Order — United States v. Alexander Alli (Middle District of Florida, Document 112, filed March 11, 2024)

Summary

An Order filed March 11, 2024 as Document 112 in United States v. Alexander Alli, Case No. 8:23-cr-24-CEH-SPF, in the United States District Court, Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division, memorializing the Court's oral pronouncements on the defendant's motion in limine regarding bank records and evidence from alleged victims of fraud (Doc. 70), with the Government's response in opposition (Doc. 73). The Court granted the motion as to the defendant's personal (First National Bank) account records and testimony from victims of uncharged romance fraud, citing lack of relevance and prejudice. As to the business (TD Bank) account records, the motion was denied without prejudice, because the evidence is relevant to the Government's argument about misrepresentations on the loan application.

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 8:23-cr-00024-CEH-SPF Document 112 Filed 03/11/24 Page 1 of 6 PageID 707




                       UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                        MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
                              TAMPA DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.                                                CASE NO: 8:23-cr-24-CEH-SPF

ALEXANDER ALLI


                                         ORDER

       This matter comes before the Court on Defendant’s motion in limine Regarding

Bank Records and Evidence from Alleged Victims of Fraud (Doc. 70) and the

Government’s response in opposition (Doc. 73). On February 7, 2024, the Court heard

argument on this motion and issued a ruling granting it in part and denying it in part.

See Doc. 82. This Order serves to memorialize the Court’s oral pronouncements.

                                      DISCUSSION

       In a Superseding Indictment, Defendant was charged with one count of

conspiracy to commit wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1349, and two counts of

wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343, based on an Economic Injury Disaster

Loan and $2,000 advance from the Small Business Administration that he applied for

and obtained on behalf of his purported business. See Doc. 46.

       “A Motion In Limine presents a pretrial issue of admissibility of evidence that is

likely to arise at trial, and as such, the order, like any other interlocutory order, remains

subject to reconsideration by the court throughout the trial.” Stewart v. Hooters of Am.,

Inc., No. 8:04-CV-40-EAK-MAP, 2007 WL 1752843, at *1 (M.D. Fla. June 18, 2007)
Case 8:23-cr-00024-CEH-SPF Document 112 Filed 03/11/24 Page 2 of 6 PageID 708




(citation omitted). “The real purpose of a Motion In Limine is to give the trial judge

notice of the movant’s position so as to avoid the introduction of damaging evidence

which may irretrievably effect the fairness of the trial. A court has the power to exclude

evidence in limine only when evidence is clearly inadmissible on all potential grounds.”

Id. (quoting Luce v. United States, 469 U.S. 38, 41 (1984) (federal district courts have

authority to make in limine rulings pursuant to their authority to manage trials)).

      Rule 402 of the Federal Rules of Evidence prohibits the introduction of evidence

that is not relevant. Rule 403 requires the Court to balance the probative value of

evidence against the danger of “unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the

jury, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.”

Under Rule 404(b), a party may not introduce evidence of a prior bad act in order to

show that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character

demonstrated by the bad act.

      Defendant seeks to exclude from trial certain evidence from his bank records (a

business bank account at TD Bank and a personal bank account at First National

Bank) in addition to any witness testimony related to allegations of uncharged

fraudulent transactions involving the Defendant and fraud victims. Doc. 70 at 1. He

argues that under Federal Rules of Evidence 401, 403, and 404(b), this evidence would

be irrelevant, inadmissible hearsay, and unfairly prejudicial. Id. First, he argues that

the Government provided in discovery the contents of several bank accounts attributed

to Defendant personally as well as to his business. Id. at 4. He argues that, because he

is willing to stipulate that: (1) the loan funds in question were transferred to


                                            2
Case 8:23-cr-00024-CEH-SPF Document 112 Filed 03/11/24 Page 3 of 6 PageID 709




Defendant’s personal bank account, and (2) the business bank account was opened

and closed prior to receipt of the loan, the Government should not be permitted to

introduce testimony regarding other alleged wrongs unless the defense opens the door

by arguing that the accounts were utilized solely for legitimate purposes. Id.

      Further, Defendant argues that even if the bank records and testimony from

alleged victims were relevant, this evidence should be excluded because any probative

value is substantially outweighed by a danger of unfair prejudice. Id. at 5. He also

argues that any attempt to elicit witness testimony or introduce evidence of personal

transactions related to other uncharged frauds is an attempt to introduce inadmissible

character evidence under Fed. R. Evid. 404(b). Id. Finally, Defendant argues that even

with a limiting instruction, allowing this evidence would likely result in a jury

impermissibly inferring that he has a propensity to commit crimes, and therefore

probably committed the crime in question. Id. at 6.

      The Government argues that the evidence Defendant seeks to exclude is

relevant to proving two key aspects of the offense: that the representations on the loan

application and agreements were false; and that Defendant spent the loan proceeds on

personal rather than business expenses. Doc. 73 at 1–2. As to the business bank

account, the Government argues that it is unquestionably relevant to the issue of

whether the business was operational and had the revenue and cost of goods sold

claimed in the loan application, and should be allowed. Id. at 2. It argues that

considering the volume and sizes of transactions in that account, jurors could

otherwise wrongly conclude that the business was operational and had significant


                                           3
Case 8:23-cr-00024-CEH-SPF Document 112 Filed 03/11/24 Page 4 of 6 PageID 710




revenues. Id. To prove its case, therefore, the Government argues it must show that

these transactions were fraud and money laundering, rather than legitimate business

transactions. Id. Finally, the Government argues that Defendant’s personal bank

account is where the SBA loan and advance was paid to and that these records and

related victim testimony are therefore relevant to whether Defendant spent the money

on working capital for the business, as required by the terms of the loan. Id.

Additionally, because the challenged evidence is “inextricably intertwined” with the

offenses and not 404(b) evidence, the Government argues it must be admitted. Id. In

any case, it argues that Rule 403’s balancing test weighs in favor of admissibility

because the relevance of this evidence is not substantially outweighed by its prejudicial

effect. Id. (citing United States v. Terzado-Madruga, 897 F.2d 1099, 1117 (11th Cir.

1990)).

      Finally, Defendant filed a reply on February 6, 2024, in which he argued that

the Government had not shown it intended to introduce the evidence related to the

TD Bank account and/or romance fraud for any issue other than Defendant’s

character. Doc. 81 at 4–7. He also argued that this evidence was not inextricably

intertwined with this case because it did not arise out of the same transactions or series

of transactions as the charged offense, was unnecessary to “complete the story” of the

crime, and was not intertwined with the evidence of the charged offense. Id. at 7–10.

      As relevant to this motion at oral argument, the Court directed the Parties to

clearly indicate the specific evidence at issue. They did so, and the Government argued

that testimony from the alleged romance fraud victims would need to be introduced


                                            4
Case 8:23-cr-00024-CEH-SPF Document 112 Filed 03/11/24 Page 5 of 6 PageID 711




because Defendant refused to stipulate that the transactions in his personal account

were not business-related. As to the business bank account records, the Government

argued that they were highly probative and necessary to its case to prove that the

significant deposits were not related to legitimate business activities. Defendant

responded that his argument was largely the same as in the written briefing—that the

evidence was highly prejudicial, and that the Government’s burden of proof did not

require them to introduce or explain the expenditures or deposits, because Defendant

was not charged with money laundering or romance fraud in this case.

      As to Defendant’s personal (First National Bank) account records and the

testimony from victims of uncharged romance fraud, the Court agreed with Defendant

and therefore granted his motion at oral argument. The Court based its ruling on a

lack of relevance, particularly because the victims did not know Defendant or have

any connection to him, in addition to the fact that the prejudice of such evidence to

Defendant would far exceed the probative value of the information or testimony. As

to the business (TD Bank) account records, Defendant’s motion was denied without

prejudice, as the evidence is relevant to the Government’s argument that Defendant

made misrepresentations and falsities on his loan application, as well as that the gross

deposits in the account were not legitimate account expenses.

      DONE and ORDERED in Tampa, Florida on March 11, 2024.




                                           5
Case 8:23-cr-00024-CEH-SPF Document 112 Filed 03/11/24 Page 6 of 6 PageID 712




Copies furnished to:

Counsel of Record




                                     6


File and source

File

112.pdf

Size

98,084 bytes

SHA-256

5b50da76612aebb5c602e58ff5e3387b587edaa31cbd35bd2103afae80087928

Our copy

112.pdf

Original

archive.org