Pretrial Detention Order — United States v. Bully (S.D. Fla.)

Record facts

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida · No. 9:23-cr-80141-DMM · Doc. 9 · 2023-08-23 · Docket on CourtListener

Full text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 
 
 
Case No. 23-cr-80141-MIDDLEBROOKS/MATTHEWMAN 
 
 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 
 
v. 
 
EMMANUEL BULLY, JR., 
 
Defendant. 
_____________________________________/ 
 
 
 
PRETRIAL DETENTION ORDER 
 
The Court, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3142, commonly known as the Bail Reform Act of 
1984, hereby ORDERS the Defendant, EMMANUEL BULLY, JR., detained pursuant to the 
provisions of Sections (b), (e) and (f).  
Defendant appeared before the Court on August 22, 2023, for a detention hearing. The 
Government moved for pretrial detention of Defendant on the basis that he presents a serious risk 
of flight under 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f)(2)(A). The Court finds by a preponderance of the evidence that 
the Government does have the right to move for detention pursuant to that statutory section in light 
of the facts of this case. After conducting a detention hearing in this case on August 22, 2023, and 
carefully considering all of the factors under 3142(g), the Court specifically finds that Defendant 
is a serious risk of flight and nonappearance if released and that there are no conditions or 
combination of conditions which will reasonably assure the appearance of Defendant as required. 
The Court makes the following findings of fact with respect to this order for detention: 
 
 
 
SW
Aug 23, 2023
WPB
Case 9:23-cr-80141-DMM   Document 9   Entered on FLSD Docket 08/23/2023   Page 1 of 5

Factors: 
a) 
The nature and circumstances of the offense charged, including whether the 
offense is a crime of violence or involves a narcotic drug. 
 
Defendant is charged by Indictment [DE 5] with six counts of wire fraud, in violation of 
18 U.S.C. § 1343 (Counts 1 through 6). If convicted of Counts 1 through 6, as to each Count, 
Defendant is facing up to twenty (20) years in prison, up to three (3) years of supervised release, 
and up to a $250,000 fine or twice the value of the gross gain or loss resulting from the offense, 
whichever is greater. 
b) 
The weight of the evidence against Defendant. 
The weight of the evidence against Defendant is substantial. The Court takes judicial notice 
of the Indictment [DE 5] and the Criminal Complaint and Affidavit [DE 1] in case number 23-mj-
8415-WM. The following evidence was established by the Indictment, the Criminal Complaint 
and Affidavit, and the Government’s proffer. 
Beginning in 2020, Defendant participated in a scheme and artifice to unlawfully enrich 
himself by submitting false and fraudulent applications in connection with the Economic Injury 
Disaster Loan (“EIDL”) program and the Paycheck Protection Program (“PPP”). Specifically, 
Defendant obtained EIDL/PPP loans based on three businesses of which he was the sole owner 
and controlling individual. In this regard, Defendant submitted loan applications that improperly 
stated the number of employees and income tied to the three businesses, ultimately obtaining 
approximately $500,000 in funds that was deposited into bank accounts controlled solely by 
Defendant. 
Notably, Defendant tried to obtain approximately $1.4 million in EIDL and PPP loans, and 
none of the businesses for which Defendant claimed EIDL and PPP loans had employees other 
than Defendant. Moreover, relevant bank records demonstrate that Defendant did not spend the 
Case 9:23-cr-80141-DMM   Document 9   Entered on FLSD Docket 08/23/2023   Page 2 of 5

 
 
3 
loan funds on any legitimate business interests and utilized the money for his own purposes. To 
this end, videos from the bank show Defendant using debit cards in connection with the accounts 
and loan funds. 
With this information in mind, on August 9, 2023, Defendant was interviewed in his 
penthouse apartment in Miami concerning the false and fraudulent loans. Defendant acknowledged 
that he received false and fraudulent loans and that he was the owner of the businesses listed in the 
Indictment. Further, during this interview, Defendant was asked if he had any travel plans, to which 
he stated that he did not. Defendant also refused to surrender his passport despite being requested 
to do so in good faith. 
Around this same time, Defendant was served with a target letter. Subsequently, on August 
15, 2023, the FBI spoke with Defendant, whereupon Defendant acknowledged he had received the 
target letter. Later that same day, Defendant booked a one-way flight to London leaving on August 
16, 2023. Defendant was then arrested on August 16, 2023 at the airport, with travel documents 
and approximately $600 in cash. 
c) 
The history and characteristics of Defendant. 
The Court takes judicial notice of the handwritten Abbreviated Pretrial Services Report 
and the typed Pretrial Services Report. Defendant is a naturalized United States citizen, but he was 
born in Haiti and therefore could likely obtain Haitian citizenship in the event he wished to do so. 
Defendant travels extensively, as proffered by both Government counsel and defense 
counsel. Moreover, Defendant has strong ties to the community, as his mother and father live in 
South Florida and both he and his brother attended high school in Palm Beach County. Defendant 
also has strong family support. In this regard, Defendant’s brother Mike Bully traveled from 
Case 9:23-cr-80141-DMM   Document 9   Entered on FLSD Docket 08/23/2023   Page 3 of 5

 
 
4 
Philadelphia to testify in support of Defendant. Defendant also had a friend present in Court in 
support. 
d) 
The criminal history of Defendant. 
Defendant has a short criminal history. Specifically, back in 2001, Defendant was charged 
with shoplifting, with the disposition of that case being unknown. In 2011, Defendant was 
adjudicated guilty of driving under the influence and sentenced to 12 months of probation. And in 
2013, Defendant was adjudicated guilty of driving on the wrong lane or side. 
e) 
The likelihood of Defendant’s appearance in court if released. 
This Court finds that there is no condition or combination of conditions of release that will 
reasonably assure Defendant’s presence if Defendant is released. The Court also finds that there is 
a serious risk that Defendant will flee and fail to appear if released. Based on the nature of the 
charges, the weight of the evidence, the prison sentence Defendant is facing if convicted, 
Defendant’s ties to Haiti, the difficulties inherent in extraditing the Defendant from Haiti should 
he flee there, his long history of international travel, and the fact that Defendant was apprehended 
at the airport after being served with a target letter and informing the FBI that he had no travel 
plans, this Court finds that Defendant is a serious risk of flight and nonappearance if released. 
Indeed, this is the relatively rare case where there is evidence of actual flight.1 The Court therefore 
 
1 In this case, the Court has been presented with evidence of actual attempted flight by the Defendant. As established 
at the hearing, after Defendant was interviewed by the agents and given a Target Letter, and after Defendant advised 
the agents he had no travel plans and yet refused to relinquish his passport to the agents when requested, and after the 
agents again contacted him to ascertain if he had hired an attorney, the Defendant then took it upon himself to promptly 
book a flight to London and head to Miami International Airport in an obvious effort to flee the jurisdiction before the 
agents could arrest him. Unfortunately for the Defendant, the agents were alert and were able to arrest the Defendant 
at the airport as he was waiting to board his flight to London. Under these facts, the Court simply cannot order the 
Defendant released and Defendant must be detained. 
Case 9:23-cr-80141-DMM   Document 9   Entered on FLSD Docket 08/23/2023   Page 4 of 5

 
 
5 
finds that the Government has proven that Defendant is a serious risk of flight or nonappearance 
by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that Defendant be committed to the custody of the 
Attorney General for confinement in a corrections facility separate, to the extent practicable, from 
persons awaiting or serving sentences or being held in custody pending appeal. The Court directs 
that Defendant be afforded reasonable opportunity for private consultation with counsel; and the 
Court directs that, on order of a court of the United States or on request of an attorney for the 
government, the person in charge of the corrections facility in which Defendant is confined deliver 
Defendant to a United States Marshal for the purpose of an appearance in connection with a court 
proceeding. 
DONE and ORDERED in Chambers at West Palm Beach in the Southern District  
 
of Florida, this 23rd day of August, 2023. 
 
 
WILLIAM MATTHEWMAN  
United States Magistrate Judge 
Case 9:23-cr-80141-DMM   Document 9   Entered on FLSD Docket 08/23/2023   Page 5 of 5

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.flsd.652569.9.0.pdf

Size

143,761 bytes

SHA-256

5aff3551dab37cfa2e57300e372210ca9dd9b6be66149befcb1b35130136a454

Our copy

gov.uscourts.flsd.652569.9.0.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)