Offer of Proof — United States v. Michael Eugene Bolte (D. Mont., Dkt. 23)

Summary

Offer of Proof, filed November 18, 2021 as Document 23, Case 1:21-cr-00046-SPW, United States of America v. Michael Eugene Bolte, District of Montana. The Government states that Defendant Michael Eugene Bolte has signed a plea agreement which contemplates his plea of guilty to the Superseding Information, which charges theft of government money, property, or records, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 641. It states that it would present evidence that Bolte owned and operated Razor Creek Recreation, LLC, applied on April 1, 2020, for an Economic Injury Disaster Loan ("EIDL"), and that the loan was dispersed on May 27, 2020. It states that on June 7, 2020, Bolte wrote a check to the estate for $75,000 for four vintage automobiles, rather than using the proceeds as working capital for his business.

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

Full text

         Case 1:21-cr-00046-SPW Document 23 Filed 11/18/21 Page 1 of 4



MICHAEL A. KAKUK
Assistant U.S. Attorney
U.S. Attorney’s Office
901 Front Street, Suite 1100
Helena, MT 59626
Phone: (406) 457-5262
Fax: (406) 457-5130
E-mail: michael.kakuk@usdoj.gov

ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

                IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                    FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA
                          BILLINGS DIVISION

 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                    CR 21-46-BLG-SPW

              Plaintiff,

       vs.                                    OFFER OF PROOF

 MICHAEL EUGENE BOLTE,

              Defendant.

      Defendant Michael Eugene Bolte has signed a plea agreement which

contemplates his plea of guilty to the Superseding Information, which charges theft

of government money, property, or records, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 641. Bolte

will also admit the forfeiture allegation, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(C) and

28 U.S.C. § 2461(c).




                                          1
         Case 1:21-cr-00046-SPW Document 23 Filed 11/18/21 Page 2 of 4



      The United States presented all formal plea offers to the defendant in writing.

The plea agreement entered into by the parties and filed with the Court represents,

in the government’s view, the only and most favorable offer extended to the

defendant. See Missouri v. Frye, 132 S.Ct. 1399 (2012).

      ELEMENTS. In order to prove theft of government money, property, or

records against the defendant at trial, the United States would have to prove the

following elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

      First, the defendant knowingly converted to defendant’s use money with the

intention of depriving the owner of the use or benefit of the money;

      Second, the money belonged to the United States; and

      Third, the value of the money was less than $1,000.

      PROOF. If called upon to prove this case at trial, and to provide a factual

basis for the defendant’s plea, the United States would present, by way of the

testimony of law enforcement officers, lay witnesses, and physical evidence, the

following:

      The Defendant, Michael Eugene Bolte, was the owner and operator of Razor

Creek Recreation, LLC, doing business as Feedlot Steakhouse and Razor Creek

Saloon in Shepherd, Montana. In February, 2020, defendant entered into

negotiations to purchase several vintage automobiles from an estate. Defendant

saw those vintage automobiles as an investment opportunity.

                                          2
         Case 1:21-cr-00046-SPW Document 23 Filed 11/18/21 Page 3 of 4



      On April 1, 2020, defendant applied for a business loan from the United

States Small Business Administration (“SBA”) under the Economic Injury Disaster

Loan (“EIDL”) program, authorized by the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic

Security Act. The application required information about the business, including its

number of employees, gross revenue, and cost of goods sold. Based on this

information, defendant’s business was approved for an EIDL loan of $106,200.

      On May 24, 2020, defendant signed the loan authorization, agreement, and

note for a loan of $74,800. As part of the loan authorization, defendant expressly

acknowledged the EIDL loan proceeds would be used solely as working capital for

the business. Defendant’s intent at the time of signing the EIDL loan authorization

was to purchase the estate’s vintage automobiles as an investment, and not as

working capital for his business.

      The EIDL loan was dispersed to defendant on May 27, 2020. Prior to

receiving this loan, defendant’s bank account had a balance of just over $15,000.

Eleven days later, on June 7, 2020, defendant wrote a check to the estate for

$75,000 for the purchase of four vintage automobiles: a 1916 Studebaker (VIN

219539), a 1929 Franklin (VIN 30193685), a 1939 Ford Deluxe (VIN 5064524),

and a 1941 Ford Super Deluxe (VIN 186334237). Also part of the estate’s sale to

defendant were two other vehicles, a tractor and a 1949 Jeep. Thus, Defendant in

fact used the proceeds from the EIDL loan to purchase those vintage automobiles,

                                          3
         Case 1:21-cr-00046-SPW Document 23 Filed 11/18/21 Page 4 of 4



not as working capital for his business as required by the SBA. Had the SBA

known Defendant’s intended and actual use of the proceeds of the EIDL loan, the

SBA would not have approved or funded defendant’s EIDL loan.

      The government submits that this evidence would prove beyond a reasonable

doubt all the elements of the crime charged in the superseding information.

      Respectfully submitted this 18th day of November, 2021.


                                             LEIF M. JOHNSON
                                             United States Attorney

                                             /s/ Michael A. Kakuk
                                             Assistant U.S. Attorney
                                             Attorney for Plaintiff




                                         4


File and source

File

23.pdf

Size

145,716 bytes

SHA-256

a71170ae6b8a5cc60f2e3ebf6d403735da55555250dc883b708c547863d36dc3

Our copy

23.pdf

Original

No public link identified.