Court filing — United States v. Bock et al. (Feeding Our Future) (Dkt. 885, D. Minn.)

Summary

Motion for Preliminary Order of Forfeiture filed May 22, 2026 as Doc. 885 in United States of America v. Abdinasir Mahamed Abshir, Case No. 22-cr-223(10) (NEB/DTS), U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota. The United States moves under 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(C), 28 U.S.C. § 2461(c) and Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.2. It states that under a March 7, 2025 Plea Agreement the defendant agreed to plead guilty to Count 13 of the Indictment, wire fraud, and consented to a money judgment forfeiture of $2,295,054 and forfeiture of a 2021 Range Rover. The motion asks for a preliminary order of forfeiture, a money judgment of $2,295,054, a general order of forfeiture and discovery to locate assets. The signature block names Daniel N. Rosen, United States Attorney, with s/Craig Baune.

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

“Court filing — United States v. Bock et al. (Feeding Our Future) (Dkt. 885, D. Minn.).” Original at archive.org. Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/source-documents/court-filing-united-states-v-bock-et-al-feeding-our-future-dkt-885-d-m-43bd87926c/, SHA-256 172173974838a6a2a1ae2abc31b70441f5d8de010bce86a84a22d53476f132a0.

Full text

CASE 0:22-cr-00223-NEB-DTS Doc. 885 Filed 05/22/26 Page 1 of 10

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Case No. 22-cr-223(10) (NEB/DTS)
Plaintiff,
MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY
v. ORDER OF FORFEITURE

ABDINASIR MAHAMED ABSHIR,

Defendant.

The United States of America, through Daniel N. Rosen, United States

Attorney for the District of Minnesota, and Craig R. Baune, Assistant United States

Attorney, respectfully moves this Court for a Preliminary Order of Forfeiture pursuant

to 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(C), and 28 U.S.C. § 2461(c), and Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.2.

BACKGROUND

On September 13, 2022, a Grand Jury in the District of Minnesota returned an

Indictment against Defendant Abdinasir Mahamed Abshir and others. ECF No. 1.

The Forfeiture Allegations of the Indictment provided notice that the United States

sought forfeiture of, among other things, any property, real or personal, constituting

or derived from proceeds traceable to the commission of the wire fraud scheme,

pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(C) and 28 U.S.C. § 2461(c). Id.

On March 7, 2025, the United States and the Defendant entered into the Plea

Agreement through which he agreed to plead guilty to Count 13 of the Indictment,

which charged him with wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343. ECF No. 562, ¶

2. The Defendant admitted that from in or about April 2020 through in or about
CASE 0:22-cr-00223-NEB-DTS Doc. 885 Filed 05/22/26 Page 2 of 10

January 2022, he knowingly participated in a scheme to defraud the Federal Child

Nutrition Program (“FCNP”), a program designed to provide free meals to children

in need. Id. ¶ 3.

Defendant purported to operate a FCNP site in Mankato, Minnesota through a

non-profit entity called Stigma-Free International (the “Stigma-Free Mankato site”).

Defendant opened the Stigma-Free Mankato site in October 2020 under the

sponsorship of Feeding Our Future. Shortly after creating this food site, Defendant

falsely claimed to be serving meals to 3,000 children a day, seven days a week, from

J’s Sambusa, a restaurant in North Mankato. Defendant also created a shell company

called Horseed Management that purported to be a meal vendor providing meals to be

served at the Stigma-Free Mankato site. To support his claims, Defendant prepared

and submitted a fake attendance roster purporting to list the names and ages of

approximately 2,000 children who supposedly received meals from Stigma-Free

Mankato site. Id.

Defendant transferred millions of dollars in fraudulently-obtained proceeds

from Horseed Management to himself and his co-conspirators, which included

transferring fraud proceeds to a shell company Defendant created called Calikamin

Enterprise. Defendant also paid more than $100,000 in bribes and kickbacks from

Horseed Management to Abdikerm Eidleh, a Feeding Our Future employee, in

exchange for sponsoring and facilitating Stigma-Free Mankato’s fraudulent

participation in the FCNP. Defendant also attempted to obstruct justice by

2
CASE 0:22-cr-00223-NEB-DTS Doc. 885 Filed 05/22/26 Page 3 of 10

communicating with a witness prior to that witness’s testimony in the trial of one of

Defendant’s co-defendants. Id.

Ultimately, based on fraudulent claims throughout the conspiracy, the

Defendant and his co-conspirators caused a loss of $5,456,445 to the FCNP for meals

supposedly served at the Stigma-Free Mankato site.

In his plea agreement, the Defendant agreed to forfeit to the United States,

pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(C) and 28 U.S.C. § 2461(c), all property, real or

personal, which constitutes or is derived from proceeds traceable to wire fraud,

including but not limited to a 2021 Range Rover, VIN: SALWV2SE2MA776221 (“the

Property”). Id. ¶ 15. The Defendant also consented to a money judgment forfeiture in

the amount of $2,295,054 and admitted that sum represents the amount of proceeds

he obtained from the wire fraud scheme alleged in Count 13 of the Indictment. Id.

The United States seeks forfeiture of the Property and a money judgment

forfeiture against Defendant Abshir.

ARGUMENT

I. A PRELIMINARY ORDER OF FORFEITURE SHOULD BE ENTERED
FOR DIRECTLY FORFEITABLE ASSETS.

A. Legal Standard

The United States seeks a Preliminary Order of Forfeiture pursuant to Rule 32.2

of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. Rule 32.2(b) provides:

(b) Entering a Preliminary Order of Forfeiture.

(1) Forfeiture Phase of the Trial.

3
CASE 0:22-cr-00223-NEB-DTS Doc. 885 Filed 05/22/26 Page 4 of 10

(A) Forfeiture Determinations. As soon as practical . . . after a
plea of guilty . . . the court must determine what property is
subject to forfeiture under the applicable statute. If the
government seeks forfeiture of specific property, the court must
determine whether the government has established the
requisite nexus between the property and the offense.. . .

(B) Evidence and Hearing. The court’s determination may be
based on evidence already in the record, including any written
plea agreement, and on any additional evidence or information
submitted by the parties and accepted by the court as relevant
and reliable. If the forfeiture is contested, on either party’s
request the court must conduct a hearing after the verdict or
finding of guilty.

(2) Preliminary Order.

(A) Contents of a Specific Order. If the court finds that property
is subject to forfeiture, it must promptly enter a preliminary
order of forfeiture . . . directing the forfeiture of specific
property, and directing the forfeiture of any substitute property
if the government has met the statutory criteria. The court must
enter the order without regard to any third party’s interest in
the property. . .

Criminal forfeiture is a part of sentencing; it is not a substantive element of the

offense. Libretti v. United States, 516 U.S. 29, 38-39 (1995). As such, the preponderance

of the evidence standard of proof applies. United States v. Huber, 462 F.3d 945, 949 (8th

Cir. 2006); see also, e.g., United States v. Peithman, 917 F.3d 635, 651 (8th Cir. 2019).

Because the governing statutes include compulsory terms, forfeiture is

mandatory. United States v. Williams, 720 F.3d 674, 702 (8th Cir. 2013) (differentiating

“shall” from “may” in forfeiture statutes). The plain language of 28 U.S.C. § 2461(c)

mandates forfeiture when a defendant is convicted of an offense giving rise to

forfeiture. Id. (“If the defendant is convicted of the offense giving rise to the forfeiture,

4
CASE 0:22-cr-00223-NEB-DTS Doc. 885 Filed 05/22/26 Page 5 of 10

the court shall order the forfeiture of the property as part of the sentence in the criminal

case. . .”) (emphasis added); see also United States v. Blackman, 746 F.3d 137, 143 (4th

Cir. 2014) (“The word ‘shall’ does not convey discretion”).

Moreover, “Forfeiture is mandatory even when restitution is also imposed.” Id.;

see also United States v. Newman, 659 F.3d 1235, 1241 (9th Cir. 2011) (defendant,

pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 982(a)(2), is “not entitled to a credit for the amount that he

had repaid toward the fraudulently obtained loan.”); United States v. Adetiloye, 716 F.3d

1030, 1041 (8th Cir. 2013) (“Restitution is loss based, while forfeiture is gain based.”)

(citations omitted.) Although forfeiture and restitution are separate aspects of a

criminal sentence, forfeited assets are often used to compensate criminal victims

through the remissions process authorized by 28 C.F.R. Part 9.

Third-party claims to forfeitable property are addressed in an ancillary

proceeding and are not at issue at this stage of the forfeiture process. See 21 U.S.C. §

853(n) (as incorporated by 28 U.S.C. § 2461(c)); Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.2(c). Accordingly,

the Court enters the preliminary order of forfeiture without consideration of third-party

interests in the property. See id. Determining any such interests “must be deferred until

any third party files a claim in an ancillary proceeding under Rule 32.2(c).” Fed. R.

Crim. P. 32.2(b)(2)(A).

B. Forfeiture is Authorized for Proceeds of a Wire Fraud Scheme.

Defendant has pleaded guilty to wire fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343. As

a consequence, 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(C) mandates forfeiture of “[a]ny property, real

or personal, which constitutes or is derived from proceeds traceable to . . . any offense
5
CASE 0:22-cr-00223-NEB-DTS Doc. 885 Filed 05/22/26 Page 6 of 10

constituting ‘specified unlawful activity’ (as defined in section 1956(c)(7) of this title),

or a conspiracy to commit such offense.”1

Proceeds of a wire fraud scheme include all gross receipts of the scheme. See,

e.g., United States v. Simmons, 154 F.3d 765, 770-772 (8th Cir. 1998) (interpreting similar

forfeiture authority for RICO violation, holding, “the better view is the one that defines

proceeds as the gross receipts of the illegal activities); United States v. Huber, 404 F.3d

1047, 1058 (8th Cir. 2005) (defendant was not entitled to offset expenses, “even if the

expenses were legitimately incurred by Huber, they would not reduce the amount

subject to forfeiture”); United States v. Hively. 437 F.3d 752, 763 (8th Cir. 2006) (same);

United States v. Lo, 839 F.3d 777, 792-94 (9th Cir. 2016) (all funds from defendant’s

fraud scheme were subject to forfeiture on conviction for mail and wire fraud, rather

than only the amounts specified in counts of conviction).

C. Directly Forfeitable Property is Subject to Forfeiture From Abshir.

As is set forth in the Plea Agreement, the Defendant agreed that the Property is

subject to forfeiture because it constitutes or is derived from proceeds traceable to the

wire fraud scheme for which Abshir has pleaded guilty.

1
Pursuant to Title 18. 18 U.S.C. § 1956(c)(7)(A), the term “specified unlawful activity”
includes any act or activity constituting an offense listed in section 1961(1). The
offenses listed in section 1961(1) include wire fraud. Although 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(C)
is a civil forfeiture provision, 28 U.S.C. § 2461(c) criminal forfeiture when a defendant
is convicted of an offense for which civil forfeiture is authorized, as it has done here.
ECF No. 1, Forfeiture Allegations. See, e.g., United States v. Jennings, 487 F.3d 564, 583-
584 (8th Cir. 2007) (affirming money judgment forfeiture based on mail fraud
conviction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 981(a)(1)(C) and 28 U.S.C. § 2461(c)); Adetiloye, 716
F.3d at 1041.
6
CASE 0:22-cr-00223-NEB-DTS Doc. 885 Filed 05/22/26 Page 7 of 10

II. MONEY JUDGMENT FORFEITURE OF $2,295,054 SHOULD BE
ENTERED.

A. Personal Money Judgments Forfeitures are Authorized in Criminal Actions.

Entry of a personal money judgment forfeiture is specifically authorized by Fed.

R. Civ. P. 32.2(b)(1), and such orders have been repeatedly upheld. See, e.g., United

States v. Johnson, 956 F.3d 510, 518 n.5 (8th Cir. 2020) (affirming $2.1 million money

judgment forfeiture, with defendant receiving credit against that total for the value of

forfeited assets); Peithman, 917 F.3d at 652 (affirming money judgment forfeiture

imposed under 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(C), while remanding for a redetermination of the

amount of the money judgment issued under 21 U.S.C. § 853), cert. denied, 140 S. Ct.

340 (2019); United States v. Gregoire, 638 F.3d 962, 971-72 (8th Cir. 2011) (money

judgment forfeiture permitted based on mail fraud conviction; no jury determination

required for amount of money judgment forfeiture); Jennings, 487 F.3d at 586

(affirming money judgment for amount of proceeds defendant derived from “honest

services” mail fraud scheme).

B. The United States is Entitled to a $2,295,054 Money Judgment Forfeiture
Against Abshir Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(C).

Abshir has admitted through his plea agreement that he “knowingly

participated in a scheme to defraud the FCNP.” ECF No. 562 ¶ 3. Abshir consented

to a money judgment forfeiture in the amount of $2,295,054. Id. ¶ 15. As a result, a

money judgment forfeiture in that amount is appropriate. Abshir will receive a credit

7
CASE 0:22-cr-00223-NEB-DTS Doc. 885 Filed 05/22/26 Page 8 of 10

against the money judgment forfeiture for the net value of each asset that is forfeited

from him in connection with this case. See Johnson, 956 F.3d at 518 n.5

III. A GENERAL ORDER OF FORFEITURE SHOULD BE ENTERED
AGAINST ABSHIR.

The United States also requests that a general order of forfeiture be entered

against Abshir pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.2(b)(2)(C). A general order of

forfeiture, which is expressly authorized by the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure,

allows the government to seek the forfeiture of directly forfeitable property identified

after the date of sentencing:

(C) General Order. If, before sentencing, the court cannot identify all the
specific property subject to forfeiture or calculate the amount of the
money judgment, the court may enter a forfeiture order that:

(i) lists any identified property;

(ii) describes other property in general terms;

(iii) states that the order will be amended under Rule 32.2(e)(1)
when additional specific property is identified or the amount of the
money judgment has been calculated.

Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.2(b)(2)(C).

A general order of forfeiture will allow the government to pursue directly

forfeitable assets if any are identified after sentencing. Preserving the government’s

right to seek direct forfeiture of assets based on evidence that they are traceable to the

fraud scheme would allow the government to clear title to such assets and seek to

recover proceeds that have been transferred to third parties. See 21 U.S.C. § 853(c)

8
CASE 0:22-cr-00223-NEB-DTS Doc. 885 Filed 05/22/26 Page 9 of 10

(codifying the relation-back doctrine). A general order of forfeiture will provide an

important tool in addition to the money judgment forfeiture requested above.

IV. THE GOVERNMENT IS ENTITLED TO DISCOVERY TO LOCATE
ASSETS SUBJECT TO FORFEITURE.

The United States also requests entry of an order pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P.

32.2(b)(3) authorizing it to conduct discovery for the purpose of identifying and

locating additional assets subject to forfeiture constituting or derived from proceeds

Abshir obtained directly or indirectly from the wire fraud scheme, or assets of Abshir

that may be substituted up to the value of the money judgment forfeiture. Rule

32.2(b)(3) authorizes the government, upon the entry of a preliminary order of

forfeiture, to “conduct any discovery the court considers proper in identifying,

locating, or disposing of the property” that has been forfeited to the United States.

Such discovery may include the taking of depositions of witnesses. See 21 U.S.C.

§ 853(m); United States v. Saccoccia, 898 F. Supp. 53 (D.R.I. 1995) (government can take

depositions for the purpose of locating assets controlled by the defendant that are

subject to forfeiture). In addition, the reference in Rule 32.2(b)(3) to “any discovery

the court considers proper” necessarily permits the court to authorize discovery under

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Such discovery includes but is not limited to the

authority to issue a request for documents to a party under Rule 34 and to a non-party

under Rules 34(c) and 45.

9
CASE 0:22-cr-00223-NEB-DTS Doc. 885 Filed 05/22/26 Page 10 of 10

The United States also requests that the Court retain jurisdiction over this action

pursuant to Rule 32.2(e) to forfeit any subsequently discovered directly forfeitable or

substitute property, and to dispose of any third-party claims to such assets.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the United States respectfully moves this Court for a

Preliminary Order of Forfeiture.

Respectfully submitted,

Dated: 5/22/2026 DANIEL N. ROSEN
United States Attorney

s/Craig Baune
BY: CRAIG R. BAUNE
Assistant U.S. Attorney
Attorney ID No. 331727
600 United States Courthouse
300 South Fourth Street
Minneapolis, MN 55415
Phone: 612-664-5600
Craig.baune@usdoj.gov

File and source

File: 885.pdf
Size: 231,367 bytes
SHA-256: 172173974838a6a2a1ae2abc31b70441f5d8de010bce86a84a22d53476f132a0
Our copy: 885.pdf
Original: archive.org