand, I am going to 2 allow you to remain under the conditions of your bond pending 3 sentence. 4 you could do at this point is to violate the conditions of bond. I want to tell you personally that the worst thing 5 THE DEFENDANT: 6 THE COURT: 7 Yes, ma'am. The repercussions would be horrific for you; understand? 8 THE DEFENDANT: 9 THE COURT: Yes, ma'am. They would result not only in you being 10 apprehended immediately by the marshals but it would open up a 11 whole new level of culpability for you; understand? 12 THE DEFENDANT: 13 THE COURT: Yes, ma'am. With that understanding, then I want you to 14 visit with Probation before you leave the courthouse so that we 15 can implement those conditions of bond, and with that, before I 16 say we're in recess, I want to specifically thank our two 17 alternate jurors who were with us throughout the whole trial 18 except for the last part. 19 you with the thanks of The Court. You served as well, and I can excuse 20 All right, with that, we will be in recess. 21 (Proceeding concluded at 12:32 p.m.) 22 23 24 25 Case 4:22-cr-00084-LGW-BWC Document 110 Filed 04/30/23 Page 84 of 84 391 1 CERTIFICATION 2 3 I certify that the foregoing is a true and correct 4 transcript of the stenographic record of the above-mentioned 5 matter. 6 7 9 __________________________________ 04/28/2023 10 Debra Gilbert, Court Reporter Date 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
File and source
- File
- gov.uscourts.gasd.87222.110.0.pdf
- Size
- 561,941 bytes
- SHA-256
- 24ef730ec9a1449546f091c17ba6e7eb9b563b78a98248b5f9b1b233a1cc1b6c
- Original
- PACER (login required)