Full text
Case 2:23-cr-00079-TPB-NPM Document 94 Filed 08/16/24 Page 1 of 7 PageID 333
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v. Case No. 2:23-cr-79-TPB-NPM
TIMOTHY CRAIG JOLLOFF
UNITED STATES’ MOTION
FOR ORDER OF FORFEITURE
The United States moves this Court, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 981(a)(1)(C),
982(a)(1), 982(a)(2)(A), 28 U.S.C. § 2461(c), and Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.2(b)(2), to enter
an order of forfeiture against the defendant in the amount of $3,403,265. In support,
the United States submits the following memorandum of law.
MEMORANDUM OF LAW
I. Statement of Facts
A. Allegations Against the Defendant
1. The defendant was charged in an Indictment, in pertinent part, with a
wire fraud scheme, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1343 and 2 (Count Two), a bank
fraud scheme, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1344 and 2 (Count Thirteen), and illegal
monetary transactions, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1957 and 2 (Count Twenty-
Three). Doc. 27.
2. The Indictment also contained forfeiture allegations putting the
defendant on notice that, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 981(a)(1)(C), 982(a)(1),
982(a)(2)(A), and 28 U.S.C. § 2461(c), the United States would seek an order of
Case 2:23-cr-00079-TPB-NPM Document 94 Filed 08/16/24 Page 2 of 7 PageID 334
forfeiture in the amount of $3,403,265 representing the amount of proceeds obtained
from the wire fraud and bank fraud schemes, and/or the amount involved in the
illegal monetary transactions, as well as forfeiture of a 2019 GMC truck with Vehicle
Identification Number 1GTU9FEL9KZ402935.1 Id. at 20-21.
B. Finding of Guilt and Admissions Related to Forfeiture
1. The defendant pled guilty to Counts Two, Thirteen, and Twenty-three
of the Indictment. Doc. 83. The Court accepted the defendant’s plea and
adjudicated him guilty. Docs. 85, 87.
2. The defendant admitted in his Plea Agreement that in March of 2020,
the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act was enacted to
provide emergency financial assistance to the millions of Americans who were
suffering the economic effects caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. Doc. 84 at 16.
One source of relief provided by the CARES Act was the authorization of forgivable
loans to small businesses for job retention and certain other expenses, through a
program referred to as the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP). Id. Another
source of relief was the Economic Injury Disaster Loan (EIDL) program, which was
a Small Business Administration program that provided low-interest financing to
small businesses affected by declared disasters. Id.
The defendant purported to own and operate at least twelve businesses with
1
The United States Secret Service administratively forfeited the GMC truck. The
defendant will receive credit towards his $3,403,265 order of forfeiture for the net proceeds
obtained from the sale of the GMC truck.
2
Case 2:23-cr-00079-TPB-NPM Document 94 Filed 08/16/24 Page 3 of 7 PageID 335
his wife and co-defendant, Lisa Jolloff, and fraudulently sought PPP and EIDL loans
for those businesses. Id. at 18-19. In total, approximately $3,403,265 in
fraudulently obtained EIDL and PPP loan funds were deposited into accounts
controlled and maintained by the defendant and his co-defendant, Lisa Jolloff. Id.
at 23.
3. The defendant agreed in his Plea Agreement that, pursuant 18 U.S.C.
§§ 981(a)(1)(C), 982(a)(1), 982(a)(2)(A), and 28 U.S.C. § 2461(c), the United States
was entitled to, among other assets, an order of forfeiture in the amount of
$3,403,265, representing the proceeds he admits he jointly obtained with his co-
defendant from the wire fraud and bank fraud schemes. Doc. 84 at 6. The
defendant further agreed that as a result of his acts and omissions, the proceeds not
recovered by the United States through the forfeiture of the directly traceable assets
have been transferred to third parties and cannot be located by the United States
upon exercise of due diligence; therefore, the defendant agreed that, pursuant to 21
U.S.C. § 853(p), the United States is entitled to forfeit substitute assets up to the
amount of proceeds he obtained. Id. at 7. Moreover, the defendant agreed that the
order of forfeiture would be final upon entry. Id. at 8.
II. Applicable Law
A. Applicable Forfeiture Statutes
Forfeiture in this case is governed by 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(C), which provides
for the civil forfeiture of any property, real or personal, that constitutes or is derived
3
Case 2:23-cr-00079-TPB-NPM Document 94 Filed 08/16/24 Page 4 of 7 PageID 336
from proceeds traceable to a violation of any offenses constituting “specified
unlawful activity” (as defined in section 1956(c)(7) of this title). "Specified unlawful
activity," as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 1956(c)(7)(D), includes a wire fraud scheme (18
U.S.C. § 1343). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2461(c), the United States is authorized to
forfeit this property criminally utilizing the procedures set forth in 21 U.S.C. § 853.
In addition forfeiture in this case is governed by 18 U.S.C. § 982(a)(2)(A), which
provides for the forfeiture of any property, real or personal, which constitutes or is
derived from proceeds traceable to a bank fraud scheme (18 U.S.C. § 1344).
B. Court’s Determination of Forfeiture
Pursuant to Rule 32.2(b)(2), because the United States could not locate the
specific property constituting or derived from the proceeds the defendant obtained
from his wire fraud and bank schemes, the United States seeks an order of forfeiture
against the defendant in the amount of proceeds fhe obtained from his offenses.
Indeed, for cases in which a defendant no longer has the actual dollars or property
traceable to proceeds in his/her possession, or the government cannot locate those
assets, the obligation to forfeit simply takes the form of an order of forfeiture in favor
of the United States. See United States v. Padron, 527 F.3d 1156, 1161-62 (11th Cir.
2008).
Here, the United States is entitled to an Order of Forfeiture against the
defendant for the entire amount of the wire fraud and bank fraud schemes, not just
the proceeds of the specific substantive count to which the defendant pled guilty.
4
Case 2:23-cr-00079-TPB-NPM Document 94 Filed 08/16/24 Page 5 of 7 PageID 337
“When a scheme is charged, even though only certain substantive counts are proved,
the proceeds of the scheme are forfeitable.” United States v. Clark, 13-10034-CR, 2016
WL 361560, at *2 (S.D. Fla. 2016) (citing United States v. Hasson, 333 F.3d 1264,
1279–1280 (11th Cir. 2003)); see also United States v. Venturella, 585 F.3d 1013, 1015
(7th Cir. 2009) (forfeiture in fraud case “forfeiture is not limited to the amount of the
particular mailing but extends to the entire scheme”).
Rule 32.2(b)(1) provides that the Court must determine the amount of money
that the defendant will be ordered to pay. The Court’s determination may be based
on evidence submitted by the parties and accepted by the Court as relevant and
reliable. Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.2(b)(1)(B). As the defendant has agreed, he jointly
obtained $3,403,265 in proceeds as a result of the fraud offenses. If the Court finds
that the defendant obtained at least $3,403,265 as a result of his wire fraud and bank
fraud schemes, and that he 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). Because he defendant obtained these funds jointly with
his co-defendant wife, Lisa Jolloff, the United States has agreed not to collect more
than $3,403,265, in total, from the defendant and co-defendant, Lisa Jolloff. Id. at
7.
III. Conclusion
For the reasons stated above, the United States requests that, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. §§ 981(a)(1)(C), 982(a)(1), 982(a)(2)(A), 28 U.S.C. § 2461(c), and Fed. R.
5
Case 2:23-cr-00079-TPB-NPM Document 94 Filed 08/16/24 Page 6 of 7 PageID 338
Crim. P. 32.2(b)(2), the Court enter an order of forfeiture against the defendant in the
amount of $3,403,265, for which he will be held jointly liable with co-defendant, Lisa
Jolloff.
The United States further requests that, because the $3,403,265 in proceeds
was mostly dissipated by the defendant, the United States may seek, as a substitute
asset, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 853(p), as incorporated by 18 U.S.C. § 982(b)(1)
and/or 28 U.S.C. § 2461(c), forfeiture of any of the defendant’s property up to the
value of $3,403,265.
As required by Rule 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)(B) and United States v. Kennedy, 201 F.3d 1324, 1326 (11th Cir. 2000).
In accordance with Rule 32.2(b)(4) and the defendant’s Plea Agreement (Doc.
84 at 8), the United States asks that the order of forfeiture become final as to the
defendant at the time it is entered.
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
6
Case 2:23-cr-00079-TPB-NPM Document 94 Filed 08/16/24 Page 7 of 7 PageID 339
substitute assets forfeited to the United States up to the amount of the order of
forfeiture.
Respectfully submitted,
ROGER B. HANDBERG
United States Attorney
By: s/Suzanne C. Nebesky
SUZANNE C. NEBESKY
Assistant United States Attorney
Fla. Bar No. 59377
400 N. Tampa Street, Suite 3200
Tampa, Florida 33602
Tel: (813) 274 6000
E-mail: suzanne.nebesky@usdoj.gov
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on August 16, 2024, 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/Suzanne C. Nebesky
SUZANNE C. NEBESKY
Assistant United States Attorney
7