Order — United States v. Izzat Freitekh and Tarik Freitekh (Western District of North Carolina, Document 56)

Summary

Order of the United States District Court, Western District of North Carolina, Charlotte Division, in Case No. 3:20-CR-435-FDW-DCK against Izzat Freitekh and Tareq Freitekh. It grants the Government's "Motion To Continue" (Document No. 52) and "Motion For Peremptory Setting" (Document No. 38). The order recounts an indictment returned on December 16, 2020, and a superseding indictment returned on August 17, 2021, and states that the charges arose out of an alleged scheme to submit fraudulent Paycheck Protection Program loan applications. It continues the case, sets it to commence on Monday, November 29, 2021, and excludes the time until the new trial date under the Speedy Trial Act.

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

                          UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                       WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
                              CHARLOTTE DIVISION
                           CASE NO. 3:20-CR-435-FDW-DCK

 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                            )
                                                      )
                 Plaintiff,                           )
                                                      )
     v.                                               )       ORDER
                                                      )
 IZZAT FREITEKH (1), and TARIK                        )
 FREITEKH, a/k/a TAREQ FREITEKH (2),                  )
                                                      )
                 Defendants.                          )
                                                      )

          THIS MATTER IS BEFORE THE COURT on the Government’s “Motion To

Continue” (Document No. 52) filed September 2, 2021 and the Government’s “Motion For

Peremptory Setting” (Document No. 38) filed August 24, 2021. Having carefully considered the

motions and the record, the Court will GRANT both motions.

                                        BACKGROUND

          On December 16, 2020, a grand jury returned an indictment charging Defendants Izzat

Freitekh and Tareq Freitekh with (1) one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud in violation of

18 U.S.C. § 1349, and (2) one count of bank fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1344. (Document

No. 3, pp. 13-14). The indictment also charged Izzat Freitekh with one count of making false

statements in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001. Id. at p. 15. The charges arose out of the Defendants’

alleged scheme to submit fraudulent Paycheck Protection Program loan applications and their

transfer of over a million dollars obtained thereby into personal bank accounts. (Document No.

37, pp. 1-2).

          On January 5, 2021, attorney Chris Fialko entered a general appearance on behalf of

Defendant Tareq Freitekh. (Document No. 19).




      Case 3:20-cr-00435-FDW-DCK Document 56 Filed 09/14/21 Page 1 of 4
        On August 17, 2021, the grand jury returned a superseding indictment, while retaining the

original counts against Izzat and Tareq for conspiracy to commit wire fraud and for bank fraud

and against Izzat for making false statements, adding new charges. (Document No. 34). Those

additional charges include: (1) one count for conspiracy to commit money laundering in violation

of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h) against Izzat and Tareq, (2) four counts for money laundering in violation

of 18 U.S.C. § 1957 against Izzat and Tareq, and (3) one count against Tareq for falsifying and

concealing material facts in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a)(1). Id. at pp. 15-20.

        On August 23, 2021, the Government filed its “Motion And Brief Requesting Hearing On

Status Of Counsel” (Document No. 37). On August 24, 2021, the Government filed a “Motion

For Peremptory Setting,” in which it requested that the Court “peremptorily set this case for trial

to commence on Tuesday, September 21, 2021.” (Document No. 38, p. 1). On August 30, 2021,

attorney Fialko filed a “Motion To Withdraw.” (Document No. 46). On September 2, 2021, the

Government filed a “Motion To Continue” (Document No. 52). The uCourt held a hearing on the

motion for inquiry of counsel, the motion to withdraw, the motion for peremptory setting, and the

motion to continue on September 13, 2021. The Court noted at that hearing that trial would be

continued to November 29, 2021, as the Government requested.1

                                               DISCUSSION

        The Government argues that a continuance until the Court’s November criminal trial term

is necessary so that the Court will have “adequate time to weigh the relevant [conflict of interest]

issues” raised in the motion to withdraw and the motion for inquiry of counsel and so that, if

necessary, new counsel for Tareq Freitekh has time “to enter an appearance…and adequately

prepare for trial.” (Document No. 52, p. 2). The Government further argues that “neither


1
  The Court notes that the Government’s motion indicates that both Defendants are opposed to a continuance of the
trial. (Document No. 52, p. 4).

                                                       2
       Case 3:20-cr-00435-FDW-DCK Document 56 Filed 09/14/21 Page 2 of 4
defendant is detained,” and that this is a “complex fraud cause,” requiring that it “call more than a

dozen out-of-state witnesses to testify at trial.” Id. Because of the complex nature of the case, the

pending conflict of interest issues before the Court, and the “logistical hurdles of organizing travel

for these out-of-state trial witnesses during the COVID-19 pandemic,” the Government contends

that continuance “is necessary to ensure an efficient trial.” Id. at pp. 2-3.

         The Court finds the ends of justice served by continuing the trial outweigh the interest of

the public and the Defendants to a speedy trial as set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A).2 First,

this is a complex fraud cause involving multiple charges of white-collar criminal activity,

including fraud, money laundering, and making false statements.                                See 18 U.S.C. §

3161(h)(7)(B)(ii). The Government will be required to call multiple (over a dozen) witnesses from

out of state in order to prove its case. (Document No. 52, p. 2). Moreover, the Government issued

a superseding indictment on August 17, 2021, adding new charges against Izzat and Tareq. See

(Document No. 34). Furthermore, given that the Defendants are out on bond, there is plainly no

prejudice to them on account of a short, two-month continuance of the trial date. Perhaps more

important, in order to allow new counsel for Defendant Tareq Freitekh to adequately prepare for

trial and in light of the complex nature of the charges brought against the Defendants, the ends of

justice are served by continuing the trial.



2
  Furthermore, the Court does not find that Defendants will be deprived of their constitutional right to a speedy trial
according to the balancing test set forth in Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514, 530 (1972). Those factors that a court must
assess in determining whether a defendant has been deprived of his speedy trial right include the “[l]ength of delay,
the reason for the delay, the defendant’s assertion of his right, and prejudice to the defendant.” Id. Here, as the
Government asserts, “a continuance to the Court’s November trial calendar sets trial at approximately 11 months after
the case commenced, which is appropriate and necessary for this complex fraud cause, and also is consistent with
national and local trends.” (Document No. 52, p. 2). Therefore, the length of the delay and the reason for the delay –
particularly given the complex conflict of interest issues that were pending before the Court and the logistical
challenges presented by the pandemic – suggest that no constitutional deprivation will occur through a continuance of
trial. Finally, even though Defendants are opposed to a continuance (factor three), on balance, the factors suggest that
continuing the trial does not effect a constitutional deprivation of the speedy trial right guaranteed by the Sixth
Amendment. The Defendants are out on bond, and therefore, they are not prejudiced by a short two-month
continuance of the trial date.

                                                           3
        Case 3:20-cr-00435-FDW-DCK Document 56 Filed 09/14/21 Page 3 of 4
       IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the Government’s “Motion To Continue”

(Document No. 52) is GRANTED. This case shall be continued and shall be peremptorily set to

commence on Monday, November 29, 2021, pending further Order of the Court. The time until

the new trial date shall be excluded under the Speedy Trial Act at 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A).

       IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Government’s “Motion For Peremptory Setting”

(Document No. 38) is GRANTED based on the Court’s September 13, 2021 hearing and the

continuance of the trial date to November 29, 2021.

       SO ORDERED.

                                   Signed: September 14, 2021




                                                 4
      Case 3:20-cr-00435-FDW-DCK Document 56 Filed 09/14/21 Page 4 of 4


File and source

File

56.pdf

Size

175,471 bytes

SHA-256

13b844d35a4643f2d37622c10aaa45b367cabf5cf653fec9265584f3a80ba200

Our copy

56.pdf

Original

No public link identified.