Court filing

Superseding Indictment — United States v. Philossaint (Dkt. 58, S.D. Fla.)

Summary

A superseding indictment returned by a grand jury in United States v. Joff Stenn Wroy Philossaint, Mariel Tollinchi, Regine Marie Rene, Brianna Monique Gayle and Maurice Shazier, No. 9:22-cr-80144-RS, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, entered on the docket October 20, 2022 as Document 58. Its general allegations describe the Paycheck Protection Program created under the CARES Act. The caption cites 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h), 18 U.S.C. § 1425(a) and the forfeiture statute 18 U.S.C. § 982(a) among the charged statutes. The indictment closes with penalty sheets, including a maximum of 20 years and a fine of $500,000 or twice the amount laundered for the money laundering conspiracy count.

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

Filed October 20, 2022 in Joff Stenn Wroy Philossaint; one of 115 filings from this case.

Record facts

Court	U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida
Filed	2022-10-20

Cite this document

“Superseding Indictment — United States v. Philossaint (Dkt. 58, S.D. Fla.).” U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, No. 9:22-cr-80144, Doc. 58, filed 2022-10-20. Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/court-filings/us-v-joff-stenn-wroy-philossaint/2022-10-20-superseding-indictment-dkt-58/, SHA-256 ba97fab6e008ca9786598f5450a3ef3885e9980450c373934bdb5b922447f5b9.

Search CourtListener for this docket number

Full text

Case 9:22-cr-80144-RS Document 58 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/20/2022 Page 1 of 19

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. ----=2=-2--'C=R"""-...;;;..80=1:;..;4;...:.4"""-S=M=I=T=H/M==A=Y=N;..;.A=RDa=..,,.;(s;;..,.)_ _ __
18 u.s.c. § 1349
18 U.S.C. § 1956(h)
18 U.S.C. § 1425(a)
18 U.S.C. § 982(a)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

vs. TM

JOFF STENN WROY PHILOSSAINT,
MARIEL TOLLINCHI, Oct 20, 2022
REGINE MARIE RENE,
BRIANNA MONIQUE GAYLE,
West Palm Beach
and MAURICE SHAZIER,

Defendants.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -I

SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT

The Grand Jury charges that:

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

At all times material to this Superseding Indi ctment:

The Paycheck Protection Program

1. The Coronavirus A id, Relief, and Econom ic Security ("CARES") Act was a federal

law enacted in or aro und March 2020 and designed to provide emergency financial ass istance to

the millions of Americans who were sufferi ng the economic effects caused by the COVID-1 9

pandem ic. One so urce of re lief provided by th e CARES Act was the authorization of forgivable

Case 9:22-cr-80144-RS Document 58 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/20/2022 Page 2 of 19

loans to small businesses fo r job retenti on and certa in oth er expenses, through a program referred

to as the Paycheck Protection Program ("PPP").

2. The types of businesses eligible for a loan inc luded sol e p roprietorships. In order to

obtain a PPP loan , a qu a)ify ing business (through its authorized representative or th e sole

proprietor) signed and submitted a PPP loan appli cati on (Small Business Administrati on ("S BA")

Form 2483) online through the lender' s application platfo rm. In order to be elig ible to obtain th e

PPP loan , the PPP loan applicati on required the business (throu gh its authorized representative or

the sole propri etor) to acknowledge th e program rul es and make certa in affirm ati ve certifi cati ons.

The certifications included an attestati on that the business was in operati on on February 15, 2020,

and had employees fo r whom it pa id sal ari es and payroll taxes, or paid independent contractors,

or was a so le proprietorship w ith no employees. In the PPP loan application, th e sma ll bu siness

(through its authorized representative or th e sole pro prietor) was required to pro vide, among other

thin gs, its average monthly payroll expenses and number of employees. In addition, businesses

apply ing fo r th e PPP loan were requi red to prov ide documentati on confirming th eir payroll

expenses. Typicall y, businesses suppl ied docum ents showing the amount of payroll taxes reported

to the Internal Revenu e Servi ce ("IRS"). The sol e proprietorship had to report and document the

business' income and expenses, as typica ll y reported to the IRS on Form 1040, Schedule C. These

fi gures and doc um entation were used to calcul ate th e amount of money th e sma ll bu siness was

eligible to rece ive under th e PPP. So le proprietorships were eligible to receive a max imum PPP

loan of up to $20,833 to cover lost income.

3. A PPP loan application was processed by a parti cipating lender. The SBA de legated

authority to third-party lenders to und erwrite and approve the loan s. If a PPP loan applicati on was

app roved, the parti cipating lender fund ed the PPP loan using its own monies, whi ch were l 00%

Case 9:22-cr-80144-RS Document 58 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/20/2022 Page 3 of 19

guaranteed by th e SBA. Data from th e app lication, including information about th e borrower, th e

total amount of the loan, and the listed number of empl oyees, was transmitted electronically by

the lender to the SBA in th e co urse of process ing the loan.

4. PPP loan proceeds were req uired to be used by the business on certain permissible

expenses - payroll costs, interest on mortgages, rent, and utilities. The PPP allowed th e interest

and principal on the PPP loan to be entirely forgiven if the business spent the loan proceeds on

these expense items within a des ignated period of time and used a defined portion of the PPP loan

proceeds on payro ll expenses.

The Economic Injury Disaster Loan Program

5. Before the COVID-19 pandemic, SBA's Economic Injury Disaster Loa n ("EIDL")

program provided low- interest fin ancing to small businesses, renters, and homeowners in regions

affected by declared di sasters.

6. The CARES Act also authorized the SBA to provide EIDL assistance to eligible

small businesses experiencing "substantial eco nom ic injury" (substantial fin ancial d isruptions)

du e to the COVID- 19 pandemic. In ord er to obtain a COVID-19 EIDL, a qualify ing business was

requ ired to su bmit electronically an EIDL application to the SBA and provide information abo ut

its operations, such as th e number of employees, gross revenues, and the cost of goods sold for the

12-month period preceding January 3 1, 2020. The app licant was also required to certi fy under

penalty of perj ury that all of the information in th e EIDL application was true and correct to the

best of th e applicant's know ledge.

7. EIDL appli cations were submitted directly to, and p rocessed by, the SBA, w ith

support from a gove rnm ent contractor. EJDL fund s were iss ued directly from the U nited States

Treasury.

Case 9:22-cr-80144-RS Document 58 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/20/2022 Page 4 of 19

8. In additi on , the CARES Act authorized the SBA to issue advances of up to $10,000

to sma ll businesses within three days of appl y ing for an EIDL. The amo unt of the advance was

determined by the number of employees the app li cant certifi ed hav ing at the small business. The

advances did not have to be repaid.

9. SBA' s emaiI and loan application servers were located outs ide the State of Florida,

so w ire communications between banks and the SBA and between EIDL app licants located within

Florida and the SBA necessaril y traveled in interstate commerce.

The Defendants, Businesses, Lenders, and Banks

I 0. Defendant JOFF STENN WROY PHILOSSAINT was a resident of Broward and

Miami-Dade Cou nti es, in the Southern District of F lorida.

11 . Defendant MARIEL TOLLINCHI was a resident of Broward Co unty, 111 the

Southern District of Florida.

12. Defendant REGINE MARIE RENE was a resident of Palm Beach County, in the

Southern District of F lorida.

13. Defendant BRIANNA MONIQUE GAYLE was a resident of Palm Beach and

Miami-Dade Co unti es, in the Southern District of Florida.

14. Defendant MAURICE SHAZIER was a resident of St. Lucie Co unty, in the South ern

District of Florida.

15. Co-conspirator David Andre Jo hnson was a resident of Broward County, in the

Southern District of F lorida.

16. Defendant JO FF STENN WROY PHILOSSAINT was the principal and registered

agent of Royal E lite Trans, LLC (" ROYAL ELITE" ), Elite International F inancial Group, a/k/a

Elite International Venture Cap ita l (" EJYC"), and One Soluti on Group LLC (" ONE

Case 9:22-cr-80144-RS Document 58 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/20/2022 Page 5 of 19

SOLUTION "), purported businesses located in Broward Co un ty, in the Southern Di strict of

Flo rida.

17. Defendant MARlEL TOLLINCHI was the T reas urer of the C inda Foundation Inc.

("CIN DA"), and her family mem bers were the princ ipa ls and registered agents of CINDA, Ferro 's

Entertainment an d Production LLC (" FERRO'S"), and D.F. d/b/a "Perfect Landscaping"

("PERFECT LANDSCAPING"), purported businesses located in Broward Co unty, in th e

South ern Di strict of F lorida. TOLLINCHI was a lso the principa l of Tol linchi Law P.A.

("TOLLINCHI LAW"), a law firm located in Broward Cou nty, in the Southern District of Florida.

18 . Defendant JOFF STENN WROY PHILOSSAINT was the pres ident and

TOLLINCHI LAW was the registered agent of Dad Money Investment Gro up, LLC ("DAD

MONE Y"), a purported busin ess located in Broward Co unty, in the So uthern District of F lorida.

19. Defendant REGINE MARJE RENE was the principal an d registered agent of Unfo ld

Perception, LLC ("UNFOLD"), a purported business located in Palm Beach Co unty, in th e

Southern Di strict of F lorida.

20. Defendant BRIANNA MON IQUE GAYLE was an empl oyee of EIVC and

purportedly owned a so le proprietors hip in her name located in Palm Beach Co unty, in the

South ern Distri ct of F lorida.

2 1. Defe ndant MAURICE SHAZIER was th e principal and registered agent of Sunri se

City Construction Develo pment LLC ("SUNRl SE CITY") and JREAM V ision T.V. LLC

("JREAM"), purported bu sinesses located in St. L ucie Cou nty, in the Southern Di strict of F lorida.

22. Co-conspirator David A ndre Johnson was the principal and reg istered agent of

D.D .Z. Famil y Enterpri ses L.L.C. ("DDZ"), a purported business located in Broward Co unty, in

the South ern Di strict of Florida.

Case 9:22-cr-80144-RS Document 58 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/20/2022 Page 6 of 19

23. Lender # 1 was headquartered in New Jersey and was an approved SBA lender for

PPP loans.

24. Lender #2 was headq uartered in De laware and was an approved SBA lender for PPP

loans.

25. Lender #3 was headquartered in Utah and was an approved SBA lender for PPP

loans.

COUNTl
(Conspiracy to Commit Wire Fraud: 18 U.S.C. § 1349)

Paragraphs 1 through 25 of the General A ll egations Section of this Superseding Indictment

are re-alleged and incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein.

From in or around April 2020, contin uing through on or abo ut A ug ust 7, 2022, the exact

dates being unkno wn to the Grand Jury, in Palm Beach, St. Lucie, Broward , and Miami-Dade

Counties, in the Southern District of F lorida, and e lsewhere, the defendants,

JOFF STENN WROY PIIlLOSSAINT,
MARIEL TOLLI CHI,
REGINE MARIE RENE,
BRIANNA MONIQUE GAYLE,
and
MAURICE SHAZIER,

did willfu lly, that is, w ith the intent to further the object of the conspiracy, and knowingly combine,

conspire, confederate, and agree w ith each other and with persons known and unknown to the

Grand Jury , to know ing ly, and with the intent to defraud , devise, and intend to devise, a scheme

and artifice to defraud , and to obtain money and property by means of materially false and

fraudulent pretenses, rep resentatio ns, and promises, knowing that the pretenses, representations,

and promises were fa lse and fraudulent when made, and, for the purpose of executing such scheme

and artifice, did transmit and cause to be transmitted , by means of wire comm uni cations in

Case 9:22-cr-80144-RS Document 58 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/20/2022 Page 7 of 19

interstate and fore ign commerce, certain wri tings, signs, signal s, pictu res, and sounds, in vi olation

of Titl e 18, United States Code, Section 1343.

OBJECT OF THE CONSPIRACY AND THE SCHEME AND ARTIFICE

It was the obj ect of the conspiracy and of the scheme and artifi ce for the Defendants and

their co-conspi rators to unlawfull y enri ch themse lves by, among other things: (1) creating fa lse

and fra udulent documents, including payro ll record s and tax documents; (2) submitting and

causing the submi ss ion of fa lse and fraudulent appli cations for loans made avail ab le through the

SBA to prov ide relief fo r the economic effects caused by the COV lD-19 pandemic, including

ETDL and PPP loans; (3) offering, paying, and rece iving kickbacks in return fo r cau sing the

submi ssion of fa lse and fraudulent loa n applicati ons; (4) di verting fraud proceeds fo r the

Defendants' and co-conspirators' personal use and benefit, the use and benefit of others, and to

further the conspiracy; and (5) submitting and causing the submi ss ion of fa lse and fraudul ent

appli cations fo r fo rgiveness of the received loans.

MANNER AND MEANS

The manner and means by which the defendants and their co-conspi rators sought to

accompli sh the obj ect of the conspiracy and the scheme and artifi ce included, among others, the

fo llowing:

(a) JOFF STENN WROY PHTLOSS AINT and BRIANNA MONIQUE

GAYLE created and caused the creation of fa lse and fraudulent tax documents fo r business entities

owned and contro lled by themselves, MARIEL TOLLINCHI, REGINE MARJE RENE,

MAU RICE SHAZIER, Dav id Andre Johnson, and others known and unknown to the Grand Jury,

for the purpose of applying fo r PPP and EIDL loan s.

Case 9:22-cr-80144-RS Document 58 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/20/2022 Page 8 of 19

(b) JOFF STENN WROY PHILOSSA INT, MAR IEL TOLLINCHI, REGINE

MARIE RENE, BRIANN A MON IQUE GA YLE, MAURI CE SHAZIER, Dav id A ndre John son,

and others kn own and unknown to th e Grand Jury submi tted and caused the submiss ion of fa lse

and fraudul ent PPP and EIDL loa n appli cati ons for th ese business ent ities.

by JOFF STENN WROY PHILOSSAINT, MA RIEL TOLLINCHI , R EGINE MARIE RENE,

BRl ANNA MON IQUE GAYLE, Mauri ce Shazier, Dav id Andre John so n, and oth ers known and

un known to th e Grand Jury inc luded fa lse and fraudul ent tax docum ents and fa lsely and

fraudul entl y represented th e borrowin g entiti es' number of empl oyees, amount of month ly pay roll ,

gross income, and cost of goods so ld .

(d) JOFF STENN WROY PHILOSSAINT and BRIANNA MONIQUE

GAYLE created and caused the creation of fal se and fraudul ent payro ll acco unts w ith a payro ll

process ing serv ice for business entiti es owned and contro ll ed by themselves, MARIEL

TOLLINCHI , REGINE MARIE RENE, MAURICE SHAZIER, Dav id Andre Johnson, and others

known and unkn own to th e Grand Jury, fo r the pu rpose of apply ing fo r PPP and EIDL loans and

PPP loan forg iveness .

(e) Having obtained PPP and EIDL loans fo r th ose entities, JOFF STENN

WROY PHILOSSAINT, MARIEL TOLLIN CHI , REGINE MARIE RENE, BRIANNA

MON IQUE GAYLE, MAU RI CE SHAZIER, Dav id Andre Johnso n, and oth ers known and

unkn own to th e Grand Jury caused th e electroni c w ire transfer of a po11i on of the loan proceeds to

a payro ll process ing serv ice to make it appear th at th e proceeds were be ing used for legitimate

payro ll expenses.

Case 9:22-cr-80144-RS Document 58 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/20/2022 Page 9 of 19

(f) Having obtained PPP and EJDL loans for their business entities, JOFF

STENN WROY PHJLOSSAINT caused MARIEL TOLLINCHI, REGINE MARIE RENE,

BRIANNA MONIQUE GAYLE, MAURICE SHAZIER, David Andre Jo hnso n, and others known

and unknown to the Grand Jury to pay kickbacks of approximate ly 10% of the loans' values to

JOFF STENN WROY PHILOSSAINT via checks and wire tran sfers that were often disguised to

appear to be legitimate business expenses .

(g) JOFF STENN WROY PHTLOSSAINT, MARIEL TOLLINCHI, REGINE

MARIE RENE, BRIANNA MONIQ UE GAYLE, MAURICE SHAZIER, David Andre Johnson,

and others known and unknown to the Grand Jury submitted and caused the submission of false

and fraudul ent applications for PPP loan forgive ness for these business enti ties.

(h) As a res ult of the false an d fraudulent representat ions that JOFF STENN

WROY PHILOSSAINT, MARTEL TOLLINCHI, REGINE MARIE RENE, BRIANNA

MO IQUE GAYLE, MAURICE SHAZIER, David Andre Johnson, and others known and

unknown to the Grand Jury made in the PPP and EIDL loan applications submitted as part of this

scheme, financia l in stituti ons and the SBA disbursed loan proceeds to the Defendants and their co-

conspirators in the amount of approxi mate ly $8. 1 million.

All in violatio n of Tit le 18, Un ited States Code, Secti on 1349.

COUNT2
(Conspiracy to Commit Money Laundering: 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h))

From in or arou nd Apri l 2020, contin uin g through on or about August 7, 2022, the exact

dates being unknown to the Grand Jury, in Palm Beach, St. Lucie, Broward , and Miami-Dade

Cou nties, in the Southern District of Florida, and elsewhere, the defendants,

Case 9:22-cr-80144-RS Document 58 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/20/2022 Page 10 of 19

JOFF STENN WROY PIDLOSSAINT,
MARIEL TOLLINCHI,
REGINE MARIE RENE,
BRIANNA MONIQUE GAYLE,
and
MAURICE SHAZIER,

did know ing ly and vo luntari ly combine, conspire, confederate, and agree with each other and w ith

perso ns known and unkn own to the Grand Jury, to knowi ngly co ndu ct, and attempt to conduct, a

fin anc ial transaction affecting interstate and fore ign co mm erce invo lving the proceeds of spec ified

unl awfu l activity, knowing th at the property invo lved in the transaction represented the proceeds

of some form of unlawful act ivity, and knowing th at the transaction was des igned, in whole and

in part, to co nceal and di sgui se the nature, location, so urce, ownership, and control of the proceeds

of said spec ifi ed unlawfu l acti vity, in v io lation of 18 U.S .C. § 1956(a)(l)(B)(i) .

It is furth er a lleged that the spec ifi ed unlawful activity is w ire fraud , in v iolation of 18

U.S.C. § 1343 .

All in vio latio n of T itl e 18, United States Code, Section 1956(h).

COUNT3
(Conspiracy to Commit Money Laundering: 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h))

Fro m in or aro und April 2020, co ntinuing throu gh on or abo ut A ugust 7, 2022, the exact

dates be ing unkn own to the Grand Jury, in Palm Beach , St. Lucie, Broward, and Miami-Dade

Co unties, in the South ern District of F lorida, and e lsewhere, the defe nd ants,

JOFF STENN WROY PIDLOSSAINT
and
MARIEL TOLLINCHI,

did knowingly an d voluntarily combin e, con spire, confederate , and agree with each other and w ith

persons known and unkn own to the Grand Jury, to:

Case 9:22-cr-80144-RS Document 58 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/20/2022 Page 11 of 19

(a) knowingly transmit and transfer monetary in struments and funds , from a

pl ace inside the U nited States to and through a place o utsi de the United States, knowing that th e

monetary in struments and funds invo lved in such transmission and transfer represented the

proceeds of some form of unlawful activity, and knowing that such transmission and transfer was

designed in w ho le and in part to conceal and di sgui se the nature, location, so urce, ownership, and

control of the proceeds of specified unl awfu l activity, in vio lation of 18 U .S.C. § 1956(a)(2)(B)(i);

and

(b) knowingly engage in a monetary transaction by, through , and to a financial

institution, affecting interstate and foreign com merce, in crim ina lly derived property of a va lue

greater than $ 10,000 th at is derived from spec ifi ed unl awfu l activity, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §

1957.

It is further a lleged that the specified unl awfu l activity is w ire fraud, in v iolati on of 18

U.S.C. § 1343.

A ll in vio latio n of Title 18, Un ited States Code, Section I 956(h).

COUNT4
(Obtaining Citizenship by Fraud: 18 U.S.C. § 1425(a))

Paragraphs I through 9 of the General A ll egations Section of this Superseding Indictment

are re-alleged and incorporated by reference as though fully set forth here in .

Beginning at least as early as December 15 , 2020, and continuing through on o r about

February 9, 202 1, in Broward and Miami-Dade Cou nti es, in the Southern District of Florida, and

e lsewhere, the defendant,

JOFF STENN WROY PIIlLOSSAINT,

Case 9:22-cr-80144-RS Document 58 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/20/2022 Page 12 of 19

di d knowingly procure and attemp t to proc ure, contrary to law, naturalizati on as a U nited States

citizen fo r him se lf, to wit, th e defend ant o bta ined and a ttempted to obtain naturali zation by fa lsely

swearing to a statement in hi s w ritte n Fo rm N-40 0 (Application for Natura li zati on), hi s

natu ra li zatio n interview , and his w ritten Fo rm N -455 (Notice of Naturalizati on O ath Cere mo ny) ,

that:

(a) he had not knowing ly committed, ass isted in co mmittin g, or atte mpted to

co mmit, a crime o r offe nse fo r w hich he had not been arrested, w hen in truth and in fact, as the

defendant the n and there we ll knew, he had co mmitted the offenses of w ire fra ud conspiracy, a nd

money la undering co nspiracy, as charged in Co unts 1 th ro ugh 3 of thi s Superseding Indictm ent;

a nd

(b) he had not mad e a ny misrepresentation to obta in any publi c benefit in the

U nited States, w hen in truth and in fact, as th e defe nd ant then and there we ll kn ew, he had

misrepresented busi nesses, th e ir earnings, and the ir employee workforces in a n effo rt to o bta in

mu lt ip le loans a nd advances, and fo rg ive ness of those loans and adva nces pursua nt to th e U nited

States ' Paycheck Protecti on Program and the Eco no m ic Inj ury D isaster Loan P rogra m.

A ll in v io lati on of T itl e 18, Uni ted States Code, Secti on 1425(a) .

FORFEITURE ALLEGATIONS

I. The a llegati ons of thi s Supersedin g Indictm ent are hereby re-alleged and by th is

reference fully incorporated herein for th e purpose of a ll egin g fo rfe iture to th e Uni ted States of

Ameri ca of certain property in w hi ch the defendants, JOFF STENN WROY PIIlLOSSAINT,

MARIEL TOLLIN CID, REGINE MARIE RENE, BRIANNA MONIQUE GAYLE, and

MAURICE SHAZIER, have an in terest.

Case 9:22-cr-80144-RS Document 58 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/20/2022 Page 13 of 19

2. Upon conviction of a violation of T itle 18, United States Code, Section 1349, as

alleged in this Supersedin g Indictment, the defendant shall forfeit to the United States any property

constituting, or derived from , proceeds obtained, directly or indirectly, as the result of such offense,

pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 982(a)(2)(A).

3. Upon conviction of a violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section l 956(h), as

alleged in this Supersedin g Indictment, the defendant shall forfeit to the United States any

property, real or personal, in vo lved in such offense, and any property traceabl e to such property,

pursuant to T itl e 18, Un ited States Code, Section 982(a)(l ).

A ll pursuant to T itle 18, United States Code, Sections 982(a)(l) and 982(a)(2)(A), and the

procedures set forth at Title 2 1, United States Code, Section 853, as incorporated by Title 18,

United States Code, Sections 982(6 )(1 ).

A TRUE BILL.
/'"\

FOREPERSON

IO GONZALEZ
UNITE ST ATES ATTORNEY

0K()~
A. MARIE VILLAFANA
ASSISTANT UNITED STATES ATTORNEY

Case 9:22-cr-80144-RS Document 58 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/20/2022 Page 14 of 19
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA CASE N0.:22-CR-80144-SMITH/MA YNARD(s)

v.
JOFF S. W. PHJLOSSATNT, MARJ EL CERTIFICATE OF TRIAL ATTORNEY*
TOLLINCHI, BRJANNA M . GAYLE,
REGTNE M . R ENE, & MAURJ CE SHAZLER, /
Superseding Case Information:
Defendants.
Court Division (select o ne) New Defendant(s) (Yes or No) Yes
□ Miami □ Key West □ FTP Number of New D efendants 1
□ FTL El WPB Total number of New Co unts 0

I do hereby certify that:
I. l have carefu ll y considered the all egation s of the indictment, the number of defend ants, the number of probable
witnesses and the legal co mpl exities of the Indi ctment/Information attached hereto.

2. I am aware that the information supplied on this state ment will be relied upon by the Judges of thi s Court in setting
their calendars and schedu ling crimi nal trials un der the mandate of the Speedy Trial Act, Title 28 U.S.C. §3 16 1.

3. Interpreter: (Yes or No) No
List language and/or dialect:
4. This case w ill take 2 0 days for the parties to try.

5. Please check appropriate category and type of offen se li sted be low:
(Check o nly one) (Check on ly o ne)
l D Oto 5 days □ Petty
II D 6 to 10 days D Minor
III El 11 to 20 days □ Misdemeanor
1V D 21 to 60 days El Felo ny
V D 61 days a nd over
6. Has this case bee n previously filed in this Di stri ct Co urt? (Yes or No) Yes
If yes, Judge Smi th Case No. 22-Cr-80144
7. Has a complaint been fil ed in this m atter? (Yes o r No) Yes
If yes , Magistrate Case No. 22-8336-BER, 22-8337, 22-8357
8. Does thi s case relate to a previously filed matter in this Di stri ct Court? (Yes or No) No
If yes, Judge Case No.
9. Defendant(s) in federa l custody as of 8/7/2022 (Phil ossaint)
l 0. Defendant( s) in state custody as of
l J. Rule 20 from the Di strict of
12. Is this a potential death pena lty case? (Yes or No) No
13. D oes this case origi nate from a matter pending in th e No1ihe rn R egio n of th e U.S. Atto rney's Office
prior to A ugust 8, 20 14 (Mag. Judge Shani ek Maynard? (Yes or No) No
14. Does this case o ri g inate from a matte r pending in the Centra l R egion of the U.S. Attorney's Office
prior to October 3, 2 01 9 (Mag. Judge Jared Strauss? (Yes or No) No

By:
A. MARIE VTLLAF ANA
Ass istant United States Attorney
FLA Bar No . 0018255

Case 9:22-cr-80144-RS Document 58 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/20/2022 Page 15 of 19

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENALTY SHEET

Defendant's Name: JOFF STENN WROY PHILOSSAINT

Case No: 22-CR-80144-SMITH/MA YNARD(s)

Count # 1:

Conspiracy to Commit Wire Fraud

Title 18 United States Code Section 1349
* Max. Term oflmprisonment: 20 years
*Max.Supervised Release: 3 years
* Max. Fine: $250,000 or twice gross loss or gross gain

Counts #2-3 :

Money Laundering Conspiracy

Title 18, United States Code, Section l 956(h)
* Max. Term oflmprisonment: 20 years
* Max.Supervised Release: 3 years
* Max. Fine: $500,000 or twice amount laundered

Co unt #4:

Acquiring Naturalized U.S. Citizenship through Fraud

T itle 18, United States Code, Section l 425(a)
*Max.Term oflmprisonment: 10 years
*Max.Supervised Release: 3 years
* Max. Fine: $250,000

*Refers only to possible term of incarceration, supervised release and fines. It does not include
restitution, special assessments, parole terms, or forfeitures that may be applicable.

Case 9:22-cr-80144-RS Document 58 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/20/2022 Page 16 of 19

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENALTY SHEET

Defendant' s Name: MARIEL TOLLINCHI

Case No: 22-CR-801 44-SMITH/MA YNARD(s)

Count # l:

Conspiracy to Commit Wire Fraud

T itle 18 Un ited States Code Section 1349
* Max. Term oflmprisonment: 20 years
*Max.Supervised Release: 3 years
* Max. Fine: $250,000 or twice gross loss or gross gain
Counts #2-3:

Money Launderin g Consp iracy

T itle 18, Un ited States Code, Section 1956(h)
* Max. Term oflmprisonment: 20 years
*Max.Supervised Release: 3 years
* Max. Fine: $500,000 or twice amount laundered

*Refers only to possible term of incarceration, supervised release and fines. It does not include
restitution, special assessments, parole terms, or forfeitures that may be applicable.

Case 9:22-cr-80144-RS Document 58 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/20/2022 Page 17 of 19

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENAL TY SHEET

Defendant's Name: REGINE MARIE RENE

Case No: 22-CR-80144-SMITH/MA YNARD(s)

Count # 1:

Conspi racy to Commit Wire Fraud

Title 18 United States Code Section 1349
* Max. Term oflmprisonment: 20 years
*Max.Supervised Release: 3 years
* Max. Fine: $250,000 or twice gross loss or gross gain

Count #2:

Money Launderin g Consp iracy

Title 18, United States Code, Section 1956(h)
* Max. Term of Imprisonment: 20 years
* Max. Supervised Release: 3 years
* Max. Fine: $500,000 or twice amount laundered

*Refers only to possible term of incarcera tion, supervised release and fines. It does not include
restitution, special assessments, parole terms, or forfeitures that may be applicable.

Case 9:22-cr-80144-RS Document 58 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/20/2022 Page 18 of 19

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENALTY SHEET

Defendant's Name: BRIANNA MONIQUE GAYLE

Case No: 22-CR-80 144-SMITH/MA YNARD(s)

Count # 1:

Conspiracy to Commit Wire Fraud

Title l 8 Un ited States Code Section 1349
* Max. Term oflmprisonment: 20 years
*Max.Supervised Release: 3 years
* Max. Fine: $250,000 or twice gross loss or gross gain
Count #2:

Money Launderin g Consp iracy

Title 18, United States Code, Section l 956(h)
*Max.Term oflmprisonment: 20 years
*Max.Supervised Release: 3 years
* Max. Fine: $500,000 or twice amount laundered

*Refers only to possible term of incarceration, supervised release and fines. It do es not include
restitution, special assessments, parole term s, or forfeitures that may be applicable.

Case 9:22-cr-80144-RS Document 58 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/20/2022 Page 19 of 19

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENAL TY SHEET

Defendant's Name: MAURICE SHAZIER

Case No: 22-CR-80144-SMITH/MA YNARD(s)

Count #1:

Conspiracy to Commit Wire Fraud

Title 18 United States Code Section 1349
* Max. Term of Imprisonment: 20 years
*Max.Supervised Release: 3 years
* Max. Fine: $250,000 or twice gross loss or gross gain

Count #2:

Money Laundering Conspiracy

Title 18, United States Code, Section 1956(h)
*Max.Term oflmprisonment: 20 years
*Max.Supervised Release: 3 years
* Max. Fine: $500,000 or twice amount laundered

*Refers only to possible term of incarceration, supervised release and fines. It does not include
restitution, special assessments, parole terms, or forfeitures that may be applicable.

File and source

File: 58.pdf
Size: 493,929 bytes
SHA-256: ba97fab6e008ca9786598f5450a3ef3885e9980450c373934bdb5b922447f5b9
Our copy: 58.pdf

Superseding Indictment — United States v. Philossaint (Dkt. 58, S.D. Fla.)

Summary

Record facts

Cite this document

Full text

File and source

Related records