Motion for an Order of Forfeiture — U.S. v. LaRoche

Record facts

U.S. District Court, Middle District of Florida (Fort Myers Division) · No. 2:23-cr-00013-TPB-NPM · Doc. 28 · 2023-02-24 · Docket on CourtListener

Full text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 
FORT MYERS DIVISION 
 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 
 
v. 
 
 
Case No. 2:23-cr-13-TPB-NPM 
 
 
AL CLINT LAROCHE 
 
UNITED STATES’ MOTION 
FOR AN ORDER OF FORFEITURE 
 
 
Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 982(a)(2)(A) and Rule 32.2(b)(2) of the Federal Rules 
of Criminal Procedure, the United States of America moves for an order of forfeiture 
against the defendant in the amount of $1,078,652.50, representing the amount of 
proceeds he personally obtained as the result the bank fraud offense charged in 
Counts One and Two of the Information.  
 
In accordance with Rule 32.2(b)(4) and the defendant’s plea agreement (Doc. 
15 at 6), the United States asks that the order of forfeiture be made final as to the 
defendant at the time it is entered. 
 
In support, the United States submits the following memorandum of law. 
MEMORANDUM OF LAW 
I. 
Statement of Facts 
 
A. 
Allegations Against the Defendant  
 
1. 
On or about January 27, 2023, the United States filed an Information 
charging the defendant with two counts of bank fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 
1344.  Doc. 13.   
Case 2:23-cr-00013-TPB-NPM     Document 28     Filed 02/24/23     Page 1 of 6 PageID 115

2 
 
2. 
The forfeiture allegations notified the defendant that, under 18 U.S.C. § 
982(a)(2)(A), the United States intended to forfeit any property constituting, or 
derived from proceeds the defendant obtained, directly or indirectly, as a result of 
such violation, including, but not limited to, an order of forfeiture in the amount of 
$1,078,652.50.  Id. at 8-9.  
 
B.   
Findings of Guilt and Admissions of Fact  
 
3. 
On January 30, 2023, the defendant pleaded guilty to Counts One and 
Two of the Information pursuant to a written plea agreement and United States 
Magistrate Judge Nicholas P. Mizelle recommended that his plea be accepted.  Docs. 
22, 24.  On February 16, 2023, United States District Judge Thomas P. Barber 
accepted his plea and adjudicated him guilty.  Doc. 26.  The defendant’s sentencing 
is currently scheduled for May 19, 2023.  Id. 
 
4. 
In his plea agreement (Doc. 15 at 14-17), the defendant admitted that he 
personally obtained $1,078,652.50 in proceeds from the bank fraud scheme charged 
in Counts One and Two of the Information.  
 
C.   
Admissions Related to Forfeiture 
 
5. 
In his plea agreement, the defendant admitted and agreed that pursuant 
to 18 U.S.C. § 982(a)(2)(A), the United States was entitled to an order of forfeiture in 
the amount of $1,078,652.50, representing the amount of proceeds the defendant 
personally obtained as a result of the bank fraud scheme as charged in Counts One 
and Two.   Doc. 15 at 4.  Moreover, the defendant agreed that the United States is 
Case 2:23-cr-00013-TPB-NPM     Document 28     Filed 02/24/23     Page 2 of 6 PageID 116

3 
entitled to forfeit any of the defendant’s property as substitute assets to satisfy the 
Order of Forfeiture and that the order of forfeiture would be final upon entry.  The 
defendant also agreed that since the criminal proceeds have been transferred to third 
parties and cannot be located by the United States upon the exercise of due diligence, 
the preliminary and final orders of forfeiture should authorize the United States 
Attorney’s Office to conduct discovery (including depositions, interrogatories, 
requests for production of documents, and the issuance of subpoenas), pursuant to 
Rule 32.2(b)(3) of  the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, to help identify, locate, 
and forfeit substitute assets.  Id. at 5.   
II. 
Applicable Law 
 
A. 
Forfeiture Statute   
 
 
Criminal forfeiture of property for bank fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 
1344, is governed by 18 U.S.C. § 982(a)(2) which provides for the forfeiture of any 
property constituting, or derived from, proceeds the defendant obtained, directly or 
indirectly, as a result of such violations.  See 18 U.S.C. § 982(a)(2). 
 
B. 
Court’s Determination of Forfeiture 
 
Rule 32.2, Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, governs the criminal 
forfeiture of property based on a defendant’s conviction for the offense giving rise to 
the forfeiture.  Rule 32.2(b)(1) requires that as soon as practical after a verdict or 
finding of guilty, or after a plea of guilty is accepted, the Court must determine what 
property is subject to forfeiture under the applicable statute.  Fed. R. Crim. P. 
Case 2:23-cr-00013-TPB-NPM     Document 28     Filed 02/24/23     Page 3 of 6 PageID 117

4 
32.2(b)(1)(A).  The Court’s determination may be based on evidence already in the 
record, or any additional evidence submitted by the parties and accepted by the 
Court as relevant and reliable.  Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.2(b)(1)(B). 
 
Because the United States could not locate any of the specific property 
traceable to the defendant’s wire fraud offense, the United States seeks an order of 
forfeiture against the defendant in the amount of $1,078,652.50, pursuant to Federal 
Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.2(b)(2).  As the defendant has agreed, he personally 
obtained $1,078,652.50 in proceeds as a result of the bank fraud offense.  If the Court 
finds that the defendant obtained at least $1,078,652.50 as a result of his participation 
in the bank fraud and that the defendant has dissipated those proceeds, then it is 
appropriate for the Court to enter an order of forfeiture against the defendant in that 
amount pursuant to Rule 32.2(b)(2).    
III. 
Conclusion 
 
For the reasons stated above, the United States requests that the Court, 
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 982(a)(2)(A) and Rule 32.2(b)(2), Federal Rules of Criminal 
Procedure, enter an Order of Forfeiture against the defendant in the amount of 
$1,078,652.50. 
 
As required by Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.2(b)(4)(B), the United 
States requests that the Court include the forfeiture when orally pronouncing the 
sentence and include the forfeiture order, directly or by reference, in the judgment.  
See Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.2(b)(4)(A) and (B).   
Case 2:23-cr-00013-TPB-NPM     Document 28     Filed 02/24/23     Page 4 of 6 PageID 118

5 
 
Finally, the United States further requests that the Court retain jurisdiction to 
address any third-party claim that may be asserted in these proceedings, to enter any 
further order necessary for the forfeiture and disposition of such property, and to 
order any substitute assets forfeited to the United States up to the amount of the 
order of forfeiture. 
 
The United States requests that the Court retain jurisdiction to address any 
third-party interest that may be asserted and to complete the forfeiture and 
disposition of the property.    
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
By: 
Respectfully Submitted, 
 
ROGER B, HANDBERG 
United States Attorney 
 
 
s/James A. Muench                      
 
JAMES A. MUENCH 
Assistant United States Attorney 
Florida Bar Number 472867 
400 North Tampa Street, Suite 3200 
Tampa, Florida 33602 
(813) 274-6000 – telephone 
E-mail: james.muench2@usdoj.gov 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Case 2:23-cr-00013-TPB-NPM     Document 28     Filed 02/24/23     Page 5 of 6 PageID 119

6 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 
 
I hereby certify that on February 24, 2023, I electronically filed the foregoing 
with the Clerk of the Court by using the CM/ECF system which will send a notice 
of electronic filing to counsel of record. 
 
s/James A. Muench  
 
JAMES A. MUENCH 
Assistant United States Attorney 
 
 
Case 2:23-cr-00013-TPB-NPM     Document 28     Filed 02/24/23     Page 6 of 6 PageID 120

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.flmd.410261.28.0.pdf

Size

105,595 bytes

SHA-256

a160f143868e87545290677f524d62201d60eba798754ec069573cd50786a864

Our copy

gov.uscourts.flmd.410261.28.0.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)