Government Trial Brief — U.S. v. Shibley

Record facts

U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington (Seattle) · No. 2:20-cr-00174-JCC · Doc. 91 · 2021-11-01 · Docket on CourtListener

Full text

United States v. Shibley – CR20-174 JCC 
TRIAL BRIEF- Page 1 
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY 
700 STEWART STREET, SUITE 5200 
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101 
(206) 553-7970 
 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
The Honorable John C. Coughenour 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 
AT SEATTLE 
 
 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 
 
Plaintiff 
 
 
v. 
ERIC SHIBLEY, 
    Defendant. 
NO. CR20-174 JCC 
 
TRIAL BRIEF 
 
Trial Date: November 15, 2021 
 
I. 
INTRODUCTION  
Defendant Eric Shibley is charged with wire fraud, bank fraud, and money 
laundering, arising out of defendant’s scheme to obtain millions of dollars from COVID-
19 relief programs set up by the government, including the Paycheck Protection Program 
(“PPP”) and Economic Injury Disaster Loan (“EIDL”) program run by the Small 
Business Administration (“SBA”).  Shibley’s scheme involved the submission of false 
and fraudulent information and documentation about entities that he controlled to 
participating lenders and the SBA, including: 
• That Shibley had over 100 employees across six different businesses; 
• That Shibley paid payroll of approximately $1,000,000 a month across his six 
different businesses; and 
• That Shibley paid payroll taxes for his over 100 employees. 
Case 2:20-cr-00174-JCC     Document 91     Filed 11/01/21     Page 1 of 25

 
 
 
United States v. Shibley – CR20-174 JCC 
TRIAL BRIEF- Page 2 
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY 
700 STEWART STREET, SUITE 5200 
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101 
(206) 553-7970 
 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
Further, in his PPP applications, Shibley falsely affirmed that he was not on 
probation, when in fact he was on probation for violating a protection order from Skagit 
County.   
Defendant told these lies to fraudulently obtain emergency economic funds 
intended to, among other things, enable small businesses to keep their businesses 
operating and employees on payroll through the crisis of COVID-19.  As part of his 
scheme, Defendant submitted approximately 25 fraudulent PPP loan applications and 
approximately 13 fraudulent EIDL applications.  The PPP loan applications submitted by 
Defendant included falsified payroll-tax forms, among other things, and fraudulently 
represented the borrowing entities’ number of employees and amount of payroll.  As a 
result of the fraudulent PPP loan and EIDL applications submitted as part of the scheme, 
the participating lenders and the SBA disbursed over $2.5 million in fraudulent loan 
proceeds to Shibley.   
The fifteen-count Indictment charges Shibley with wire fraud, bank fraud, and 
money laundering. Trial is scheduled for November 15, 2021. The government expects to 
call fifteen to twenty witnesses and expects that its case in chief will last approximately 
five days.  
II. 
BACKGROUND AND SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE 
In March 2020, in response to the many challenges presented by the COVID-19 
pandemic, Congress passed the CARES Act, which created the PPP and expanded the 
EIDL Program.  The PPP authorized $349 billion in forgivable loans to small businesses 
to be used for payroll, mortgage interest, rent/lease payments, or utilities.   In April 2020, 
Congress authorized an additional $310 billion for PPP funding.  These funds were 
designed to address the unprecedented crisis facing Americans—especially business 
owners and their employees whose livelihoods were threatened by the public health 
emergency.   
The PPP was designed to provide funds quickly and easily to qualifying 
individuals.  To apply, individuals submitted an application to a participating financial 
Case 2:20-cr-00174-JCC     Document 91     Filed 11/01/21     Page 2 of 25

 
 
 
United States v. Shibley – CR20-174 JCC 
TRIAL BRIEF- Page 3 
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY 
700 STEWART STREET, SUITE 5200 
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101 
(206) 553-7970 
 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
institution along with supporting documentation as to the business’s payroll expenses.  
The supporting documentation requirement was minimal, and could be satisfied with one 
years’ worth of the company’s tax records.  If a PPP loan application was approved, the 
participating financial institution funded the PPP loan using its own monies, which were 
100% guaranteed by the SBA. 
The EIDL program was authorized by the CARES Act to provide loans of up to $2 
million to eligible small business experiencing substantial financial disruption due to the 
COVID-19 pandemic.  To apply, applicants submitted an application directly to the SBA 
and provided information about the business’s operations, including its number of 
employees and gross revenues for the 12-month period preceding January 31, 2020. 
In the face of this unprecedented crisis and government response, defendant, a 
Seattle doctor, sought to enrich himself by submitting approximately 25 fraudulent PPP 
applications and 13 EIDL applications, seeking millions of dollars in pandemic relief 
funds in the names of entities without payroll or employees.  Defendant, who was on 
probation at the time he applied for the loans, also lied about his probationary status on 
all of his applications.  The loan applications were supported by fake tax documents, 
including IRS Forms 941 and W3.  After receiving the loan funds, defendant sought to 
take out the proceeds in cash.  Once he learned that the lenders and the government were 
on to his scheme, defendant continued to apply for COVID-19 relief loans and take out 
loan proceeds in cash.   
The government intends to prove its case against Defendant using the evidence 
detailed below. 
The government will introduce evidence and testimony about the approximately 
25 fraudulent PPP loans and 13 fraudulent EIDL loans sought by defendant.  The 
evidence and testimony related to the loans will include: 
• Records from the PPP lenders of the approximately 25 PPP loans sought by 
defendant, including loan applications, loan notes, supporting loan 
documentation, such as tax returns and identification, and email and phone 
Case 2:20-cr-00174-JCC     Document 91     Filed 11/01/21     Page 3 of 25

 
 
 
United States v. Shibley – CR20-174 JCC 
TRIAL BRIEF- Page 4 
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY 
700 STEWART STREET, SUITE 5200 
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101 
(206) 553-7970 
 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
correspondence related to the PPP loans for the Eric R Shibley MD PLLC, 
SS1 LLC, ES1 LLC, The A Team Holdings LLC, Dituri Construction LLC, 
and SFC LLC a/k/a Seattle’s Finest Cannabis LLC (the “Shibley entities”); 
• Testimony from PPP lenders about their role in the PPP and the program 
requirements, including that they would not have approved a PPP 
application that contained false statements about the existence of the 
business, the number of employees, the payroll, or the owner’s 
probationary status; 
• Records from the SBA of the approximately 13 EIDL loans sought by 
defendant, including loan applications, internal SBA files, and IP address 
information related to EIDL loans for the Shibley entities; 
• Testimony from SBA employees about the PPP and EIDL program, 
including testimony that the SBA would not have approved an EIDL 
application that contained false statements about the existence of the 
business, the number of employees, the payroll, or the owner’s 
probationary status; 
The government will introduce evidence showing that the payroll and employee 
numbers listed on defendant’s loan applications were false.  This will include evidence 
showing that the six entities that defendant used to apply for funds from the PPP and 
EIDL program had not paid federal or state payroll taxes in 2019 and 2020.  The 
government will introduce testimony and records from federal and state agencies 
including the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”), the Washington Secretary of State 
(“SOS”), the Washington State Department of Revenue (“DOR”), and the Washington 
State Employment Security Department (“ESD”).  The government will also introduce 
defendant’s bank records and the testimony of a summary witness, who will testify about 
relevant financial transactions.   
The government will also introduce evidence and testimony demonstrating that 
certain individuals that defendant claimed as employees had not worked for him or his 
Case 2:20-cr-00174-JCC     Document 91     Filed 11/01/21     Page 4 of 25

 
 
 
United States v. Shibley – CR20-174 JCC 
TRIAL BRIEF- Page 5 
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY 
700 STEWART STREET, SUITE 5200 
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101 
(206) 553-7970 
 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
entities.  The government will introduce emails from defendant to Celtic and Harvest 
listing purported employees for his businesses.  The government will introduce 
employment records from ESD of the claimed employees showing that Washington state 
has no record of them working for defendant.  It will also include testimony from one of 
defendant’s purported employees, who will testify that she does not know defendant and 
has never worked for him. 
The government will show that the defendant lied on his PPP applications about 
his probation status.  The government will introduce evidence and testimony that 
defendant was sentenced to a term of two years of probation from December 2018 
through December 2020 for a Violation of a No Contact Order, and that he was reminded 
of his probation status during a meeting with his probation officer in January 2020. 
III. 
CHARGES AND ELEMENTS 
The fifteen-count Indictment charges Shibley with wire fraud, bank fraud, and 
money laundering.  
A. 
Counts 1-7: Wire Fraud  
Counts 1-7 charge Shibley with executing a scheme to defraud the PPP and EIDL 
program by submitting false and fraudulent loan applications in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 
1343. The government has proposed the Ninth Circuit’s model instruction (Instruction 
8.124) in its proposed jury instructions.  
To prove the offense of Wire Fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1343, the government must 
prove the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt: 
First, the defendant knowingly devised a scheme or plan to defraud, or a scheme 
or plan for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, 
representations, or promises, or omitted facts.  Deceitful statements of half-truths may 
constitute false or fraudulent representations; 
Second, the statements made or facts omitted as part of the scheme were material; 
that is, they had a natural tendency to influence, or were capable of influencing, a person 
to part with money or property; 
Case 2:20-cr-00174-JCC     Document 91     Filed 11/01/21     Page 5 of 25

 
 
 
United States v. Shibley – CR20-174 JCC 
TRIAL BRIEF- Page 6 
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY 
700 STEWART STREET, SUITE 5200 
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101 
(206) 553-7970 
 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
Third, the defendant acted with the intent to defraud, that is, the intent to deceive 
and cheat; and 
Fourth, the defendant used, or caused to be used, an interstate wire communication 
to carry out or attempt to carry out an essential part of the scheme. 
B. 
Counts 8-10: Bank Fraud  
Counts 8-10 charge Shibley with the same scheme to defraud, by submitting false 
and fraudulent loan applications to financial institutions participating in the PPP in 
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1344(2). The government has proposed the Ninth Circuit’s 
model instruction (Instruction 8.127) in its proposed jury instructions.  
To prove the offense of Bank Fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1344(2), the government 
must prove the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt: 
First, the defendant knowingly carried out a scheme or plan to obtain money or 
property from the financial institution by making false statements or promises; 
Second, the defendant knew that the statements or promises were false; 
Third, the statements or promises were material; that is, they had a natural 
tendency to influence, or were capable of influencing, a financial institution to part with 
money or property;  
Fourth, the defendant acted with the intent to defraud; and 
Fifth, the financial institution was federally insured. 
C. 
Counts 11-15:  Money Laundering  
Counts 11-15 charge Shibley with laundering the proceeds of his fraudulent 
scheme in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1957. The government has proposed the Ninth 
Circuit’s model instruction (Instruction 8.150) in its proposed jury instructions.  
To prove the offense of Money Laundering under 18 U.S.C. § 1957, the 
government must prove the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt: 
First, the defendant knowingly engaged or attempted to engage in a monetary 
transaction; 
Second, the defendant knew the transaction involved criminally derived property; 
Case 2:20-cr-00174-JCC     Document 91     Filed 11/01/21     Page 6 of 25

 
 
 
United States v. Shibley – CR20-174 JCC 
TRIAL BRIEF- Page 7 
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY 
700 STEWART STREET, SUITE 5200 
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101 
(206) 553-7970 
 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
Third, the property had a value greater than $10,000; 
Fourth, the property was, in fact, derived from wire fraud or bank fraud, as 
charged in Counts One through Ten of the Indictment; and 
Fifth, the transaction occurred in the United States. 
IV. 
EVIDENTIARY ISSUES 
Following is a discussion of evidentiary issues relevant to the government’s case:  
A. 
Pretrial Motions and Motions in Limine 
The parties have followed their obligation to meet and confer about motions in 
limine.  The government has filed one motion in limine along with this trial brief.   
B. 
Business and Public Records 
The government will offer records of regularly conducted activities of businesses 
and public agencies.  The government has provided notice that it intends to certain 
business and public records by offering Federal Rule of Evidence 902(11) certifications 
to counsel for defendant.  Based on the representations of counsel, the government does 
not expect defendant to object to the introduction of business and public records using 
902(11) certifications. 
1. 
Business Records 
The government will introduce business records kept and maintained by financial 
institutions, financial lenders, internet service providers, phone service providers, and the 
accounting firm Pinnacle Signature Group. The government also plans to introduce 
emails obtained from some of these entities.  These records are admissible pursuant to 
Rule 803(6), which allows for admission of a record if it is made at or near the time of the 
events set forth therein, by a person with knowledge, and is kept in the course of 
regularly-conducted activity of a business or other organization, if it is the regular 
practice of the organization to make the record. Fed. R. Evid. 803(6). Incompleteness, 
ambiguities, and inaccuracies in records go to the weight to be given the evidence, not to 
its admissibility. United States v. Catabran, 836 F.2d 453, 458 (9th Cir. 1988). 
Case 2:20-cr-00174-JCC     Document 91     Filed 11/01/21     Page 7 of 25

 
 
 
United States v. Shibley – CR20-174 JCC 
TRIAL BRIEF- Page 8 
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY 
700 STEWART STREET, SUITE 5200 
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101 
(206) 553-7970 
 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
Any person familiar with the record-keeping practices of the business is a 
sufficient foundational witness. Personal knowledge of the document is not required and 
does not affect its admissibility. United States v. Childs, 5 F.3d 1328, 1334 (9th Cir. 
1993) (the phrase “other qualified witness” is broadly interpreted to require “only that the 
witness understand the record-keeping system” at the particular organization).  
Furthermore, a record generated by a third party and received and relied upon in the 
ordinary course, such as an invoice, becomes a business record of the company relying 
upon it. Childs, 5 F.3d at 1333-34; see United States v. Jawara, 474 F.3d 565, 585 (9th 
Cir. 2007) (“[W]e would have no trouble concluding that a college in the United States 
was a proper custodian of its’ students’ SAT results, even though the SAT results were 
actually prepared by another entity”). The government need not show the records are 
accurate; it needs only to show the records are kept in a regular manner and are relied 
upon for the management and operation of the business. Johnson v. United States, 325 
F.2d 709, 711 (1st Cir. 1963). In determining whether these foundational facts have been 
established, the court may consider hearsay and other evidence not admissible at trial. 
Fed. R. Evid. 104(a).  
The government intends to authenticate certain business records by offering 
Federal Rule of Evidence 902(11) certifications rather than live testimony. Rule 902(11) 
provides that a party may authenticate a business record through a signed certification of 
records custodian if the proponent of the evidence gives the adverse party adequate notice 
of its intent to offer the record. The government has provided (or will provide) all 
902(11)s to the defense. 
2. 
Public Records 
Rule 803(8) provides an exception to the hearsay rule for public records from a 
public agency or office, relating to an activity of the office. “Records kept . . . [b]y public 
agencies may be admissible under the business records exception, Fed. R. Evid. 803(6), 
as well as under the public records exception, Fed. R. Evid. 803(8).” United States v. 
Bohrer, 807 F.2d 159, 162 (10th Cir. 1986) (internal citations omitted). 
Case 2:20-cr-00174-JCC     Document 91     Filed 11/01/21     Page 8 of 25

 
 
 
United States v. Shibley – CR20-174 JCC 
TRIAL BRIEF- Page 9 
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY 
700 STEWART STREET, SUITE 5200 
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101 
(206) 553-7970 
 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
The government will seek to introduce records from the SBA, Washington State 
DOR, Washington State ESD, and Washington SOS.  Public records are self-
authenticating and do not require testimony of a live witness when there are either: (1) 
presented with a certification a custodian of records pursuant to Rule 902(11); or (2) 
certified as correct by an official. Fed. R. Evid. 902(4).  
The government will also seek to introduce the certified Pennsylvania death 
certificate of an individual named Sam Morgan, because defendant used Mr. Morgan’s 
name and birthdate to claim that Mr. Morgan was one of defendant’s employees.  A death 
certificate is admissible as a “record of a birth, death, or marriage, if reported to a public 
office in accordance with a legal duty.”  Fed. R. Evid. 803(9). 
C. 
Statements of the Defendant  
The government expects to offer certain written and oral statements from the 
defendant at trial. These statements are not hearsay. See Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2).  The 
government will offer defendant’s email communications, loan applications prepared by 
defendant, audio recordings of conversations with defendant, and witness testimony 
about statements made by the defendant.  
The government will offer emails with defendant as business records authenticated 
through Rule 902(11), as noted above.  As discussed above, statements of the 
defendants—whether oral or written—are not hearsay. Fed. R Evid. 801(d)(2). The 
government will offer certain emails from defendant. These include responses to email 
chains where the entire chain is needed for context. 
The government will also offer certain audio recordings with defendant.  Some of 
these recordings were made by businesses in their regular course of business and will be 
authenticated through Rule 902(11). 
Two recordings with defendant were made by undercover federal agents posing as 
Celtic Bank and Harvest Small Business Finance representatives.  The FBI case agent 
who has spoken with defendant will introduce and authenticate the recordings at trial.   
Under Federal Rule of Evidence 901(a), “[w]here the government offers a tape recording 
Case 2:20-cr-00174-JCC     Document 91     Filed 11/01/21     Page 9 of 25

 
 
 
United States v. Shibley – CR20-174 JCC 
TRIAL BRIEF- Page 10 
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY 
700 STEWART STREET, SUITE 5200 
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101 
(206) 553-7970 
 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
of the defendant's voice, it must also make a prima facie case that the voice on the tape is 
in fact the defendant's....” United States v. Ortiz, 776 F.3d 1042, 1044 (9th Cir. 2015). 
“Lay opinion ... is permissible so long as the witness testifying has [the] requisite 
familiarity with the speaker. Id. The opinion must be “based on hearing the voice at any 
time under circumstances that connect it with the alleged speaker.” Fed.R.Evid. 
901(b)(5). “Rule 901(b)(5) establishes a low threshold for voice identifications”—an 
identifying witness need only be “minimally familiar with the voice he identifies.” Ortiz, 
776 F.3d at 1044. Testimony of voice recognition constitutes sufficient authentication. 
United States v. Torres, 908 F.2d 1417, 1425 (9th Cir. 1990) (DEA agent who had 
spoken with defendant could authenticate her voice on tape by testifying to voice 
recognition). “[T]apes are sufficiently authenticated under Fed.R.Evid. 901(a) if 
‘sufficient proof has been introduced so that a reasonable juror could find in favor of 
authenticity or identification.’” United States v. Campbell, 85 F.3d 638 (9th Cir. 1996). 
This Rule establishes a “low threshold” for authenticity; essentially anyone “minimally 
familiar” with the recorded voice can authenticate the recording. Hathaway v. Idaho Pac. 
Corp., No. 4:15-CV-00086-DCN, 2017 WL 4798125, at *5 (D. Idaho Oct. 23, 2017). 
Defendant may not introduce his own statements through the testimony of another 
witness. Although the United States is permitted to introduce such statements through the 
testimony of the witness pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2), that rule is 
unavailable to a defendant since he is the proponent of the evidence and, where he seeks 
to introduce it, it is not offered against him. See United States v. Ortega, 203 F.3d 675, 
682 (9th Cir. 2000); United States v. Fernandez, 839 F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 1988). 
Under Rule 801(d)(2), a statement by a party is not hearsay only when it is being offered 
against the party that made the statement, not when it is offered on the declarant’s behalf. 
Indeed, even where the United States elicits the inculpatory portion of defendant’s 
statement from a witness, on cross-examination, the defendant is not entitled to elicit the 
exculpatory portion. See Ortega, 203 F.3d at 682. The rule of completeness (Fed. R. 
Evid. 106) has no place in this analysis since it applies only to written or recorded 
Case 2:20-cr-00174-JCC     Document 91     Filed 11/01/21     Page 10 of 25

 
 
 
United States v. Shibley – CR20-174 JCC 
TRIAL BRIEF- Page 11 
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY 
700 STEWART STREET, SUITE 5200 
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101 
(206) 553-7970 
 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
statements. Id.  
D. 
Intent to Repay is Not a Defense 
The defendant should not be permitted to implicitly or explicitly assert through 
examination or argument that an intent to repay the PPP or EIDL funds is a defense to the 
charges of fraud in the loan applications. See United States v. Miller, 9053 F.3d 1095, 
1103 (9th Cir. 2020), citing United States v. Hamilton, 499, F.3d 734, 736 (7th Cir. 2007) 
(“If you embezzle from your employer you are not excused just because you had an 
honest intention of replacing the money, maybe with interest ....”). 
E. 
Summary Charts 
 Three types of summaries and charts are typically used in criminal cases: (1) 
summaries of voluminous records which may be admissible pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 
1006; (2) summaries created by a summary witness which may be admitted pursuant to 
Fed. R. Evid. 611(a); and (3) demonstratives or pedagogical charts that are used as 
testimonial aids, but which are not themselves introduced into evidence. The government 
may seek to use summaries and charts falling within all three categories.  
1. 
Fed. R. Evid. 1006 Summary Schedules 
Summaries and charts of voluminous records are used to present evidence of 
records so voluminous as to be impractical or impossible to actually bring into court and 
use during trial. See Fed. R. Evid. 1006; United States v. Johnson, 594 F.2d 1253, 1255 
(9th Cir. 1979) (“The purpose of Rule 1006 is to allow the use of summaries when the 
volume of documents is so large as to make their use impractical or impossible.”). The 
underlying records used to prepare Rule 1006 summaries are not usually admitted into 
evidence although they can be. Proponents must lay a proper foundation for admissibility 
of underlying records. See United States v. Shirley, 884 F.2d 1130, 1133 (9th Cir. 1989); 
United States v. Meyers, 847 F.2d 1408, 1411 (9th Cir. 1988). The substantive content 
must be authenticated, but that may be done by the summary witness, if the witness has 
reviewed the underlying evidence. Fed. R. Evid. 901; United States v. Soulard, 730 F. 2d 
1291, 1299 (9th Cir. 1984). 
Case 2:20-cr-00174-JCC     Document 91     Filed 11/01/21     Page 11 of 25

 
 
 
United States v. Shibley – CR20-174 JCC 
TRIAL BRIEF- Page 12 
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY 
700 STEWART STREET, SUITE 5200 
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101 
(206) 553-7970 
 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
 Rule 1006 allows for the summaries of voluminous materials to be admissible and 
used as substantive evidence, rather than solely as demonstrative evidence. See Meyers, 
847 F.2d at 1411-12 (admitting summary of otherwise admissible evidence as substantive 
evidence where the summary contributed to the clarity of the presentation); see United 
States v. Baker, 10 F.3d 1374, 1411 (9th Cir. 1993) (“[T]his Circuit has often allowed the 
use of summary charts and summary witness testimony based on testimonial evidence 
(most commonly in tax cases)”); United States v. Nordby, 225 F.3d 1053 (9th Cir. 2000); 
United States v. Wood, 943 F.2d 1049, 1053 (9th Cir. 1991). 
The government will offer into evidence summaries of voluminous PPP loan and 
EIDL data and records, including loan applications in this case, and the bank account 
records of defendant and his entities. These summaries will be offered through Michael 
Petron, a Certified Public Accountant and Certified Fraud Examiner who reviewed and 
summarized these records, or an FBI case agent.  
The records on which the summaries are based are routinely kept in the normal 
course of business and fall within the hearsay exception of Rule 803(6). The underlying 
records have been available to the defense since the beginning of this case.  
2. 
Fed. R. Evid. 611(a) Summary Testimony and Schedules 
Federal Rule of Evidence 611, addressing the Mode and Order of the Interrogation 
of Witnesses, gives the Court great discretion in what a witness may use during testimony 
so as to “(1) make the presentation effective for the ascertainment of the truth, [and] (2) 
avoid needless consumption of time.” Fed. R. Evid. 611(a); see United States v. Gardner, 
611 F.2d 770,776 (9th Cir. 1980) (summary chart admissible in tax evasion case under 
Rule 611(a)); United States v. Paulino, 935 F.2d 739, 752-54 (6th Cir. 1991) (testimony 
of non-expert summary witness regarding cash generated from cocaine sales in drug 
conspiracy case admissible under Rule 611(a) where trial court gave limiting instruction 
and defense had full opportunity to cross-examine); United States v. Scales, 594 F.2d 
558, 563-64 (6th Cir.1979) (summaries of testimonial evidence designed “to aid the jury 
in its examination of the evidence already admitted” do not come within Rule 1006, but 
Case 2:20-cr-00174-JCC     Document 91     Filed 11/01/21     Page 12 of 25

 
 
 
United States v. Shibley – CR20-174 JCC 
TRIAL BRIEF- Page 13 
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY 
700 STEWART STREET, SUITE 5200 
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101 
(206) 553-7970 
 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
are authorized by Rule 611(a)); see also 5 Jack B. Weinstein and Margaret A. Berger, 
Weinstein’s Evidence, at ¶ 1006[03] (summary “prepared by a witness from his own 
knowledge to assist the jury in understanding or remembering a mass of details is 
admissible, not under Rule 1006, but under such general principles of good sense as are 
embodied in Rule 611(a)”). 
In the event the summaries described in the above section are not considered to 
summarize voluminous records under Rule 1006, they should be admissible under Rule 
611. Such summaries themselves can also be properly admitted into evidence. See, e.g., 
Shirley, 884 F.2d at 1133-34. In Shirley, the summary expert witness compiled a 
summary of telephone records based on information already introduced into evidence. 
“Summary evidence . . ., ‘can help the jury organize and evaluate evidence which is 
factually complex and fragmentally revealed in the testimony of the multitude of 
witnesses.’” Shirley, 884 F.2d at 1133-34, citing United States v. Lemire, 720 F.2d 1327, 
1348 (D.C. Cir. 1983); see also United States v. Meyers, 847 F.2d 1408, 1412 (9th Cir. 
1988) (properly admitting chart detailing long distance calls made by various co-
conspirators); United States v. Marchini, 479 U.S. 1085 (1987) (admitting summary 
calculations of IRS agent where he was cross-examined on his testimony). 
3. 
Demonstrative Charts 
The government also intends to use various demonstrative charts during its 
opening statement, examination of witnesses, and in closing argument. Such charts 
include, for example, diagrams showing the flow of the loan proceeds.  The government 
does not intend to offer these charts into evidence.  Courts have repeatedly allowed use of 
charts similar to those the United States intends to use in this case. See, e.g., United 
States v. Scales, 594 F.2d 558, 561-562 (6th Cir. 1979) (summary of indictment); United 
States v. Stephens, 779 F.2d 232, 238 (5th Cir. 1985) (simple flow charts tracing the 
defendant’s use of loan proceeds).  
 
 
Case 2:20-cr-00174-JCC     Document 91     Filed 11/01/21     Page 13 of 25

 
 
 
United States v. Shibley – CR20-174 JCC 
TRIAL BRIEF- Page 14 
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY 
700 STEWART STREET, SUITE 5200 
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101 
(206) 553-7970 
 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
F. 
Stipulations 
The government and the defense will present at least one stipulation as evidence in 
this case.  On June 10, 2020, the government served defendant with 13 grand jury 
subpoenas for records relating to his various businesses.  These subpoenas requested, 
among other things, documents listing employee names, payroll records, and any other 
records of employee payments.  On June 23, 2020, defendant responded through his 
attorney and produced documents – but no employee lists or payroll records.  Defendant 
later supplemented his production through his attorney and but again did not provide 
employee lists or payroll records.  The parties signed a stipulation that describes the 
documents that Shibley produced, and the government will offer this stipulation at trial. 
The parties will endeavor to reach other stipulations in order to make the trial 
proceed efficiently.   
G. 
Hypothetical Questions 
 
The government intends to call employees of PPP lenders, including Ready 
Capital, Huntington Bank (the owner of TCF Bank), Celtic Bank, Harvest Small Business 
Finance, and Customers Bank, and the SBA as witnesses in its case-in-chief and intends 
to ask these witnesses certain hypothetical questions.  For example, the government 
intends to ask whether they would have funded a PPP or EIDL loan if they had known 
that the applications included false statements and certifications, including false 
statements about the existence of the business, false statements about the employee and 
payroll numbers, and a false certification about the applicant’s probationary status.  The 
government also intends to ask these witnesses what they would have done upon learning 
that a loan was funded based on an application containing false statements.  The 
government expects that the employees will testify that their employers would not have 
funded loans or would have sought to recall loan funds if they learned that a loan 
application contained false statements. 
 
In United States v. Laurienti, 611 F.3d 530, 549 (9th Cir. 2010), the court upheld 
the trial court’s decision allowing the government to ask victims of a securities fraud 
Case 2:20-cr-00174-JCC     Document 91     Filed 11/01/21     Page 14 of 25

 
 
 
United States v. Shibley – CR20-174 JCC 
TRIAL BRIEF- Page 15 
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY 
700 STEWART STREET, SUITE 5200 
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101 
(206) 553-7970 
 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
scheme hypothetical questions that may have a guilt-assuming element to establish 
materiality of defendant’s actions.  Id. (proper questions included, “If you had known 
prior to purchasing a house stock that [the defendant’s firm] prevented or discouraged 
their brokers from allowing their clients to sell their share of the house stock, would you 
have purchased the shares of the house stock?”) (citing United States v. Jennings, 487 
F.3d 564, 581–82 (8th Cir. 2007) (holding that it is generally permissible to ask guilt-
assuming hypotheticals of fact witnesses to prove materiality)).  As in Laurienti, 
hypothetical questions should be permitted to establish materiality of Defendant’s 
actions. 
H. 
Argument and Instruction Related to “Missing Witnesses” 
The defendant should not be permitted to make a “missing witness” argument 
during trial or closing argument.  As discussed above, defendant sent emails to Celtic 
Bank and Harvest and gave the names of several individuals he claimed were his 
employees.  However, ESD records will show that these individuals were not his 
employees.  The government does not intend to call most of these individuals as trial 
witnesses.  Similarly, the government does not intend to call Thomas Dituri, the 
individual who allegedly sold Shibley the Dituri Construction LLC in early 2020.  
Through bank and other records, the government will demonstrate that the Dituri 
Construction business did not have the employees, payroll, or revenue as claimed by 
Shibley.    
The government’s decision not to call these witnesses does not give rise to a 
missing witness instruction.  A missing witness argument or instruction permits the jury 
to infer that the testimony of an absent or missing witness would have been unfavorable 
to the opposing party. Such an inference is only allowed if the witness is “peculiarly 
within the power of the other party” and the inference is “natural and reasonable.” United 
States v. Leal-Del Carmen, 697 F.3d 964, 974 (9th Cir. 2012). A missing witness 
inference is improper if the witness is equally available to both parties. United States v. 
Bramble, 680 F.2d 590, 592 (9th Cir. 1982). 
Case 2:20-cr-00174-JCC     Document 91     Filed 11/01/21     Page 15 of 25

 
 
 
United States v. Shibley – CR20-174 JCC 
TRIAL BRIEF- Page 16 
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY 
700 STEWART STREET, SUITE 5200 
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101 
(206) 553-7970 
 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
Here, all potential witnesses are equally available to both the government and 
defendant.  None of the above witnesses is peculiarly within the government’s power and 
any missing witness inference is not natural or reasonable. Thus, a missing witness 
argument or jury instruction is improper. 
I. 
The Use of Documents Authored by Law Enforcement to Impeach Witnesses 
The defendant should not be permitted to use documents authored by law 
enforcement, including but not limited to summaries of witness interviews commonly 
referred to as 302s, to impeach interviewees on the basis of inconsistent statements if 
they are called by the government as witnesses at trial.   
Witnesses may only be impeached with their own prior statements, and law 
enforcement interview summaries are not the statements of the witnesses themselves.  
The Supreme Court has recognized that it would be “grossly unfair to allow the defense 
to use statements to impeach a witness which could not fairly be said to be the witness’ 
own rather than the product of the investigator’s selections, interpretations, and 
interpolations.”  Palermo v. United States, 360 U.S. 343, 350 (1959).   
In taking notes and preparing 302s or similar summaries, investigating agents 
necessarily exercise discretion by including their characterization of only those segments 
of a witness’s interview to which the agents assign importance and relevance.  As a 
result, the notes and 302s are not the “statements” of the interviewee.  See United States 
v. Claiborne, 765 F.2d 784, 801 (9th Cir. 1985) (“The 302 summaries of interviews 
conducted by [g]overnment agents with [the] witness . . . cannot fall within subsection (1) 
of 18 U.S.C. § 3500(e) because [the witness] did not draft the summaries or otherwise 
approve their contents.”); United States v. Donato, 99 F.3d 426, 433 (D.C. Cir. 1997) 
(under Palermo, FBI notes and 302s that constitute a selection of what was said during 
the interview are not statements of interviewees that would be discoverable under the 
Jencks Act).  
As a result, courts have held that law enforcement summaries cannot be used to 
impeach interviewees if they are called as witnesses at trial.  See, e.g., United States v. 
Case 2:20-cr-00174-JCC     Document 91     Filed 11/01/21     Page 16 of 25

 
 
 
United States v. Shibley – CR20-174 JCC 
TRIAL BRIEF- Page 17 
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY 
700 STEWART STREET, SUITE 5200 
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101 
(206) 553-7970 
 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
Leonardi, 623 F.2d 746, 757 (2d Cir. 1980) (upholding trial court’s refusal to admit FBI 
agent’s summary of interview with government witness as a prior inconsistent statement 
because document was “not attributable to” the witness); United States v. Shannahan, 
605 F.2d 539, 542 (10th Cir. 1979) (upholding refusal of trial court to permit defense to 
use FBI report of interview to impeach government witnesses because “reports did not 
come within the rule authorizing the use of prior statements”); United States v. Kot, No. 
2:10-CR-00280-KJD-GWF, 2012 WL 1657118, at *2 (D. Nev. May 10, 2012), aff'd, 583 
F. App’x 716 (9th Cir. 2014) (precluding the defense from using FBI reports of 
interviews to impeach government witnesses or suggesting to the jury that the FBI report 
was the statement of the witness). 
The government does not object to the defense cross-examining a witness using 
information contained in 302s.  Likewise, in the appropriate circumstances and with the 
proper foundation, the defense may attempt to refresh a witness’s recollection by 
showing the witness a 302, but only if the defense does so in a manner that does not 
imply that the 302 is the witness’s own statement. 
J. 
Transcripts of Recorded Conversations  
The government will offer portions of recordings of conversations between 
defendant and undercover agents and PPP lenders.  The government has prepared 
transcripts of the conversations to show the jurors while they listen to the recordings. The 
government has proposed Ninth Circuit Model Instruction 2.6, which instructs the jury 
that the recordings themselves are the evidence, and the transcripts only a guide.  
The Ninth Circuit has approved of the use of transcripts of properly admitted 
recordings to aid the jury in understanding the recordings. United States v. Turner, 528 
F.2d 143, 167-68 (9th Cir. 1975). While the transcripts should not be sent back to the jury 
room, the transcripts may be provided to the jury if they request to have the recordings 
replayed during deliberations. Because the jury is instructed that the recordings control, 
the court is not required to review the transcripts to determine their accuracy. United 
States v. Tisor, 96 F.3d 370, 377 (9th Cir. 1996).   
Case 2:20-cr-00174-JCC     Document 91     Filed 11/01/21     Page 17 of 25

 
 
 
United States v. Shibley – CR20-174 JCC 
TRIAL BRIEF- Page 18 
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY 
700 STEWART STREET, SUITE 5200 
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101 
(206) 553-7970 
 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
V. 
REDACTIONS 
The government plans to redact its exhibits as detailed below in order to present 
critical evidence related to this case.  The government has consulted with counsel for 
defendant, who does not object to the government’s proposal. 
• Dates of Birth:  the government will redact dates of birth to the year of birth in 
accordance with Local Criminal Rule 49.1 on all exhibits for display at trial 
and filed with the Court.  However, the government will not redact certain 
exhibits provided to the jury for deliberation containing the dates of birth for 
defendant’s purported employees. 
• Social Security Numbers and Taxpayer-Identification Numbers (TINs):  the 
government will redact social security numbers and TINs to the last four 
numbers, rather than in full. 
• Bank records and Financial Accounting Information:  the government will not 
redact any account numbers associated with the Shibley entities. 
• Home Addresses:  the government will not be redacting the address of 
defendant’s medical practice. 
 Except as noted above, the government will redact its exhibits in accordance with 
Local Criminal Rule 49.1.   
VI. 
EXCLUSION OF WITNESSES 
Pursuant to Rule 615 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, the government 
respectfully requests that witnesses be excluded from the courtroom, with the exception 
of the case agent. United States v. Thomas, 835 F.2d 219, 222-23 (9th Cir. 1987) (case 
agent permitted to remain in court through trial as a representative of the government); 
see also United States v. Machor, 879 F.2d 945, 953-54 (1st Cir. 1989) (same).  
VII. JURY SELECTION 
In light of the length of the trial and the current health conditions, the government 
respectfully requests that the Court seat at least one alternate juror.  Pursuant to Local 
Rules, the government will file proposed voir dire questions on November 5. 
Case 2:20-cr-00174-JCC     Document 91     Filed 11/01/21     Page 18 of 25

 
 
 
United States v. Shibley – CR20-174 JCC 
TRIAL BRIEF- Page 19 
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY 
700 STEWART STREET, SUITE 5200 
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101 
(206) 553-7970 
 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
VIII. REBUTTAL WITNESSES 
The government reserves the right to call any rebuttal witnesses depending on the 
defense case. 
IX. 
FORFEITURE 
The United States seeks forfeiture in this case and provided notice to the 
Defendant of this intent in the Indictment (Dkt. No. 31).  The United States also filed a 
Forfeiture Bill of Particulars (Dkt. No. 39) and Motion for Protective Order (Dkt. No. 40) 
specifically identifying the following funds and a sum of money for forfeiture: 
1) 
$804,816.63 in U.S. funds seized on or about May 27, 2020 from a Wells 
Fargo account ending 3536, held in the name of The A Team Holdings, 
LLC; 
2) 
$100,000 in U.S. funds seized on or about May 29, 2020 from a Wells 
Fargo account ending 2378 held, in the name of ES1, LLC; 
3) 
$49,500.86 in U.S. funds seized on or about May 29, 2020 from a Navy 
Federal Credit Union account ending 7528, held in the name of Eric R. 
Shibley MD, PLLC; 
4) 
$114,440 in U.S. funds seized on or about June 25, 2020 from a Verity 
Credit Union account ending 5390, held in the name of Dituri Construction, 
LLC; 
5) 
$114,743.59 in U.S. funds seized on or about June 25,2020 from a Verity 
Credit Union account ending 5320, held in the name of SS1, LLC; and, 
6) 
A sum of money reflecting the unrecovered proceeds the Defendant 
obtained from his Wire Fraud and Bank Fraud schemes. 
A. 
Legal Basis for Forfeiture: 
1) 
Proceeds of the Defendant’s Wire Fraud scheme (including Counts 1-7) are 
forfeitable pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(C), by way of 28 U.S.C. 
§ 2461(c); 
Case 2:20-cr-00174-JCC     Document 91     Filed 11/01/21     Page 19 of 25

 
 
 
United States v. Shibley – CR20-174 JCC 
TRIAL BRIEF- Page 20 
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY 
700 STEWART STREET, SUITE 5200 
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101 
(206) 553-7970 
 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
2) 
Proceeds of the Defendant’s Bank Fraud scheme (including Counts 8-10) 
are forfeitable pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 982(a)(2); and 
3) 
Property involved in the Defendant’s Money Laundering offenses (Counts 
11-15) is forfeitable pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 982(a)(1). 
B. 
Factual Basis for Forfeiture: 
The United States expects the evidence at trial to establish the proceeds the 
Defendant obtained from his Wire Fraud and Bank Fraud schemes and that the funds 
identified above constitute or are traceable to those proceeds.  The United States also 
expects the evidence at trial to establish that the $804,816.63 seized from Wells Fargo 
account ending in 3536 was involved in the Defendant’s Money Laundering, or is 
traceable to such property.  The sum of money to be forfeited reflects the unrecovered 
proceeds the Defendant obtained from his Wire Fraud and Bank Fraud schemes.  
1) 
$804,816.63 – Wire Fraud, Bank Fraud, and Money Laundering:  The 
Defendant fraudulently applied for and received a PPP loan totaling $960,000 in the 
name of his business, The A Team Holdings LLC.  $960,000 was wired from 
Customers Bank into The A Team Holdings LLC account at Wells Fargo ending 9116.  
On May 4, 2020, all of these funds were transferred from the account ending 9116 into a 
Wells Fargo account ending 3536.  $162,075.59 of the funds were thereafter withdrawn 
from the account ending 3536.  On or about May 27, 2020, the United States seized the 
remaining fraudulently obtained PPP funds, $804,816.63, from this account.  These funds 
are proceeds of the Defendant’s Wire Fraud and Bank Fraud schemes and were involved 
in the Money Laundering offenses described in Counts 11 and 14.  The United States also 
seeks forfeiture of a sum of money including the $162,075.59 in proceeds the Defendant 
withdrew from this account. 
2) 
$100,000 – Wire Fraud and Bank Fraud:  The Defendant fraudulently 
applied for and received a PPP loan totaling $100,000 in the name of ES1 LLC.  
$100,000 in PPP funds was wired from TCF National Bank to an ES1 LLC Wells Fargo 
account ending 9124.  On or about May 21, 2020, all of these funds were transferred 
Case 2:20-cr-00174-JCC     Document 91     Filed 11/01/21     Page 20 of 25

 
 
 
United States v. Shibley – CR20-174 JCC 
TRIAL BRIEF- Page 21 
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY 
700 STEWART STREET, SUITE 5200 
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101 
(206) 553-7970 
 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
from the account ending 9124 into a Wells Fargo account ending 2378.  On or about May 
29, 2020, the United States seized the fraudulently obtained PPP funds, $100,000, from 
this account.  These funds are proceeds of the Defendant’s Wire Fraud and Bank Fraud 
schemes. 
3) 
$49,500.86 -Wire Fraud and Bank Fraud:  The Defendant fraudulently 
applied for and received a PPP loan totaling $100,000 in the name of his business, Eric R 
Shibley MD PLLC.  $100,000 of PPP funds was wired from TCF National Bank into the 
Defendant’s Navy Federal CU account ending 9972.  On or about May 12, 2020, all of 
these funds were transferred from the account ending 9972 into the Defendant’s Navy 
Federal Credit Union account ending 7528.  $50,000 of the funds were thereafter 
withdrawn from the account.  On or about May 27, 2020, the United States seized the 
remaining fraudulently obtained PPP funds, $49,500.86, from this account.  These funds 
are proceeds of the Defendant’s Wire Fraud and Bank Fraud schemes.  The United States 
also seeks forfeiture of a sum of money including the $50,000 in proceeds the Defendant 
withdrew from this account. 
4) 
$114,440 – Wire Fraud:  The Defendant submitted a fraudulent EIDL 
application on behalf of Dituri Construction LLC to the SBA.  The SBA wired 
$114,900 to a Verity Credit Union account ending 5400 in the name of Dituri 
Construction LLC.  On June 19, 2020, $114,440 was transferred from the account ending 
5400 to another Dituri Construction LLC account ending 5390.  On or about June 25, 
2020, the United States seized the remaining fraudulently obtained SBA funds, $114,440, 
from this account.  These funds are proceeds of the Defendant’s Wire Fraud scheme.   
5) 
$114,743.59 – Wire Fraud and Money Laundering:  The Defendant 
submitted a fraudulent EIDL application on behalf of SS1 LLC to the SBA.  The SBA 
wired $114,900 to a Verity Credit Union account ending 5330 in the name of SS1 LLC.  
On June 19, 2020, $114,743.59 was transferred from the account ending 5330 to another 
SS1 LLC account ending 5320.  On or about June 25, 2020, the United States seized the 
remaining fraudulently obtained SBA funds, $114,743.59, from this account.  These 
Case 2:20-cr-00174-JCC     Document 91     Filed 11/01/21     Page 21 of 25

 
 
 
United States v. Shibley – CR20-174 JCC 
TRIAL BRIEF- Page 22 
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY 
700 STEWART STREET, SUITE 5200 
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101 
(206) 553-7970 
 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
funds are proceeds of the Defendant’s Wire Fraud scheme and were involved in the 
Money Laundering offense described in Count 15.   
6) 
The Defendant received approximately $2,821,200 in proceeds from his 
Wire Fraud and Bank Fraud schemes.  Of this total, the United States has recovered 
approximately $1,183,501.08 with seizure warrants (the above-described funds).  
Financial institutions also recovered approximately $1,383,500.  The Defendant withdrew 
approximately $200,000 in bulk cash, which is also proceeds of these schemes.  In 
addition to forfeiture of the proceeds seized with seizure warrants, the United States seeks 
forfeiture of a sum of money that reflects the unrecovered proceeds obtained by the 
Defendant -- $254,199.   All of these funds were proceeds of the underlying Wire Fraud 
and Bank Fraud schemes. 
C. 
Legal Standard for Forfeiture 
Criminal forfeiture is a form of punishment that is imposed as part of a criminal 
sentence.  Libretti v. United States, 516 U.S. 29, 39 – 40 (1995).  For the government to 
criminally forfeit property, there must be a predicate criminal conviction, a statute 
authorizing forfeiture for the crime of conviction, and evidence to support the statutorily 
required nexus between the property and the crime of conviction.  See e.g., United States 
v. Garcia-Guizar, 160 F.3d 511, 518 – 20 (9th Cir. 1998) (reviewing these requirements). 
With respect to the required nexus, the government must establish the forfeitability of the 
relevant property by a preponderance of the evidence.  United States v. Martin, 662 F.3d 
301, 307 (4th Cir.2011); see also United States v. Rutgard, 116 F.3d 1270, 1293 (9th Cir. 
1997); United States v. Hernandez-Escarsega, 886 F.2d 1560, 1576-77 (9th Cir. 1989).  
In other words, depending on the relevant forfeiture statute, the government must 
present evidence that establishes the relevant property is, “more likely than not,” 
forfeitable as proceeds of the crime, property that facilitated the crime, and/or property 
involved in the crime.  This lower standard of proof “is constitutional because the 
criminal forfeiture provision does not itself describe a separate offense, but is merely an 
‘additional penalty’ for an offense that must be provide beyond a reasonable doubt.” 
Case 2:20-cr-00174-JCC     Document 91     Filed 11/01/21     Page 22 of 25

 
 
 
United States v. Shibley – CR20-174 JCC 
TRIAL BRIEF- Page 23 
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY 
700 STEWART STREET, SUITE 5200 
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101 
(206) 553-7970 
 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
United States v. Garcia-Guizar, 160 F.3d at 518 (citing United States v. Hernandez-
Escarsega, 886 F.2d at 1577).  
In this case, there is statutory authority to forfeit the identified property following 
the Defendant’s conviction, as set forth above.  The evidence introduced at trial will 
establish, to a preponderance, the proceeds the Defendant obtained from his Wire Fraud 
and Bank Fraud schemes, the property involved in the Defendant’s Money Laundering, 
and the nexus between the identified property and the Defendant’s offenses. 
D. 
Forfeiture Process 
Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.2 sets out the procedures for determining 
the forfeitability of property in a criminal case.  Forfeitures are decided after a guilty 
verdict is returned on a count that supports the forfeiture.  See Fed. R. Crim. P. 
32.2(b)(1)(A).  At that juncture, the specific question for the fact finder is “whether the 
government [has established the] requisite nexus between the property and the offense.”  
See id.  The forfeiture of a sum of money is determined by the court, not the jury.  A 
defendant has no right to have a jury to determine the forfeiture of a money judgment.  
See id. (“If the government seeks a personal money judgment, the court must determine 
the amount of money that the defendant will be ordered to pay.”). 
As forfeiture is determined post-conviction, and is considered part of sentencing, 
the rules of evidence do not strictly apply to forfeiture proceedings.  See e.g., 
United States v. Hatfield, 795 F. Supp. 2d 219, 229 – 30 (E.D.N.Y. 2011) (holding 
neither the Federal Rules of Evidence nor Daubert apply to forfeiture hearings) and 
United States v. Creighton, 52 Fed. Appx. 31, 35 – 36 (9th Cir. 2002) (“hearsay evidence 
is permissible at sentencing and does not, per se, lack sufficient indicia of reliability”).  
The fact finder may consider any evidence that is “relevant and reliable.”  Fed. R. Crim. 
P. 32.2(b)(1)(B).  This includes any evidence presented by the parties during trial on the 
substantive criminal offenses.  See id.  (“The court’s [or jury’s forfeiture] determination 
may be based on evidence already in the record ….”); see also United States v. Newman, 
659 F.3d 1235, 1244 – 45 (9th Cir. 2011) (same).  
Case 2:20-cr-00174-JCC     Document 91     Filed 11/01/21     Page 23 of 25

 
 
 
United States v. Shibley – CR20-174 JCC 
TRIAL BRIEF- Page 24 
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY 
700 STEWART STREET, SUITE 5200 
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101 
(206) 553-7970 
 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
If the Defendant is convicted of one or more of the identified offenses, the 
United States expects to present the forfeiture case in a supplemental proceeding pursuant 
to Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.2(b)(1).  The United States is willing to waive its right to retain the 
jury for that proceeding and have the Court decide the forfeitures. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 
32.2(b)(5).  If, however, the Defendant is unwilling to waive, the United States is 
prepared to present the forfeiture case to the jury.  According to the Rules, the court must 
determine whether the jury will be retained for forfeiture before the jury begins 
deliberating.  Fed. R. Crim. P. 32(b)(5)(A).  In the event that jury is involved in the 
forfeiture proceeding, the United States is submitting proposed forfeiture jury instructions 
and a special forfeiture verdict form.  The Court, not the jury, determines the sum of 
money to be forfeited.  For this reason, the proposed jury instructions and special verdict 
form do not address the forfeiture of a sum of money. 
In the forfeiture proceeding, the United States expects to rely primarily on the 
testimony and evidence introduced during the guilt/innocence phase of trial.  The 
United States expects to present argument with respect to the forfeiture of the identified 
property, but it does not expect to present substantial additional testimony or exhibits.  
The United States reserves its right, however, to offer alternative arguments and evidence 
in support of forfeiture, and to take different positions with respect to forfeiture, as 
necessary to respond to developments at trial. 
// 
// 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Case 2:20-cr-00174-JCC     Document 91     Filed 11/01/21     Page 24 of 25

 
 
 
United States v. Shibley – CR20-174 JCC 
TRIAL BRIEF- Page 25 
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY 
700 STEWART STREET, SUITE 5200 
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101 
(206) 553-7970 
 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
X. 
CONCLUSION 
This Trial Brief is intended to familiarize the Court with the government’s case 
and evidentiary issues related to the trial presentation. The government will supplement 
this brief as necessary if additional issues arise.  
 
DATED this 1st day of November, 2021. 
Respectfully submitted, 
NICHOLAS W. BROWN 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
United States Attorney  
 
JOSEPH BEEMSTERBOER 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Acting Chief, Fraud Section,  
Criminal Division 
U.S. Department of Justice  
 
 
s/ Brian Werner 
 
 
 
BRIAN WERNER 
Assistant United States Attorney 
 
s/ Laura Connelly 
 
 
 
LAURA CONNELLY 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Trial Attorney 
Case 2:20-cr-00174-JCC     Document 91     Filed 11/01/21     Page 25 of 25

File and source

File

United_States_v._Shibley__wawd_2-20-cr-00174__doc91__gov.uscourts.wawd.290911.91.0.pdf

Size

321,976 bytes

SHA-256

dec62068300698e60a4c007638c7758405b689024c73d7c48059cc24d78f6b75

Our copy

United_States_v._Shibley__wawd_2-20-cr-00174__doc91__gov.uscourts.wawd.290911.91.0.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)