Defendant's Motion for a Franks Hearing on the Integrity of the Grand Jury Proceeding and to Dismiss the Indictment for Governmental Misconduct — No. 1:24-cr-00323 (Dkt. 81-1, D.D.C.)

Summary

A defendant's motion for a Franks hearing on the integrity of the grand jury proceeding and to dismiss the indictment for governmental misconduct, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in United States v. Jose Biaou, Case No. 1:24-cr-00323-CRC, as Document 81-1 of 5 pages. The motion says the investigation was triggered not by a financial institution tip but by information a private landlord, described as a convicted felon retaliating over Biaou's tenancy rights, obtained during illegal entries into his home. It says the lead agent, United States Postal Inspector Dillon, concealed that origin from the grand jury and presented a tip from PNC Bank instead, violating due process under the Fifth Amendment. Biaou asks for an evidentiary hearing under Franks v. Delaware and then dismissal.

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 1:24-cr-00323-CRC           Document 81-1         Filed 02/03/26      Page 1 of 5




                            UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                            FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                       Plaintiff,
                                                       Case No.: 1:24-cr-00323-CRC
v.

JOSE BIAOU,

                       Defendant.


DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR A FRANKS HEARING ON THE INTEGRITY OF THE
    GRAND JURY PROCEEDING AND TO DISMISS THE INDICTMENT FOR
                  GOVERNMENTAL MISCONDUCT


This prosecution is built on a foundation of poison. The investigation was not initiated by a

legitimate financial institution tip, but was triggered exclusively by information criminally

obtained by a private landlord during illegal entries into the Defendant’s home. These acts were

committed in retaliation for the Defendant’s exercise of his legal tenancy rights, by a convicted

felon engaged in a personal vendetta. The government’s lead agent, United States Postal

Inspector Dillon, then knowingly or with reckless disregard for the truth, concealed this illicit

origin from the grand jury. He presented a sanitized fiction—a “tip from PNC Bank”—to secure

an indictment, obscuring the true, biased, and criminally tainted source of the entire case. This

material misrepresentation violated the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee of due process and the

integrity of the grand jury proceeding. Accordingly, Defendant Jose Biaou respectfully requests

that this Court: (1) order an evidentiary hearing pursuant to Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154

(1978), to determine the facts; and (2) upon proof of misconduct, dismiss the indictment.
       Case 1:24-cr-00323-CRC          Document 81-1       Filed 02/03/26      Page 2 of 5




                                   STATEMENT OF FACTS


1. The Illicit Genesis of the Investigation. The Defendant’s landlord, Dean Addem aka Tarek

Abou-Khatwa, was engaged in an acrimonious civil dispute with Mr. Biaou over the residence at

2303 Bancroft Place. Court records from that dispute demonstrate the landlord’s motive and

illegal actions.

2. The Criminal Act. As part of this vendetta, the landlord illegally entered Mr. Biaou’s

residence and stole private documents and data. This individual was convicted of (among other

crimes and violations) seven (7) counts of mail fraud, six (6) counts of wire fraud and (5) counts

of identity theft. Per court filings, Mr. Addem was scheduled to self-surrender to Federal Prison

for a 70-month prison sentence on February10, 2022 [Exhibit document 181 Case No18-cr-

00067 (TSC)]. He served a 15-month prison sentence and was released in May 2023.

Immediately upon his release Mr. Addem engaged in a campaign of harassment, threats and

criminal violations of Defendant’s tenancy rights per provisions of the DC Rental housing Act of

1985 D.C. Official Code 42-3505.01 ("Act"). Mr. Addem is currently incarcerated on unrelated

charges, underscoring his criminal propensity.

3. The “Tip.” The landlord then provided these illegally obtained materials to multiple federal

authorities and agencies, including the United States Postal Inspection Service (USPIS) and the

Internal Revenue Service (IRS). This unlawful and vindictive act is the true genesis of the

government’s investigation.

4. The Grand Jury Misrepresentation. Before the grand jury, USPIS Inspector Dillon testified

that the investigation began with a “tip from PNC Bank.” (The government has refused to




`                                                2
      Case 1:24-cr-00323-CRC            Document 81-1        Filed 02/03/26     Page 3 of 5




produce this alleged tip, claiming it is protected by the Bank Secrecy Act—a legal pretext

addressed in the motion to compel and below). This testimony was materially false and

misleading. It concealed that the information originated from a criminal trespass and theft by a

biased adversary, not from a neutral financial institution conducting routine oversight.

5. The Materiality of the Misrepresentation. The credibility and motive of a confidential

informant are paradigmatically material to a grand jury’s evaluation of probable cause. See

United States v. Basurto, 497 F.2d 781 (9th Cir. 1974). Had the grand jury known the

investigation was triggered by a crime committed by a vindictive landlord, it may well have

questioned the reliability of the entire premise and declined to indict.



                                           ARGUMENT


I. THE DEFENDANT HAS MADE A SUBSTANTIAL PRELIMINARY SHOWING
WARRANTING A FRANKS HEARING ON THE GRAND JURY TESTIMONY.
A Franks hearing is not limited to search warrant affidavits. Its core principle—that a defendant

is entitled to a hearing when he makes a substantial preliminary showing that a government

agent’s knowing or reckless falsehood was material to a judicial finding—applies with equal, if

not greater, force to grand jury proceedings, which are the very mechanism that initiates a

prosecution. See Bank of Nova Scotia v. United States, 487 U.S. 250, 261 (1988).

Here, Mr. Biaou has made the requisite showing:
· Material False Statement: High likelihood testimony that the tip came from “PNC Bank” was

false. The defendant contends that the true source was the criminal landlord.

· Knowingly or Recklessly Made: Inspector Dillon either knew the true source or was recklessly

indifferent to it. The government’s continued refusal to produce the alleged “PNC tip” under a



`                                                 3
         Case 1:24-cr-00323-CRC          Document 81-1         Filed 02/03/26       Page 4 of 5




dubious claim of privilege (addressed in the concurrently filed Motion to Compel) supports an

inference of consciousness of guilt. Furthermore, the idea that PNC Bank would report suspected

SBA loan fraud directly to USPIS, rather than to the SBA’s own Office of Inspector General,

defies standard law enforcement protocol and makes the agent’s claim inherently suspect.

· Materiality: The source of the investigation is not a trivial detail. It goes directly to the

reliability and motivation behind the entire government effort. Concealing that the “tipster” was

a criminal antagonist is “material” as a matter of law. See United States v. Soares, 998 F.2d 671,

673 (9th Cir. 1993).



II. THE GOVERNMENT’S REFUSAL TO PRODUCE THE ALLEGED “PNC TIP”
FURTHER WARRANTS JUDICIAL SCRUTINY.
The government’s claim that the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) prohibits disclosure is meritless and

reinforces the need for a hearing. The BSA is designed to protect financial institutions from

liability for reporting; it does not create a privilege for the government to withhold Brady

material or evidence central to a defense. *See, e.g., United States v. Cherry, 876 F. Supp. 547,

552 (S.D.N.Y. 1995) (ordering production of SARs). The government’s use of this statute as a

shield is a transparent attempt to hide the true origins of its case from both the defense and the

Court.

III. UPON PROOF OF MISCONDUCT, THE INDICTMENT MUST BE DISMISSED.
Dismissal of an indictment is the appropriate remedy when the government knowingly presents

false or materially misleading testimony to the grand jury. Basurto, 497 F.2d at 785-86; Bank of

Nova Scotia, 487 U.S. at 261-62 (“Dismissal of the indictment may be appropriate if… there is

grand jury misconduct.”). Here, the misconduct is not a technical oversight but a deliberate

obfuscation of the investigation’s corrupt origins, which strikes at the heart of the grand jury’s



`                                                  4
        Case 1:24-cr-00323-CRC         Document 81-1        Filed 02/03/26      Page 5 of 5




function. The indictment is fatally tainted and must be dismissed to vindicate the integrity of

these proceedings.




                              PROPOSED HEARING AND RELIEF


To adjudicate these critical factual disputes, Defendant respectfully requests the Court:

1. Schedule an evidentiary hearing at which Defendant may subpoena and examine:

    · USPIS Inspector Dillon on his grand jury testimony and knowledge of the tip’s source.

    · The Landlord, Dean Addem aka Tarek Abou-Khatwa (currently incarcerated), on his illegal

actions and communications with federal agencies.

    · Any custodian of records from PNC Bank regarding the alleged tip.

2. Order the government to produce all documents related to the initiation of the investigation,

including the alleged PNC tip.

3. Upon a finding that material false testimony was presented to the grand jury, dismiss the

indictment in its entirety.



                                         CONCLUSION


For the foregoing reasons, Defendant Jose Biaou respectfully requests that this Court grant his

Motion for a Franks Hearing and, following such hearing, dismiss the indictment against him.




`                                                5


File and source

File

81-att1.pdf

Size

151,972 bytes

SHA-256

953dc77b3ca529ebee645f7058954d888c8097e5f35a66bb4aed7790e7311e27

Our copy

81-att1.pdf

Original

No public link identified.