Preliminary Order of Forfeiture — United States v. Cindi Ellis Denton (S.D. Fla.)

Record facts

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida · No. 0:21-cr-60171-RS · Doc. 52 · 2021-10-09 · Docket on CourtListener

Full text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 
 
CASE NO. 21-cr-60171-SMITH 
 
 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 
 
v.  
 
CINDI ELLIS DENTON,  
 
 
 
Defendant. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
PRELIMINARY ORDER OF FORFEITURE 
 
THIS MATTER is before the Court upon motion of the United States of America (the 
“United States”) for entry of a Preliminary Order of Forfeiture (“Motion”) against Defendant Cindi 
Ellis Denton (the “Defendant”).  The Court has considered the Motion, is otherwise advised in the 
premises, and finds as follows: 
On June 21, 2021, the United States filed an Information charging the Defendant with 
conspiracy to commit wire fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371.  Information, ECF No. 20.  The 
Information also contained forfeiture allegations, which alleged that upon conviction of a violation 
of 18 U.S.C. § 371, the Defendant shall forfeit any proceeds the defendant obtained, directly or 
indirectly, as the result of such violation pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 982(a)(2)(A).  See id. at 6.  
On July 22, 2021, the Court accepted the Defendant’s guilty plea to the Information.  See 
Minute Entry, ECF No. 31; Plea Agreement ¶ 1, ECF No. 33.  As part of the guilty plea, the 
Defendant agreed to the entry forfeiture money judgment in the amount of $491,310.001 against 
 
1 As discussed further below, the United States subsequently confirmed that the victim financial 
institution was able to recover $113,507.88.  Therefore, the United States seeks a forfeiture money 
judgment in the amount of $377,802.12. 
Case 0:21-cr-60171-RS   Document 52   Entered on FLSD Docket 10/09/2021   Page 1 of 3

2 
her. Plea Agreement ¶¶ 13.  
In support of the guilty plea, the Defendant executed a Factual Proffer, and the Court found 
that there was a factual basis to support the Defendant’s conviction.  See Factual Proffer, ECF No. 
34. The Factual Proffer also provided a basis for the forfeiture of property.  See id. at 2. 
As described in the Defendant’s Factual Proffer, from in or around June 2020, though in 
or around at least September 2020, the Defendant knowingly and willfully conspired with 
Individual 1, Individual 2, and others to submit and cause the submission of millions of dollars’ 
worth of fraudulent Paycheck Protection Program (“PPP”) loans.  Factual Proffer at 1, ECF No. 
34.  The Defendant caused the submission of a PPP loan on behalf of her company, Emerald Jade 
Solutions, Inc. (“Emerald Jade”), that the Defendant knew contained materially false information.  
Id. at 2.  As a result of the knowingly and willfully false representations made by the Defendant 
and her coconspirators in the loan documents, Bank Processor 1 approved the Emerald Jade loan, 
which Bank 1 funded by making an electronic wire transfer in the amount of $491,310.00 to the 
Emerald Jade bank account on June 3, 2020.  Id.  
The United States subsequently learned that in November 2020, the financial institution 
holding the Emerald Jade bank account closed the Emerald Jade bank account and returned the 
remaining balance of $113,507.88 to Bank 1. 
Based on the record in this case, the total value of the proceeds traceable to the offense of 
conviction is $377,802.12, which sum may be sought as a forfeiture money judgment pursuant to 
Rule 32.2 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. 
Accordingly, based on the foregoing, the evidence in the record, and for good cause shown, 
the Motion is GRANTED, and it is hereby ORDERED that: 
1. 
Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 982(a)(2)(A) and Rule 32.2 of the Federal Rules of 
Case 0:21-cr-60171-RS   Document 52   Entered on FLSD Docket 10/09/2021   Page 2 of 3

3 
Criminal Procedure, a forfeiture money judgment in the amount of $377,802.12 is hereby entered 
against the Defendant. 
2.
The United States is authorized to conduct any discovery that might be necessary
to identify, locate, or dispose of forfeited property, and to resolve any third-party petition, pursuant 
to Rule 32.2(b)(3), (c)(1)(B) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and 21 U.S.C. § 853(m). 
3.
Pursuant to Rule 32.2(b)(4) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, this Order
is final as to the Defendant. 
4.
The Court shall retain jurisdiction in this matter for the purpose of enforcing this
Order, and pursuant to Rule 32.2(e)(1) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, shall amend 
this Order, or enter other orders as necessary, to forfeit additional specific property when 
identified. 
DONE AND ORDERED in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, this _______ day of 
 2021. 
____________________________________ 
RODNEY SMITH 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 
8th
October,
Case 0:21-cr-60171-RS   Document 52   Entered on FLSD Docket 10/09/2021   Page 3 of 3

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.flsd.594906.52.0.pdf

Size

235,098 bytes

SHA-256

d4f3cb8f1b8d909d5900799b1dfe59281f9742fea3968dc2eb460ad34cdbe3e7

Our copy

gov.uscourts.flsd.594906.52.0.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)