Motion for Order of Forfeiture (Money Judgment) — United States v. Christnel Orisca (D. Mass.)

Record facts

U.S. District Court, District of Massachusetts · No. 1:24-cr-10378-JEK · Doc. 41 · 2026-03-04 · Docket on CourtListener

Full text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
 
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS 
 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 
) 
 
 
) 
 
v. 
) 
Criminal No. 24-CR-10378-JEK 
 
) 
 
CHRISTNEL ORISCA, 
) 
 
 
) 
 
Defendant. 
) 
 
 
 
UNITED STATES’ MOTION FOR ORDER OF FORFEITURE (MONEY JUDGMENT) 
The United States of America, by its attorney, Leah B. Foley, United States Attorney for 
the District of Massachusetts, respectfully moves this Court for the issuance of an Order of 
Forfeiture (Money Judgment) in the above-captioned case pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(C) 
and 28 U.S.C. § 2461(c) and Rule 32.2(b) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.  A 
proposed Order of Forfeiture is submitted herewith.  In support thereof, the United States sets 
forth the following: 
1. 
On December 12, 2024, a federal grand jury sitting in the District of 
Massachusetts returned a six-count Indictment, charging defendant Christnel Orisca (the 
“Defendant”), with Wire Fraud; Aiding and Abetting, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1343 and 2 
(Counts One-Five), and False Statements to a Financial Institution; Aiding and Abetting, in 
violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1014 and 2 (Count Six).  
2. 
The Indictment also included a Wire Fraud forfeiture allegation, pursuant to 
18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(C) and 28 U.S.C. § 2461(c), which provided notice that the United States 
intended to seek the forfeiture, upon conviction of the Defendant of one or more of the offenses 
alleged in Counts One through Five of the Indictment, of any property, real or personal, that 
constitutes, or is derived from, proceeds traceable to the commission of the offenses.  Such 
Case 1:24-cr-10378-JEK     Document 41     Filed 03/04/26     Page 1 of 5

 
 
2 
property specifically included, without limitation: 
a. 
$54,700, to be entered in the form of a forfeiture money judgment. 
3. 
The Indictment further provided that, if any of the above-described forfeitable 
property, as a result of any act or omission by the Defendant, (a) cannot be located upon the 
exercise of due diligence; (b) has been transferred or sold to, or deposited with, a third party; (c) 
has been placed beyond the jurisdiction of the Court; (d) has been substantially diminished in 
value; or (e) has been commingled with other property which cannot be divided without 
difficulty, it is the intention of the United States to seek forfeiture of any other property of the 
Defendant, up to the value of such assets, pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 
2461(c), incorporating Title United States Code Section 853(p). 
4. 
On November 25, 2025, at a hearing pursuant to Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of 
Criminal Procedure, the Defendant pled guilty to Counts One through Six of the Indictment, 
pursuant to a written plea agreement that he signed on October 30, 2025.  See Docket No. 30.  
In Section 6 of the plea agreement, the Defendant agreed to forfeit to the United States $54,700 
on the grounds that such an amount is equal to the amount of proceeds the defendant derived 
from the offense as a result of his guilty plea.  Id. at 4. 
5. 
Based on the Defendant’s admissions in the written plea agreement and his guilty 
plea on November 25, 2025, the United States is entitled to an Order of Forfeiture consisting of a 
personal money judgment against the Defendant, in the amount of $54,700, pursuant to 
18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(C) and 28 U.S.C. § 2461(c).  This amount represents the proceeds of the 
Defendant=s crimes. 
6. 
The entry of an Order of Forfeiture in the form of a personal money judgment is 
Case 1:24-cr-10378-JEK     Document 41     Filed 03/04/26     Page 2 of 5

 
 
3 
specifically authorized by Rule 32.2(b)(1) and (c)(1) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, 
and such orders of forfeiture are commonplace.  See, e.g., United States v. Ponzo, 853 F.3d 558, 
589-90 (1st Cir. 2017) (criminal forfeiture order may take several forms, including an in 
personam judgment against defendant for amount of money defendant obtained as proceeds of 
offense); United States v. Zorrilla-Echevarria, 671 F.3d 1, 11 n.15 (1st Cir. 2011) (“A criminal 
forfeiture may take the form of either (1) ‘an in personam judgment against the defendant for the 
amount of money the defendant obtained as proceeds of the offense,’ (2) forfeiture of specific 
assets related to criminal activity, or (3) forfeiture of ‘substitute assets’ if the specific assets are 
unavailable.”) (citation omitted); United States v. Hall, 434 F.3d 42, 59 (1st Cir. 2006) (same). 
7. 
Once the Order of Forfeiture is entered, the United States may move at any time, 
pursuant to Rule 32.2(e)(1)(B), to amend the Order to forfeit specific property of the Defendant, 
having a value up to the amount of the money judgment.  See Zorrilla-Echevarria, 671 F.3d at 
11 n.15 (“[a] money judgment permits the government to collect on the forfeiture order … even 
if a defendant does not have sufficient funds to cover the forfeiture at the time of the conviction, 
the government may seize future assets to satisfy the order”); United States v. Saccoccia, 564 
F.3d 502, 506-07 (1st Cir. 2009) (once government obtains money judgment, it may move at any 
time to forfeit direct or substitute assets in partial satisfaction of that judgment). 
8. 
Upon entry of the Order of Forfeiture, the United States may also, pursuant to 
Rule 32.2(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, “conduct any discovery the court 
considers proper in identifying, locating or disposing of the property” that has been forfeited to 
the United States.  Such discovery may include the taking of depositions of witnesses.  See 21 
U.S.C. § 853(m), as incorporated by 28 U.S.C. § 2461; see also United States v. Saccoccia, 354 
Case 1:24-cr-10378-JEK     Document 41     Filed 03/04/26     Page 3 of 5

 
 
4 
F.3d 9, 15 (1st Cir. 2003) (“the government may utilize its enforcement powers under [18 U.S.C. 
§] 1963(k) to ‘trace’ tainted funds”); United States v. Saccoccia, 898 F. Supp. 53, 60 (D.R.I. 
1995) (the United States can take depositions of defense counsel to determine source of their fees 
for the purpose of locating a pool of assets controlled by defendant that is subject to forfeiture).  
In addition, the reference in Rule 32.2(b)(3) to “any discovery the court considers proper” 
necessarily permits the court to authorize discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.  
Such discovery includes, but is not limited to, the authority to issue a request for documents to a 
party under Rule 34 and to a non-party under Rules 34(c) and 45. 
Case 1:24-cr-10378-JEK     Document 41     Filed 03/04/26     Page 4 of 5

 
 
5 
WHEREFORE, the United States requests that this Court: 
(a) 
enter the Order of Forfeiture (Money Judgment) in the form submitted herewith; 
(b) 
retain jurisdiction in this case for purposes of enforcing the forfeiture; 
(c) 
include the forfeiture, as set forth in the Order of Forfeiture (Money Judgment), in 
the oral pronouncement of the Defendant's sentence; and 
(d) 
incorporate the Order of Forfeiture (Money Judgment) in the criminal judgment 
entered against the Defendant, pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.2(b)(4). 
 
Respectfully submitted, 
 
LEAH B. FOLEY 
United States Attorney 
 
By: 
 /s/ Matthew M. Lyons                 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
MATTHEW M. LYONS 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
DUSTIN CHAO 
Assistant United States Attorneys 
United States Attorney’s Office 
1 Courthouse Way, Suite 9200 
Boston, MA 02210 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
(617) 748-3100 
 
 
 
Dated: March 4, 2026 
 
 
       matthew.lyons@usdoj.gov 
 
 
Case 1:24-cr-10378-JEK     Document 41     Filed 03/04/26     Page 5 of 5

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.mad.278745.41.0.pdf

Size

175,506 bytes

SHA-256

888514b79fb1733dea721d005062a936396a43462372b030a58eb7107dfee87c

Our copy

gov.uscourts.mad.278745.41.0.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)