Memorandum and Order on Bill Dessaps's Motions for Acquittal — United States v. Dessaps (D. Mass., Dkt. 262)

Summary

In this Memorandum and Order on Bill Dessaps's motions for acquittal, in No. 24-CR-10009-AK, Angel Kelley, D.J., denies the Motion for Acquittal After the Government's Case and Renewed After Close of Evidence [Dkt. 220] and the Motion for Judgment NOV. Dessaps argued that the government did not produce sufficient evidence on the counts of the Superseding Indictment. The Court rejects the sufficiency challenges to Count One (Conspiracy to Commit Wire Fraud based on the PPP application to Kabbage Bank), Count Two (Money Laundering based on checks written to Alexandre), Count Three (Bank Fraud based on a second draw PPP loan application) and Count Four (Conspiracy to Commit Wire Fraud based on a fraudulent mortgage application). It finds no merger problem between Count Two and Count One.

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

Cite this document

“Memorandum and Order on Bill Dessaps's Motions for Acquittal — United States v. Dessaps (D. Mass., Dkt. 262).” Original at archive.org. Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/source-documents/court-filing-no-1-24-cr-10009-dkt-262-d-mass-54521dd11a/, SHA-256 e8490764344313c9693f79c70e5307f8e107973ac11fa8fae3fec53c0359d16f.

Full text

Case 1:24-cr-10009-AK Document 262 Filed 02/12/26 Page 1 of 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
____________________________________
)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )
)
)
)
) Civil Action No. 24-CR-10009-AK
v. )
)
BILL DESSAPS, )
)
Defendant. )
)

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON BILL DESSAPS’S MOTIONS FOR ACQUITTAL

ANGEL KELLEY, D.J.

At the close of the Government’s case, and renewed at the close of all evidence, the

Defendant, Bill Dessaps, moved for a judgment of acquittal under Federal Rule of Criminal

Procedure 29, arguing that the government did not produce sufficient evidence for a rational jury

to find that he was guilty of each of the four counts of the Superseding Indictment [Dkt. 70]: (1)

Conspiracy to Commit Wire Fraud; (2) Money Laundering; (3) Bank Fraud; and, (4) Conspiracy

to Commit Wire Fraud. With the Court’s permission, Dessaps supplemented his Motion after the

conclusion of trial, raising more specific challenges without waiving any other sufficiency-of-

the-evidence arguments. The government opposes. [Dkt. 239]. For the following reasons,

Dessaps’s Motion for Acquittal After the Government’s Case and Renewed After Close of

Evidence [Dkt. 220] and Motion for Judgment NOV [Dkt. 238] are DENIED.

I. LEGAL STANDARD

A motion for acquittal may only be granted when the evidence and all reasonable

inferences to be drawn from it, taken in the light most favorable to the government, are

1
Case 1:24-cr-10009-AK Document 262 Filed 02/12/26 Page 2 of 4

insufficient for a rational factfinder to conclude that the prosecution has proven, beyond a

reasonable doubt, each of the elements of the offense. United States v. Pimental, 380 F.3d 575,

584 (1st Cir. 2004). The court does not assess the credibility of the witnesses, as that is “a role

reserved for the jury.” United States v. Rivera-Rodriguez, 617 F.3d 581, 596 (1st Cir. 2010)

(quoting United States v. Troy, 583 F.3d 20, 24 (1st Cir. 2009)). When a “defendant challenges

the sufficiency of the evidence, all of the proof must be perused from the government’s

perspective.” United States v. Correia, 55 F.4th 12, 26 (1st Cir. 2022) (internal quotations

omitted) (quoting United States v. Kilmartin, 944 F.3d 315, 325 (1st Cir. 2019)). As stated by

Dessaps, “[i]f the evidence viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict gives equal or nearly

equal circumstantial support to a theory of guilt and a theory of innocence of the crime charged,

this court must reverse the conviction. This is so because . . . where an equal or nearly equal

theory of guilt and a theory of innocence is supported by the evidence viewed in the light most

favorable to the prosecution, a reasonable jury must necessarily entertain a reasonable doubt.”

United States v. Burgos, 703 F.3d 1, 10 (1st Cir. 2012) (quoting United States v. Flores–Rivera,

56 F.3d 319, 323 (1st Cir.1995)) (alterations in original) (emphasis in original).

II. DISCUSSION

As to Count One, Conspiracy to Commit Wire Fraud based on his PPP application to

Kabbage Bank, Dessaps claims the government introduced insufficient, circumstantial evidence,

resulting in at least “an equal or nearly equal theory of guilt and a theory of innocence.” Id. In

reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, including as laid out in the

government’s Opposition [Dkt. 239 at 3-6], the theories of guilt and innocence are not equally

supported by the evidence, circumstantial or otherwise. A rational factfinder could find each

element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt.

2
Case 1:24-cr-10009-AK Document 262 Filed 02/12/26 Page 3 of 4

As to Count Two, Money Laundering based on the checks written to Alexandre, Dessaps

makes three arguments: (1) a lack of sufficient evidence that Dessaps knew the funds were

proceeds of unlawful activity; (2) a lack of sufficient evidence that the purpose of the checks was

to conceal the nature or source of the funds; and, (3) a merger problem. As to the first two

arguments, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, the Court sees no

reason to disturb the jury’s verdict. A reasonable factfinder could find guilt beyond a reasonable

doubt as to these and the other elements of the offense. As to the merger problem, this Court

finds that the charge of money laundering here did not improperly merge with Count One.

Instead, this case is more similar to United States v. Foley, as the crime of Conspiracy to Commit

Wire Fraud was complete prior to the transfer of funds to Alexandre, and the subsequent transfer

to Alexandre did not represent payment of an expense of carrying on the fraud. 783 F.3d 7, 14-

16, 16 n.8 (1st Cir. 2015); see also United States v. Kennedy, 707 F.3d 558, 563-67 (5th Cir.

2013). Thus, there is no merger problem.

As to Count Three, Bank Fraud based on the filing of a second draw PPP loan

application, Dessaps again raises a sufficiency-of-the-evidence argument, claiming an equally

plausible theory of innocence. This Court, again, disagrees with Dessaps that, when viewing the

evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, there is an equally plausible theory of

innocence. Instead, a reasonable jury could find that Dessaps was guilty of the offense beyond a

reasonable doubt.

Finally, as to Count Four, Conspiracy to Commit Wire Fraud based on a fraudulent

mortgage application, Dessaps claims the government introduced insufficient evidence both as to

the purpose of the conspiracy and as to the materiality of Dessaps’s misrepresentations. Again,

viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, including the evidence

3
Case 1:24-cr-10009-AK Document 262 Filed 02/12/26 Page 4 of 4

specifically identified in the government’s Opposition [Dkt. 239 at 16-20], there is sufficient

evidence for a rational factfinder to conclude that the prosecution has proven, beyond a

reasonable doubt, each of the elements of the offense, including the two questioned by Dessaps.

III. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Dessaps’s Motion for Acquittal After the Government’s Case

and Renewed After Close of Evidence [Dkt. 220] and Motion for Judgment NOV [Dkt. 239] are

DENIED.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 12, 2026 /s/ Angel Kelley
Hon. Angel Kelley
United States District Judge

File and source

File: 262.pdf
Size: 155,685 bytes
SHA-256: e8490764344313c9693f79c70e5307f8e107973ac11fa8fae3fec53c0359d16f
Our copy: 262.pdf
Original: archive.org