United States District Court, Middle District of Florida — Case 6:20-cv-02269, Document 20

Summary

A Report and Recommendation filed 04/08/21 as Document 20 in United States v. Approximately $5,698,846.38 Seized from Bank of America et al., Case No. 6:20-cv-2269-JA-DCI, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Orlando Division. The government sought civil forfeiture of funds seized on September 16, 2020 that it alleges are proceeds of bank fraud and money laundering, including a PPP loan application it says used fabricated documentation for Aslan International Ministry, Inc. The Court notes that no claim was filed, that defaults were entered against the named claimants, and that the complaint supports a reasonable belief the government can meet its burden. It recommends granting the motion for default judgment (Doc. 19) and forfeiting the funds to the United States.

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 6:20-cv-02269-JA-DCI Document 20 Filed 04/08/21 Page 1 of 5 PageID 177




                         UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                          MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
                              ORLANDO DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                      Plaintiff,

v.                                                              Case No: 6:20-cv-2269-JA-DCI

APPROXIMATELY ’36;5,698,846.38
SEIZED FROM BANK OF AMERICA,
APPROXIMATELY ’36;1,850,165.00
SEIZED FROM BANK OF AMERICA,
APPROXIMATELY ’36;868,250.00
SEIZED FROM FIRST AMERICAN
TRUST FSB, MARY JO EDWARDS,
JOSHUA EDWARDS, JOY EDWARDS,
DR. EVAN EDWARDS, ASLAN
INTERNATIONAL MINISTRY, INC
and CHURCH OF FLORIDA, INC.,

                      Defendants.


                            REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
       This cause comes before the Court for consideration without oral argument on the

following motion:

       MOTION:        Motion for Default Judgment (Doc. 19)

       FILED:         March 3, 2021



       THEREON it is ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED.

       On December 14, 2020, the government filed a Verified Complaint for Forfeiture In Rem

(the Complaint). Doc. 1. In the Complaint, the government alleged that on September 16, 2020,

the United States Secret Service seized the following funds (collectively, the Defendant Funds):
 Case 6:20-cv-02269-JA-DCI Document 20 Filed 04/08/21 Page 2 of 5 PageID 178




       a.      Approximately $5,698,846.38 seized from Bank of America Account
               Number 898116276448 held in the name of Church of Florida, Inc.;

       b.      Approximately $1,850,165.00 seized from Bank of America Account
               Number 898107273900 held in the name of Church of Florida, Inc.; and

       c.      Approximately $868,250.00 seized from First American Trust FSB
               Account Number 3126180000, held in the name of First American Title
               Insurance Company.

Doc. 1 at 2-4. The seizure was made pursuant to a federal seizure warrant after a finding of

probable cause that the funds constituted proceeds of bank fraud offenses (i.e. violations of 18

U.S.C. § 1344) and property involved in money laundering offenses (i.e. violations of 18 U.S.C.

§§ 1956 and 1957); the government maintains its position, supported by the factual allegations in

the Complaint, that “the Defendant Funds are proceeds of bank fraud offenses and property

involved in money laundering offenses.” Id. at ¶¶ 8-10; see also ¶¶ 11-51. The Defendant Funds

are currently in the government’s possession. Id. at ¶ 7. In light of the foregoing, the government

seeks forfeiture of the Defendant Funds. Id. at 18-19.

       On December 14, 2020, the government filed a Motion for Issuance of Warrant of Arrest

In Rem (the Motion). Doc. 3. The Court issued a warrant of arrest in rem on December 16, 2020.

Docs. 4-7. Thereafter, the government complied with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

Supplemental Rule G(4)(a)(i)-(iv) by posting a notice of this civil forfeiture action on its official

website, www.forfeiture.gov, for a period of 30 consecutive days. Doc. 19 at 3. The government

also complied with Supplemental Rule G(4)(b) by sending notice of this civil forfeiture action to

to all known potential claimants—i.e. Joy Edwards, Mary Jane Edwards, Joshua Edwards, Dr.

Evan Edwards, Aslan International Ministry, Inc., and Church of Florida, Inc. Id. at 3-4. The

notice stated that the potential claimants were required to file a verified claim within 35 days after

the date of the notice. Id. The time for filing a claim passed, but no claim was filed. Id. at 4.




                                                -2-
 Case 6:20-cv-02269-JA-DCI Document 20 Filed 04/08/21 Page 3 of 5 PageID 179




       On February 16, 2021, the government filed a Motion for Clerk’s Entry of Default as to

Aslan International Ministry Inc, Dr. Evan Edwards, Joshua Edwards, Joy Edwards, and Mary Jo

Edwards, and on February 17, 2021, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a), the Clerk entered a Default

as to those individuals and entities for the Defendant Funds. Docs. 14-15. On February 18, 2021,

the government filed a Motion for Clerk’s Entry of Default as to Church of Florida, Inc., and on

February 22, 2021, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a), the Clerk entered a Default as to that entity

for the Defendant Funds. Docs. 17-18. On April 25, 2018, the government filed a motion for

default judgment. Doc. 19 (the Motion).

       In the Complaint, the government alleged, in sum, that a Paycheck Protection Act (PPP)

loan authorized pursuant to the CARES Act “was submitted by Joshua Edwards, on behalf of

ASLAN International Ministry, Inc., to First Home Bank, a federally insured institution, in St.

Petersburg, FL, using fabricated and/ or fictitious documentation in an attempt to fraudulently

obtain funds from the federal government.” Doc. 1 at 5-6. The Complaint goes on to provide

detailed factual allegations concerning the fraudulent scheme and the laundering of the proceeds

from that scheme. Id. at 5-18. For example, the Complaint contains allegations that the Defendant

Funds were obtained, in part, by a fraudulent loan application submitted on behalf of Aslan stating

that it was an operating entity with 486 employees and an average monthly payroll of

$2,764,438.00. Id. at 9. While Aslan was an actual entity, the application was not submitted by

any of its corporate officers or account holders, and subsequent investigation revealed that the

assertions and supporting documents submitted in support of the loan application were false. Id.

Further, once the funds were obtained fraudulently, financial transactions took place involving

those funds, including transactions of portions of the Defendant Funds made for the purpose of

purchasing a multi-million residence in Orlando, Florida. Id. at 12-15.




                                               -3-
 Case 6:20-cv-02269-JA-DCI Document 20 Filed 04/08/21 Page 4 of 5 PageID 180




       In general, a court may enter a default judgment when the factual allegations of the

complaint, which are assumed to be true, provide a sufficient legal basis for such entry. Nishimatsu

Constr. Co. v. Houston Nat’l Bank, 515 F.2d 1200, 1206 (5th Cir. 1975) (“The defendant is not

held to admit facts that are not well-pleaded or to admit conclusions of law.”). Thus, to support

an entry of default judgment in a civil forfeiture case, a complaint must “state sufficiently detailed

facts to support a reasonable belief that the government will be able to meet its burden of proof at

trial.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. Supp. Rule G(2)(f); United States v. $134,972.34 Seized from FNB

Bank, Account Number—5351, 94 F. Supp. 3d 1224, 1229-30 (N.D. Ala. 2015) (explaining that

the heightened pleading standard of Supplemental Rule G(2) applies in civil forfeiture cases, not

the Twombly/Iqbal pleading standard from Rule 8, although the Twombly/Iqbal standard may

provide guidance in deciding a motion to dismiss a civil asset forfeiture complaint to the extent it

does not conflict with Supplemental Rule G(2)).

       Upon review of the Motion and the Complaint, the undersigned finds that the facts alleged

in the Complaint, some of which are summarized in the Motion and set forth in the foregoing

paragraphs, support a reasonable belief that the government will be able to meet its burden of proof

at trial and show that the Defendant Funds constitute proceeds or are traceable to proceeds of

federal controlled substance offenses, or were furnished or intended to be furnished in exchange

for a controlled substance and, thus, are subject to forfeiture under 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(6). Notice

was provided in accordance with Supplemental Rule G(4)(a) and (b), and no claims or answers

have been timely filed. Accordingly, it is respectfully recommended that the Court find that the

United States is entitled to entry of a default judgment of forfeiture, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.

55(b)(2).




                                                -4-
 Case 6:20-cv-02269-JA-DCI Document 20 Filed 04/08/21 Page 5 of 5 PageID 181




       It is respectfully recommended that the Motion (Doc. 19) be GRANTED, and the Clerk of

Court be DIRECTED to enter a default judgment forfeiting to the United States all right, title, and

interest in the Defendant Funds and, thereafter, to close the file.

                                     NOTICE TO PARTIES

       A party has fourteen days from this date to file written objections to the Report and

Recommendation’s factual findings and legal conclusions. A party’s failure to file written

objections waives that party’s right to challenge on appeal any unobjected-to factual finding or

legal conclusion the district judge adopts from the Report and Recommendation. See 11th Cir. R.

3-1.

       Recommended in Orlando, Florida on April 8, 2021.




Copies furnished to:

Presiding District Judge
Counsel of Record
Unrepresented Party
Courtroom Deputy




                                                 -5-


File and source

File

20-docket.pdf

Size

169,237 bytes

SHA-256

9f6179756210c2abebddaf973055bc880dc79f52c9a44f5f70b18da434aa100b

Our copy

20-docket.pdf

Original

storage.courtlistener.com