Application of the United States for Preliminary Order of Forfeiture — United States v. Cassie Will-Darnall (Dkt. 43)

Summary

The United States applies for a preliminary order of forfeiture against Cassie Will-Darnall. It states that she admitted receiving $2,833,554 in fraud proceeds and that those proceeds were used to extinguish loans on two real properties, called the Belwood Property and the Almaden Property, and to pay credit-card debt, invest, and make purchases. The government seeks those two properties, all funds up to $625,952.60 on deposit in a Vanguard account, and a money judgment of $1,406,594.56, which it calls a conservative estimate of the dissipated fraud proceeds. It says third-party interests will be adjudicated later, and the signature block names Assistant United States Attorney Galen A. Phillips.

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

“Application of the United States for Preliminary Order of Forfeiture — United States v. Cassie Will-Darnall (Dkt. 43).” Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/source-documents/gov-uscourts-cand-430212-43-0-db1f7d4c36/, SHA-256 a396e640bc7b6db33fee58be38babcce37112ab35616cfae29ae19e8659e093f.

Full text

Case 5:24-cr-00292-PCP Document 43 Filed 04/09/25 Page 1 of 22

1 PATRICK D. ROBBINS (CABN 152288)
Acting United States Attorney
2
MARTHA BOERSCH (CABN 126569)
3 Chief, Criminal Division

4 GALEN A. PHILLIPS (CABN 307644)
Assistant United States Attorney
5
450 Golden Gate Avenue, Box 36055
6 San Francisco, California 94102-3495
Telephone: (415) 436-7110
7 Facsimile: (415) 436-7234
Email: galen.phillips@usdoj.gov
8
Attorneys for the United States of America
9
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
10
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
11
SAN JOSE DIVISION
12
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) Case No. CR-24-00292-PCP
13 )
Plaintiff, ) APPLICATION OF THE UNITED STATES FOR
14 ) PRELIMINARY ORDER OF FORFEITURE
v. )
15 )
CASSIE WILL-DARNALL, )
16 )
)
17 Defendant. )
18
19

APP. FOR PRELIMINARY ORDER OF FORFEITURE
CR-24-00292-PCP
Case 5:24-cr-00292-PCP Document 43 Filed 04/09/25 Page 2 of 22

1 TABLE OF CONTENTS

2 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................................1

3 I. Factual and Procedural Background: ...............................................................................................2

4 A. The Almaden Property Was Encumbered To Clear Title On The Belwood
Property. ...............................................................................................................................3
5
B. Will-Darnall Clouds Title On The Belwood Property After Being Sued In An
6 Apparent Effort To Become Judgment Proof. .....................................................................4

7 C. Will-Darnall Fraudulently Applies For More Than $7 Million In COVID-
Relief Loans, Is Funded For $968,989, Then Transfers Most Of Those
8 Fraudulently Obtained Funds Directly To Her Mother Will. ..............................................6

9 D. The June 15 Check, Composed Of Largely Fraud Proceeds, Extinguished
Loans On Both The Belwood Property And The Almaden Property. .................................8
10
E. Will-Darnall Deposits Nearly $2,000,000 In Fraudulently Obtained Proceeds
11 Into A Vanguard Account, Transfers The Fraud Proceeds To Another
Vanguard Account, And Then Transfers The Fraud Proceeds To Yet Another
12 Account And Back, Dissipating Much Of The Fuds, Until Their Seizure. .........................9

13 F. Will-Darnall Is Charged By Information Including A Forfeiture Allegation
and Pleads Open While Acknowledging Forfeiture Penalties. ..........................................10
14
II. Legal Standard ...............................................................................................................................11
15
III. Argument .......................................................................................................................................13
16
A. The Nexus Between The Belwood Property And The Almaden Property And
17 Defendant’s Crime Is Established By Tracing The Funds From Will-Darnall’s
First Successful Fraudulent PPP Loan To Those Properties. ............................................13
18
B. The Government Has Established The Requisite Nexus Between The 6846
19 Account And The Defendant’s Crimes By Tracing The Funds From Will-
Darnall’s Two Fraudulently Obtained PPP Loans To The 6846 Account.........................14
20
C. A Money Judgment Of $1,406,594.56 Is Warranted Because That Amount
21 Reflects A Conservative Approximation Of The Amount Of Fraud Proceeds
Dissipated By Will-Darnall ...............................................................................................15
22
IV. Procedure Following Issuance of Preliminary Order of Forfeiture ...............................................16
23
CONCLUSION ..........................................................................................................................................17
24

APP. FOR PRELIMINARY ORDER OF FORFEITURE
CR-24-00292-PCP i
Case 5:24-cr-00292-PCP Document 43 Filed 04/09/25 Page 3 of 22

1 Table of Authorities

2 Cases

3 Almeida v. United States, 459 F.3d 377 (2d Cir. 2006) ............................................................................ 13

4 Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) .......................................................................................... 12

5 Luis v. United States, 578 U.S. 5 (2016)................................................................................................. 7, 8

6 United States v. Afriyie, 929 F.3d 63 (2d Cir. 2019) ................................................................................ 15

7 United States v. Betancourt, 422 F.3d 240 (5th Cir. 2005) ...................................................................... 15

8 United States v. Gaviria, 116 F.3d 1498 (D.C. Cir. 1997) ....................................................................... 17

9 United States v. Haleamau, 887 F. Supp. 2d 1051 (D. Haw. 2012) ........................................................... 8

10 United States v. Hill, 46 F. App’x 838 (6th Cir. 2002) ............................................................................. 15

11 United States v. Lazarenko, 476 F.3d 642 (9th Cir. 2007) ....................................................................... 12

12 United States v. Nava, 404 F.3d 1119 (9th Cir. 2005) .............................................................................. 13

13 United States v. Nejad, 933 F.3d 1162 (9th Cir. 2019)............................................................................. 15

14 United States v. Schlesinger, 396 F. Supp. 2d 267 (E.D.N.Y. 2005) ................................................. 13, 15

15 United States v. Shryock, 342 F.3d 948 (9th Cir. 2003) ........................................................................... 12

16 United States v. Yeje-Cabrera, 430 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2005) ....................................................................... 13

17 Statutes

18 18 U.S.C. § 981 ................................................................................................................................... 16, 20
19 21 U.S.C. § 853 .................................................................................................................................. passim

20 28 U.S.C. § 2461 ....................................................................................................................................... 20

21 Rules

22 Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.2 ........................................................................................... 19, 21

APP. FOR PRELIMINARY ORDER OF FORFEITURE
CR-24-00292-PCP ii
Case 5:24-cr-00292-PCP Document 43 Filed 04/09/25 Page 4 of 22

1 INTRODUCTION

2 The defendant Cassie Will-Darnall has admitted to receiving $2,833,554 in fraud proceeds. Dkt.

3 34 (“Plea Admission”), at 3. Will-Darnall’s admission raises the question: What happened to the

4 money? Fortunately for this Court—tasked with answering this question, among others—this question

5 has an obvious answer once one follows the money.

6 As detailed below, the fraud proceeds were used to extinguish loans on two real properties. Will-

7 Darnall used the rest of the money to pay credit-card debt; invest in a money-market fund, stocks, and

8 cryptocurrency; and make sundry purchases. In short, while some of the money can be reclaimed, some

9 has vanished, spent in a flurry after Will-Darnall obtained more than $2,833,554 in victim funds.

10 The government submits this application to reclaim the money that it can and to obtain a money

11 judgment for the remainder that it cannot. Through this application, the government seeks a preliminary

12 order of forfeiture of the following property (the “Subject Property”):

13 • Real Property located at 111 Belwood Gateway, Los Gatos CA 95032, Santa Clara
14 County, APN 527-31-019 (the “Belwood Property”);

15 • Real Property located at 306 Los Gatos Almaden Rd., Los Gatos, CA 95032, Santa Clara
16 County, APN 527-46-002 (the “Almaden Property”); and

17 • All funds up to $625,952.60 on deposit in a Vanguard account ending in 6846 (the “6846
18 Account”), and all interest accrued since seizure of those funds.

19 The government also seeks a money judgment for $1,406,594.56, which amount represents a

20 conservative estimate of the approximate value of the fraud proceeds that Will-Darnall dissipated. The

21 money judgment would place the government in the position of a judgment creditor as to Will-Darnall,

22 allowing it to later satisfy the debt by seeking the forfeiture of substitute assets owned by Will-Darnall.

23 Once granted, the preliminary order of forfeiture will become a final order of forfeiture as to the

24 defendant at sentencing. This should come as no surprise to the defendant, who acknowledged in her

25 change of plea that forfeiture was a consequence of both convictions and received proper notice of the

26 government’s intent to seek forfeit in both the initial charging document and a subsequently filed bill of

27 particulars.

APP. FOR PRELIMINARY ORDER OF FORFEITURE
CR-24-00292-PCP 1
Case 5:24-cr-00292-PCP Document 43 Filed 04/09/25 Page 5 of 22

1 Third-party interests in the Subject Property, if any, will be adjudicated later. Indeed, after

2 sentencing, pursuant to the timing articulated in 21 U.S.C. § 853(n)(2), any third party claiming a legal

3 interest in the Subject Property may petition this Court for a hearing. At that hearing, the Court

4 adjudicates the validity of the claimant’s alleged interest in the property in a process known as the

5 ancillary proceeding. The occurrence of the ancillary proceeding entitles the government to take

6 discovery pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

7 But consideration of potential third-party interests at this point puts the cart before the horse.

8 Simply put, for now, this application presents just two questions for this Court to answer:

9
First, for the entry of a preliminary order of forfeiture concerning the
10 Subject Property, has the government established by a preponderance of
the evidence a nexus between the counts to which Will-Darnall pleaded
11 guilty and the Subject Property?
12 Second, for the entry of a money judgment, has the government
established by a preponderance of the evidence that Will-Darnall received
13
$2,833,554 in fraud proceeds, of which Will-Darnall spent at least
14 $1,406,594.56, requiring a money judgment in that amount?

15 The government respectfully submits that this Court should affirmatively answer both questions

16 because (1) proceeds of the two counts to which Will-Darnall has pleaded guilty are directly traceable to

17 the Subject Property and (2) Will-Darnall spent at least $1,406,594.56 in fraud proceeds, leaving the

18 government to pursue the only remaining relief available for that amount, a money judgment. Thus, the
19 Court should enter the preliminary order of forfeiture now and orally announce the final order of

20 forfeiture as to Will-Darnall at sentencing, which is set for April 23, 2025.

21 I. Factual and Procedural Background:

22 While the heart of Will-Darnall’s guilty pleas concerns conduct in 2020, the fraud proceeds were

23 used to pay off preexisting loans from Will-Darnall’s eighty-eight-year-old mother, Sandra Will

24 (“Will”), and Bank of America. To make sense of those loans as well as other encumbrances on the title

25 of the Belwood Property, this factual and procedural background begins in 2018. It includes a discussion

26 of Will-Darnall’s efforts to become judgment proof by encumbering the Belwood Property with various

27 sham liens, a discussion of Will-Darnall’s charged conduct, including tracing the fraud proceeds to the

APP. FOR PRELIMINARY ORDER OF FORFEITURE
CR-24-00292-PCP 2
Case 5:24-cr-00292-PCP Document 43 Filed 04/09/25 Page 6 of 22

1 Subject Property, and a discussion of subsequent procedural developments, ending with Will-Darnall’s

2 admission of guilt to the information’s two counts, from which this application follows.

3 A. The Almaden Property Was Encumbered To Clear Title On The Belwood Property.

4 On January 24, 2018, Will signed a promissory note concerning Loan No. 278796661 from Bank

5 of America (the “BofA Loan”). Declaration of Special Agent Barnard (“Barnard Decl.”), Ex. A. 1 The

6 BofA Loan contemplated Will receiving a $1,000,000 loan secured by the Almaden Property and Will

7 making a monthly payment of $4,631.16 to Bank of America. Id.; see also Ex. B.

8 As of at least January 24, 2018, Will was the sole titled owner of the Almaden Property. See Ex.

9 C. Will also then owned the following real property: 1868 Rosswood Dr., San Jose, CA 95124 (the

10 “Rosswood Property”); 3570 Cactus Shadow St., # 201, Las Vegas, NV 89129; 3460 Cactus Shadow

11 St., # 204, Las Vegas, NV 89129; and 84 Water St., Dundee, NY 14837. Ex. D.

12 While the BofA Loan was for $1,000,000, at closing, Will paid off two existing debts. Ex. E.

13 One of those debts was a Bank of America home equity line of credit (“HELOC”) secured by the

14 Almaden Property with an outstanding balance of approximately $487,509.71. Exs. D and E. The other

15 was a Nationstar loan secured by the Rosswood Property with an outstanding balance of approximately

16 $162,496.33. Exs. D and E.

17 After deducting those two repayments and additional costs, Will received $348,114.69 in funds

18 from the BofA Loan. Ex. E. That amount was wired, on January 29, 2018, into a Bank of America
19 account in Will’s name associated with an account number ending in 9108 (the “9108 Account”). See

20 Exs. F and G. Will owned and controlled the 9108 Account. 2 Ex. G.

21 On February 2, 2018, Will obtained a cashier’s check drawn on the 9108 Account in the amount

22 of $607,629.02 to be paid to the order of PLM Lender Services Inc. (the “February 2018 Check”).

23 Ex. H. The memo line of the February 2018 Check reads: “Cassie V. Will SC15282POO[.]” Id. Of the

24 $607,629.02 included in the February 2018 Check, a portion of the funds came from the BofA Loan.

25 Barnard Decl., ¶ 4.

26
1
Unless otherwise noted, citations to exhibits refer to exhibits to the Declaration of Special
27 Agent Barnard.
2
28 While Robert V. Will is listed on statements for the 9108 Account, too, he was deceased as of
May 1, 2005. Ex. C.
APP. FOR PRELIMINARY ORDER OF FORFEITURE
CR-24-00292-PCP 3
Case 5:24-cr-00292-PCP Document 43 Filed 04/09/25 Page 7 of 22

1 Will-Darnall signed a promissory note dated February 7, 2018, reflecting a $1,000,000 loan from

2 her mother, Will (“Will’s $1,000,000 Loan”). Ex. I. Will’s $1,000,000 Loan contemplated Will-Darnall

3 paying Will monthly $4,631.16—that is, the exact amount that Will was obligated to pay for the BofA

4 Loan. Id. In fact, Will’s $1,000,000 Loan incorporated the amortization schedule included with the

5 BofA Loan. Id. at 2 (referencing Bank of America Loan No. 278796661). Purportedly, on the same day,

6 Will-Darnall signed a deed of trust, securing Will’s $1,000,000 Loan with the Belwood Property, though

7 Will-Darnall did not then record the deed of trust on the property’s title. 3 Ex. J.

8 On February 16, 2018, PLM Loan Management Services, Inc. (“PLM”) signed a deed of

9 reconveyance concerning loan SC15282POO, which had been secured by the Belwood Property. Ex. L.

10 The deed of reconveyance reflects that PLM had been paid in full for loan SC15282POO. Id. As a result,

11 PLM reconveyed to Will-Darnall the deed of trust recorded by PLM on the Belwood Property. Id. Thus,

12 Will paid off Will-Darnall’s loan from PLM with $607,629.02, clearing the Belwood Property’s title of

13 any arm’s-length loans. In turn, Will-Darnall agreed to repay Will $1,000,000 in monthly amounts that

14 exactly matched Will’s obligation to Bank of America under the BofA Loan.

15 B. Will-Darnall Clouds Title On The Belwood Property After Being Sued In An
Apparent Effort To Become Judgment Proof.
16

17 On November 19, 2018, a lawsuit was filed in the Superior Court of California for the County of

18 Santa Clara, styled as Spieker Companies, Inc., v. Rosswood Properties, LLC, Cassie Will-Darnall, et
19 al., 18CV338308 (the “Civil Suit”). Ex. M. In the Civil Suit, Spieker alleges $474,141.22 in damages

20 resulting from Rosswood Properties, LLC, of which at the time Will-Darnall was a principal, breaching

21 various rental lease agreements with Spieker. 4 Id.

22 On March 6, 2019, a deed of trust dated February 26, 2019, was recorded against the Belwood

23 Property. Ex. O. That deed of trust secured a $500,000 loan from Will to Will-Darnall, which was made

24 on July 26, 2016. Id.

26
3
As of June 10, 2016, Will-Darnall was the sole titled owner of the Belwood Property. Ex. K.
27 4
On June 8, 2022, an abstract of judgment was recorded on the title of the Belwood Property.
28 Ex. N. That abstract of judgment reflects a judgment of $424,321.84 owed by Will-Darnall, among
others, stemming from the Civil Suit. Id. Thus, Spieker apparently prevailed in the Civil Suit.
APP. FOR PRELIMINARY ORDER OF FORFEITURE
CR-24-00292-PCP 4
Case 5:24-cr-00292-PCP Document 43 Filed 04/09/25 Page 8 of 22

1 On June 28, 2019, the following three deeds of trust were recorded against the Belwood

2 Property:

3 1. A deed of trust dated July 26, 2016, reflecting a $570,000 loan from Will to Will-Darnall

4 (Ex. P);

5 2. The deed of trust securing Will’s $1,000,000 Loan (Ex. J); and

6 3. A deed of trust dated June 27, 2019, reflecting a $3.25 million loan from Serenity Family

7 Limited Partnership to Will-Darnall (Ex. Q).

8 The deeds of trust dated February 26, 2019, and July 26, 2016, likely reflect the same loan from

9 Will to Will-Darnall, though the deeds describe the loan amount as $500,000 and $570,000,

10 respectively. In July of 2016, Will acquired a $500,000 HELOC from Bank of America. Ex. R. Given

11 Will’s practice of obtaining money from Bank of America for Will-Darnall’s benefit, Will conceivably

12 could have loaned Will-Darnall $500,000 from the HELOC. E.g., Ex. I. As detailed above, however,

13 that HELOC, was repaid when Will received the BofA Loan in 2018. See Ex. E. In other words, the

14 deeds of trust dated February 26, 2019, and July 26, 2016, if still on title, 5 likely double count the same

15 loan, and that loan was likely repaid in full by the time of their recording.

16 The deed of trust securing Will’s $1,000,000 Loan reflects an actual loan. But critically Will-

17 Darnall appeared to receive the value of only $607,629.02 in funds for that loan. See Ex. H. It is possible

18 that Will’s $1,000,000 Loan subsumed an existing debt Will-Darnall owed Will (that is, the HELOC).
19 But Will also used the BofA Loan to repay a loan with an outstanding balance of $162,496.33 secured

20 by the Rosswood Property. Ex. F. Thus, the deed of trust secured Will’s $1,000,000 Loan potentially

21 overstates the amount of Will-Darnall’s obligation to Will.

22 The deed of trust dated June 26, 2016, is a sham. Serenity Enterprises Family Limited

23 Partnership is a Wyoming Limited Partnership affiliated with Will-Darnall. Barnard Decl., ¶¶ 5–7. The

24 purported loan, however, is from Serenity Family Limited Partnership, reflecting an apparent

25 typographical error. There is no evidence that Will-Darnall received any amount—let alone $3.25

27 5
On May 31, 2019, three deeds of release were apparently recorded on title for the Belwood
28 Property. The government does not have copies of those three deeds, though one might concern the
release of the deed of trust dated February 26, 2019.
APP. FOR PRELIMINARY ORDER OF FORFEITURE
CR-24-00292-PCP 5
Case 5:24-cr-00292-PCP Document 43 Filed 04/09/25 Page 9 of 22

1 million—from either Serenity Family Limited Partnership or Serenity Enterprises Family Limited

2 Partnership. Barnard Decl., ¶ 8. There is also no evidence that Will-Darnall made any effort to repay this

3 purported loan. Barnard Decl., ¶ 9. Thus, the deed of trust reflecting the $3.25 million loan, thus,

4 appears to be an effort to cloud title on the Belwood Property. 6

5 Will-Darnall’s efforts to shield her asset, however, did not stop there. On August 14, 2019, Will-

6 Darnall signed a quitclaim deed, conveying her interest in the Belwood Property to Will-Darnall as

7 trustee of the Cassie V. Will-Darnall Trust (the “Will-Darnall Trust”) dated May 8, 2017. Ex. T. This

8 quitclaim deed was recorded on title to the Belwood Property the next day. Id.

9 On September 25, 2019, Will-Darnall signed a deed of trust securing the Belwood Property for

10 an alleged $1,900,850 loan from Plato Global Ventures LLC to Will-Darnall. 7 Ex. U. Plato’s loan to

11 Will-Darnall is a sham, too. Plato is potentially a Nevis LLC affiliated with Will-Darnall. Barnard Decl.,

12 ¶ 10; Ex. PP. There is no evidence that Will-Darnall received any amount—let alone $1.9 million—from

13 Plato. 8 Barnard Decl., ¶ 11. There is also no evidence that Will-Darnall made any effort to repay this

14 purported loan. Barnard Decl., ¶ 12.

15 Thus, after her mother, Will, paid off the remaining arm’s-length loan secured by the Belwood

16 Property, Will-Darnall encumbered the property with more than $6.7 million in purported loans, likely

17 reflecting an effort by Will-Darnall to render herself judgment proof.

18 C. Will-Darnall Fraudulently Applies For More Than $7 Million In COVID-Relief
Loans, Is Funded For $968,989, Then Transfers Most Of Those Fraudulently
19 Obtained Funds Directly To Her Mother Will.

20 Will-Darnall submitted two fraudulent applications for Economic Injury Disaster Loans

21 (“EIDLs”) on March 31 and April 11, 2020, respectively. Those EIDLs were declined. Barnard Decl.,

22 ¶ 13.

24
6
25 As early as August 2013, Will-Darnall had apparently recorded on title for the Belwood
Property loans of dubious authenticity. See, e.g., Ex. S.
26 7
Notably, Will-Darnall signed the deed of trust in her individual capacity (that is, not as trustee
to the Will-Darnall Trust), even though, according to the quitclaim dated August 14, 2019, Will-Darnall
27 no longer had an interest in the Belwood Property at the time of Plato’s purported loan.
8
28 Absent extraordinary circumstances, it also would be unusual for a third-party lender to secure
a loan against a property as apparently encumbered as the Belwood Property was in September 2019.
APP. FOR PRELIMINARY ORDER OF FORFEITURE
CR-24-00292-PCP 6
Case 5:24-cr-00292-PCP Document 43 Filed 04/09/25 Page 10 of 22

1 Will-Darnall submitted a fraudulent Paycheck Protection Program (“PPP”) loan application on

2 April 1, 2020. That PPP loan was declined. On April 3, 2020, Will-Darnall submitted the same PPP loan

3 application, including minor revisions. That PPP loan was declined. In aggregate, Will-Darnall sought

4 $6,625,000 in PPP loans through those two PPP loan applications. Barnard Decl., ¶ 14.

5 On May 20, 2020, Will-Darnall submitted a fraudulent PPP loan application in the name of

6 Alternative Health Services Inc. for $968,989.00. Plea Admission, at 2; see Ex. V. On June 4, 2020, the

7 loan was funded, and $968,989.00 was deposited into the Wells Fargo Bank account of Rosswood LLC

8 with an account number ending in 7528 (the “7528 Account”). Ex. W. Will-Darnall owned and

9 controlled the 7528 Account. Ex. X.

10 On June 9, 2020, Will-Darnall transferred $938,000 from the 7528 Account to the Wells Fargo

11 Bank account of Soda Springs LLC with an account number ending in 4912 (the “4912 Account”). Exs.

12 W and Y. Will-Darnall owned and controlled the 4912 Account. Ex. Z. Using the lowest intermediate

13 balance rule (“LIBR”), a forensic accounting principal, the $938,000 transfer to the 4912 Account was

14 composed of funds entirely, directly traceable to the first count to which Will-Darnall has pleaded

15 guilty. 9 Barnard Decl., ¶ 16.

16
9
17 Throughout this application the government traces money using the lowest intermediate
balance rule (“LIBR”). As United States District Judge Gillmor of the District of Hawaii has explained:
18 LIBR is an accounting principal used to calculate which funds are subject
to forfeiture in an account containing both tainted and legitimate funds. . .
19 . LIBR posits that when commingled funds are in an account, legitimate
funds are withdrawn first, leaving the tainted funds in the account. When
20 there is insufficient legitimate funds to cover a specific withdraw, then
tainted funds are used to cover the withdraw. The balance of tainted funds
21 in the account is reduced according to the amount needed to make the
withdraw. This reduced balance of tainted funds is considered the
22 intermediate balance of the tainted funds. If legitimate funds are added to
the account later, the intermediate balance of tainted funds in the account
23 does not increase. Over the course of time, as deposits and withdraws are
made into an account, the LIBR keeps track of the intermediate balance of
24 tainted funds in the account. For example, if an account contains $1,000 of
tainted funds and $1,000 of legitimate funds totaling $2,000, then so long
25 as at least $1,000 remains the account at the time of seizure, $1,000 will
be considered tainted and, therefore, subject to forfeiture. If however, at
26 some point the balance of funds in the account drops below $1,000, for
example to $800, and there is no evidence that additional tainted funds
27 were added to the account, the lowest intermediate balance of tainted
funds would be at most $800. Regardless of how much money was in the
28 account at the time of seizure, the LIBR would only allow forfeiture of
$800 because that would be the lowest intermediate balance of tainted
APP. FOR PRELIMINARY ORDER OF FORFEITURE
CR-24-00292-PCP 7
Case 5:24-cr-00292-PCP Document 43 Filed 04/09/25 Page 11 of 22

1 On June 15, 2020, Will-Darnall wrote a check to Will drawn on the 4912 Account in the amount

2 of $971,504.21 (the “June 15 Check”). Ex. AA. Using LIBR, $746,372.98 of the June 15 Check is

3 directly traceable to the first count to which Will-Darnall pleaded guilty. Barnard Decl., ¶ 17.

4 D. The June 15 Check, Composed Of Largely Fraud Proceeds, Extinguished Loans On
Both The Belwood Property And The Almaden Property.
5

6 On June 15, 2020, the June 15 Check was deposited into the 9108 Account. Ex. BB. The memo
7 line for the June 15 Check reads “111 Bel payoff,” (Ex. AA) a reference to Will-Darnall’s repaying

8 Will’s $1,000,000 Loan and noting the repayment was related to the Belwood Property.

9 Despite having repaid Will’s $1,000,000 Loan, Will-Darnall, as trustee of the Will-Darnall Trust,
10 signed a quitclaim deed dated June 20, 2020, transferring the Will-Darnall Trust’s interest in the

11 Belwood Property to Will. 10 Ex. CC.

12 On June 22, 2020, a $972,094.93 payment was made from the 9108 Account to a Bank of
13 America mortgage account held in Will’s name and associated with an account number ending in 6661.

14 Ex. BB; see also Ex. EE. The payment extinguished the BofA Loan, which encumbered the Almaden

15 Property. Ex. BB; see also Ex. EE. Using LIBR, the $972,094.93 payment to Bank of America, as

16 repayment for the BofA Loan, included up to $746,372.98 in funds directly traceable to the first count to

17 which Will-Darnall pleaded guilty. Barnard Decl., ¶ 18.

18
19 ///

21 ////

24 funds in the account.
United States v. Haleamau, 887 F. Supp. 2d 1051, 1057 (D. Haw. 2012) . The same court also discussed
25 at length the propriety of using LIBR in a variety of contexts, including forfeiture. See generally, Id. at
1056–57 (collecting cases); cf. Luis v. United States, 578 U.S. 5, 22 (2016) (acknowledging that
26 “[c]ourts use tracing rules in cases involving fraud”).
10
27 That quitclaim deed was not recorded on title until October 19, 2020. Ex. CC. In a note to her
accountant, Will-Darnall later stated that she quitclaimed the Belwood Property to Will because Will-
28 Darnall allegedly “defaulted” on Will’s $1,000,000 Loan. See Ex. DD. The June 15 Check contradicts
Will-Darnall’s stated reason for quitclaiming the Belwood Property to Will.
APP. FOR PRELIMINARY ORDER OF FORFEITURE
CR-24-00292-PCP 8
Case 5:24-cr-00292-PCP Document 43 Filed 04/09/25 Page 12 of 22

1 E. Will-Darnall Deposits Nearly $2,000,000 In Fraudulently Obtained Proceeds Into A
Vanguard Account, Transfers The Fraud Proceeds To Another Vanguard Account,
2 And Then Transfers The Fraud Proceeds To Yet Another Account And Back,
Dissipating Much Of The Funds, Until Their Seizure.
3

4 On July 12, 2020, Will-Darnall submitted a fraudulent loan application in the name of Rosswood

5 Properties LLC for $1,650,500.00. Plea Admission at 3; Ex. FF. On July 22, 2020, the loan was funded

6 and $1,864,565.00.00 was deposited into the 7528 Account. Plea Admission at 3; Exs. GG, HH.

7 On November 9, 2020, Will-Darnall opened an account at Vanguard associated with an account

8 number ending in 8205 (the “8205 Account”), which account Will-Darnall owned and controlled. Ex. II.

9 The 8205 Account was an individual brokerage account, in which Will-Darnall invested in a money-

10 market fund and stocks. On November 10, 2020, Will-Darnall transferred $1,600,000 from the 7528

11 Account to the 8205 Account. Ex. JJ. On November 17, 2020, Will-Darnall transferred $230,000 from

12 the 7528 Account to the 8205 Account. Id. Pursuant to LIBR, except for $54.15, all of the $1,830,000

13 included in these two transfers is directly traceable to the second count to which Will-Darnall has

14 pleaded guilty. Barnard Decl., ¶ 19.

15 On November 27, 2020, Will-Darnall transferred $100,000 from the 4912 Account to the 8205

16 Account. Ex. JJ. Pursuant to LIBR, all of the $100,000 included in this transfer is directly traceable to

17 the first count to which Will-Darnall has pleaded guilty. Barnard Decl., ¶ 20.

18 Between November 10, 2020, and February 2, 2021, the 8205 Account did not receive any

19 deposits beyond the three previously described deposits. Thus, except for $54.15 in clean funds, the

20 account received exclusively funds traceable to the two counts to which Will-Darnall has pleaded guilty.

21 Barnard Decl., ¶¶ 19–20.

22 On February 2, 2021, Will-Darnall transferred $1,876,616.41 from the 8205 Account to a

23 Vanguard account associated with an account number ending in 6846 held in the name of “Alternative

24 Health Service Inc” (the “6846 Account”). Ex. KK. Will-Darnall owned and controlled the 6846

25 Account, an organizational brokerage account. Ex. LL. Pursuant to LIBR, of the $1,876,616.41

26 transferred to the 6846 Account, all of it constituted funds directly traceable to the two counts to which

27 Will-Darnall pleaded guilty. Barnard Decl., ¶ 21.

APP. FOR PRELIMINARY ORDER OF FORFEITURE
CR-24-00292-PCP 9
Case 5:24-cr-00292-PCP Document 43 Filed 04/09/25 Page 13 of 22

1 Between February 2, 2021, and May 31, 2023, funds were withdrawn from the 6846 Account

2 and transferred to the 4912 Account in increments ranging from $3,000 to $400,000. Barnard Decl.,

3 ¶ 22. Pursuant to LIBR, Will-Darnall transferred $1,027,000 in fraud proceeds from the 6846 Account to

4 the 4912 Account. Id. Will-Darnall dissipated some of those funds at restaurants and through purchases

5 of various things including items from Amazon and payments to airlines. Id.

6 Pursuant to LIBR, Will-Darnall transferred approximately $489,000 in loan proceeds from the

7 4912 Account back into the 6846 Account. Barnard Decl., ¶ 23. As of on or about May 31, 2023, the

8 6846 Account had a balance of $625,952.60. Barnard Decl., ¶ 24. Using LIBR, the government was able

9 to determine the entirety of the $625,952.60 consisted proceeds directly traceable to the two counts to

10 which Will-Darnall has pleaded guilty. Barnard Decl., ¶ 25.

11 On June 29, 2023, the government obtained a seizure warrant for all funds up to $625,952.60

12 held in the 6846 Account and their appreciated value based on the government’s tracing of the proceeds

13 connected to Will-Darnall’s scheme to defraud to all funds held in the 6846 Account. Declaration of

14 AUSA Phillips (“Phillips Decl.”), Ex. MM. As of March 31, 2025, those funds have appreciated to at

15 least $680,586.46. Phillips Decl., Ex. NN.

16 F. Will-Darnall Is Charged By Information Including A Forfeiture Allegation and
Pleads Open While Acknowledging Forfeiture Penalties.
17

18 On May 29, 2024, Will-Darnall, was charged by an information with violations of Title 18,
19 United States Code, Sections 1344(2) (Bank Fraud) and 1343 (Wire Fraud). Dkt. 1, at 8–9. In the

20 information, the government sought criminal forfeiture pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section

21 981(a)(1)(C) and Title 28, United States Code, Section 2461(c). Id. And the government identified the

22 property subject to forfeiture as follows:

23 • 111 Belwood Gateway, Los Gatos CA 95032, Santa Clara County, APN 527-31-019;
24 • 306 Los Gatos Almaden Rd., Los Gatos, CA 95032, Santa Clara County, APN 527-46-
25 002; and
26 • A forfeiture money judgment in the amount of $2,833,554, representing the total value of
27 proceeds obtained directly or indirectly by the defendant from the commission of the
28 offense of conviction. Id.
APP. FOR PRELIMINARY ORDER OF FORFEITURE
CR-24-00292-PCP 10
Case 5:24-cr-00292-PCP Document 43 Filed 04/09/25 Page 14 of 22

1 On June 12, 2024, the government filed lis pendens against both the Belwood Property and the

2 Almaden Property. On August 19, 2024, the government filed a bill of particulars, providing notice of

3 the government’s intent to seek forfeiture of the Subject Property. Dkt. 17.

4 On December 13, 2024, Will filed a civil complaint in the United States District Court for the

5 Northern District of California, styled as Sandra Will, v. The United States of America and Does 1-10,

6 5:24CV09030, which has since been assigned to this Court. A summons has not been issued in that

7 matter. And the complaint remains unserved, a defect of which plaintiff’s counsel has been advised. See

8 Phillips Decl., Ex. OO.

9 On January 15, 2025, Will-Darnall pleaded guilty before this Court without a plea agreement to

10 Counts One and Two of the Information. In the Plea Admission, Will-Darnall acknowledged that

11 forfeiture was a penalty of both counts to which she was pleading guilty. Plea Admission, at 2. While

12 Will-Darnall has admitted her criminal conduct, the parties have reached no agreement concerning the

13 scope of forfeiture, raising doubts about the extent to which Will-Darnall accepts responsibility for her

14 crimes.

15 II. Legal Standard

16 Rule 32.2 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure addresses criminal forfeiture procedure.

17 Rule 32.2(b)(1)(A) provides that as soon as practicable after accepting a plea of guilty on any count for

18 which criminal forfeiture is sought, the court shall determine what property is subject to forfeiture under
19 the applicable statute. If forfeiture of specific property is sought, the Court shall determine whether the

20 government has established the requisite nexus between the property and the offense. If the government

21 seeks a money judgment against the defendant, the Court shall determine the amount of money that the

22 defendant will be ordered to pay.

23 Rule 32.2(b)(1)(B) provides that the Court’s determination may be based on evidence already in

24 the record, “including any written plea agreement[.]” If the forfeiture is contested, as here, the Court

25 may determine the nexus of the specific property to the offense based on evidence or information before

26 the Court or presented by the parties.

27 The standard of proof is preponderance of the evidence. See United States v. Shryock, 342 F.3d

28 948, 991 (9th Cir. 2003) (“We therefore join all other circuit courts of appeals that have considered the

APP. FOR PRELIMINARY ORDER OF FORFEITURE
CR-24-00292-PCP 11
Case 5:24-cr-00292-PCP Document 43 Filed 04/09/25 Page 15 of 22

1 question, and conclude that Apprendi [v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000),] does not disturb the rule that

2 statutorily-prescribed forfeiture is constitutional when supported by the preponderance of the evidence.”

3 (emphasis added)).

4 As to the Subject Property, the only question before the Court at this stage and in connection

5 with the requested entry of the proposed preliminary order of forfeiture is whether the evidence before

6 the Court is sufficient to establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, the existence of a nexus between

7 the Subject Property, and the offenses to which defendant has pleaded guilty. See Rule 32.2(b). Rule

8 32.2(b)(2) states that if the Court finds that property is subject to forfeiture, it shall enter a preliminary

9 order of forfeiture setting forth the amount of any money judgment or directing the forfeiture of the

10 specific property without regard to any third party’s interest in all or part of it.

11 The existence of third-party interests in the Subject Property is not before the Court at this time.

12 See Rule 32.2(b)(2)(A) (“Determining whether a third party has such an interest must be deferred until

13 any third party files a claim in an ancillary proceeding under Rule 32.2(c).”); see also United States v.

14 Lazarenko, 476 F.3d 642, 648 (9th Cir. 2007) (“Upon a finding that the property involved is subject to

15 forfeiture, a court must promptly enter a preliminary order of forfeiture without regard to a third party’s

16 interests in the property.” (emphasis added)). The ancillary proceeding can be completed once the

17 preliminary order of forfeiture becomes final as to the defendant, upon the Court announcing such at

18 sentencing and including it in the judgment, per Rule 32.2(b)(4). 11
19 As a result, the government is not required to establish the defendant’s ownership of the property

20 to obtain a preliminary order of forfeiture. See United States v. Yeje-Cabrera, 430 F.3d 1, 15 (1st Cir.

21 2005) (explaining that the primary purpose of Rule 32.2 is to preserve the resources of court and third

22 parties by deferring the ownership issue to the ancillary proceeding and avoiding duplicative litigation);

23 see also United States v. Nava, 404 F.3d 1119, 1132 (9th Cir. 2005) (district court properly instructed

24 jury that questions of ownership “were not before them”); Almeida v. United States, 459 F.3d 377, 381

25 (2d Cir. 2006) (“The statutory wording makes sufficiently clear that criminal forfeiture is not a measure

27 11
The ancillary proceeding concerns third party interests in property forfeited as to the
28 defendant. Because a money judgment does not result in the forfeiture of any specific property, it is
exempt from the ancillary proceeding. See Rule 32.2(c)(1).
APP. FOR PRELIMINARY ORDER OF FORFEITURE
CR-24-00292-PCP 12
Case 5:24-cr-00292-PCP Document 43 Filed 04/09/25 Page 16 of 22

1 restricted to property owned by the criminal defendant . . . . The likelihood that some property involved

2 in an offense will be owned by persons other than the criminal defendant is reflected in the provision for

3 an ancillary proceeding.”).

4 As explained in the Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 32.2 (2000), the Rule was revised with

5 the intent to eliminate confusion over whether the extent of the defendant’s ownership interest should be

6 determined by the finder of fact. The new rule clarified that the only question upon conviction or a

7 guilty plea is whether there is a nexus between the violation of which the defendant has been convicted

8 (or to which he or she has pled) and the property sought; if there is, the court should enter an order

9 forfeiting “whatever interest a defendant may have in the property without having to determine exactly

10 what that interest is.” See Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 32.2, subdivision (b) (2000 Adoption)

11 (“The new rule resolves these difficulties by postponing the determination of the extent of the

12 defendant’s interest until the ancillary proceeding.”). As such, under the current version of Rule 32.2, a

13 defendant cannot object to the entry of a preliminary order of forfeiture on the grounds that the property

14 at issue does not belong to her or him. United States v. Schlesinger, 396 F. Supp. 2d 267, 273 (E.D.N.Y.

15 2005) (“However, the extent of the Defendant’s ownership or interest in the property is not at issue in

16 determining whether the court should enter a preliminary order of forfeiture. The extent of the

17 defendants’ interest in the property and any other party’s interest will be decided, if necessary, in an

18 ancillary hearing.”); see also Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 32.2, subdivision (b) (2000 Adoption)
19 (“The defendant would have no standing to object to the forfeiture on the ground that the property

20 belonged to someone else.”).

21 III. Argument

22 A. The Nexus Between The Belwood Property And The Almaden Property And
Defendant’s Crime Is Established By Tracing The Funds From Will-Darnall’s First
23 Successful Fraudulent PPP Loan To Those Properties.

24 There is a clear nexus between the first charge to which Will-Darnall has pleaded guilty and both

25 the Belwood and the Almaden Properties. As detailed above (supra I.d.), Will-Darnall used $746,372.98

26 of fraud proceeds to repay Will’s $1,000,000 Loan. This payment released the Belwood Property from

27 the deed of trust dated February 7, 2018 (as in, Ex. I). Fraud proceeds from the first count to which Will-

28 Darnall has pleaded guilty were then used to repay the BofA Loan, releasing the Almaden Property from

APP. FOR PRELIMINARY ORDER OF FORFEITURE
CR-24-00292-PCP 13
Case 5:24-cr-00292-PCP Document 43 Filed 04/09/25 Page 17 of 22

1 the deed of trust dated January 24, 2018 (as in, Ex. B). Thus, funds derived from the first offense to

2 which Will-Darnall has pleaded guilty are directly traceable to both the Belwood and the Almaden

3 Properties.

4 Will-Darnall may object and claim that the government cannot trace the same proceeds to two

5 separate properties. That objection, if made, would be incorrect and premature. It is indisputable that

6 fraud proceeds were used to repay loans on the Belwood and the Almaden Properties. That the two

7 properties are inextricably intertwined is a fact of Will-Darnall’s making. Will, potentially at Will-

8 Darnall’s direction, served as a proxy to obtain funds from Bank of America that were then used to

9 repay loans secured by the Belwood Property, the Almaden Property, and the Rosswood Property. The

10 BofA Loan was then repaid using funds directly traceable to Will-Darnall’s first count of conviction.

11 At this stage, the Court need not determine the exact amount of funds that went into the Belwood

12 and Almaden Properties. Indeed, it could not on this record. Presently, the net equity in the Belwood

13 Property is—if the various encumbrances on title are presumed accurate—less than - $4,000,000. The

14 Belwood Property has also apparently been quitclaimed to Will, meaning Will-Darnall has at least on

15 paper relinquished any interest in the property. Forcing the government to articulate a specific amount of

16 equity that it seeks to forfeit from the Belwood and the Almaden Properties, at this stage, is unnecessary

17 as this application seeks only the forfeiture of Will-Darnall interest in those properties. See Schlesinger,

18 396 F. Supp. at 273.
19 Because fraud proceeds tied to the first count to which Will-Darnall has pleaded guilty can be

20 directly traced to the Belwood and Almaden Properties, those properties should be forfeited as to Will-

21 Darnall. 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(C) (providing for the forfeiture of real property derived from proceeds

22 traceable to violations of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1344 and 1343 (through the incorporation of any offense

23 constituting a specified unlawful activity)).

24 B. The Government Has Established The Requisite Nexus Between The 6846 Account
And The Defendant’s Crimes By Tracing The Funds From Will-Darnall’s Two
25 Fraudulently Obtained PPP Loans To The 6846 Account.

26 The funds held in the 6846 Account at the time of their seizure are funds directly traceable to the

27 two counts to which Will-Darnall has pleaded guilty or the appreciation of those fraudulently obtained

28 funds. Barnard Decl., ¶¶ 19–25. Thus, the requisite nexus between the 6846 Account and the

APP. FOR PRELIMINARY ORDER OF FORFEITURE
CR-24-00292-PCP 14
Case 5:24-cr-00292-PCP Document 43 Filed 04/09/25 Page 18 of 22

1 defendant’s crimes is established. The government is also entitled to any appreciation accrued to the

2 fraud proceeds. See United States v. Afriyie, 929 F.3d 63, 73 (2d Cir. 2019) (holding “forfeiture

3 [pursuant to section 981(a)(1)(C)] may extend to the appreciation of funds acquired through illegal

4 transactions”); United States v. Hill, 46 F. App’x 838, 839 (6th Cir. 2002) (“[B]ecause this case merely

5 involves the appreciated value of the forfeited 616 shares, the district court properly ordered the

6 forfeiture of the appreciated value of the stock.”); cf. United States v. Betancourt, 422 F.3d 240, 251 (5th

7 Cir. 2005) (“That [defendant] used his drug proceeds to generate a very large return by winning the

8 Texas lottery is of no import in the forfeiture analysis.”).

9 C. A Money Judgment Of $1,406,594.56 Is Warranted Because That Amount Reflects
A Conservative Approximation Of The Amount Of Fraud Proceeds Dissipated By
10 Will-Darnall .

11 A money judgment is required when the proceeds of a defendant’s offenses have been spent. Cf.

12 United States v. Nejad, 933 F.3d 1162, 1165 (9th Cir. 2019) (“In the absence of such a conflict, our

13 rationale for allowing district courts to impose personal money judgments remains undisturbed by the

14 reasoning of Honeycutt. We have regarded such judgments as necessary to avoid undermining

15 Congress’ objectives in enacting mandatory forfeiture sanctions, pointing in particular to the substitute-

16 property provision found in 21 U.S.C. § 853(p). Section 853(p) states that if the tainted property subject

17 to forfeiture is unavailable due to certain acts or omissions of the defendant, the court must order the

18 forfeiture of ‘any other property of the defendant’—including untainted assets—up to the value of the
19 directly forfeitable property.” (citations omitted)).

20 Here, the government conservatively estimates that of the $2,833,544 in fraud proceeds that

21 Will-Darnall received, she spent at least $1,406,594.56. That amount reflects $2,833,544 (as in, her net

22 gain) minus the sum of $746,372.98 (as in, the amounts the government traced to the Almaden and

23 Belwood Properties) and $680,586.46 (as in, the amounts the government traced to the 6846 Account

24 plus their appreciation, which the government need not include but does for simplicity’s sake).

25 Because Will-Darnall spent at least $1,406,594.56 in fraud proceeds, the government is entitled

26 to a money judgment in that amount.

28 ///

APP. FOR PRELIMINARY ORDER OF FORFEITURE
CR-24-00292-PCP 15
Case 5:24-cr-00292-PCP Document 43 Filed 04/09/25 Page 19 of 22

1 IV. Procedure Following Issuance of Preliminary Order of Forfeiture

2 Rule 32.2(b)(3) provides that the entry of a preliminary order of forfeiture authorizes the

3 Attorney General (or a designee) to seize the specific property subject to forfeiture; to conduct any

4 discovery the court considers proper in identifying, locating, or disposing of the property; and to

5 commence proceedings that comply with any statute governing third-party rights. The court may include

6 in the order of forfeiture any conditions reasonably necessary to preserve the property’s value pending

7 any appeal.

8 Upon the issuance of a Preliminary Order of Forfeiture and pursuant to Title 21, United States

9 Code, Section 853(n), and Rule G(4)(a)(iv) of the Supplemental Rules for admiralty or Maritime Claims

10 and Asset Forfeiture Actions, the United States will publish on www.forfeiture.gov, a government

11 website for at least thirty days, notice of this Order, notice of its intent to dispose of the property in such

12 manner as the Attorney General may direct, and notice that any person, other than the defendant, having

13 or claiming a legal interest in the property must file a petition with the Court and serve a copy on Galen

14 A. Phillips, Assistant United States Attorney, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, Box 36055, San Francisco, CA

15 94102, within thirty (30) days of the final publication of notice or of receipt of actual notice, whichever

16 is earlier. This notice shall state that the petition shall be for a hearing to adjudicate the validity of the

17 petitioner’s alleged interest in the property, shall be signed by the petitioner under penalty of perjury,

18 shall set forth the nature and extent of the petitioner’s right, title or interest in the forfeited property, and
19 any additional facts supporting the petitioner’s claim and the relief sought. The United States may also,

20 to the extent practicable, provide direct written notice to any person known to have alleged an interest in

21 the property that is the subject of the Preliminary Order of Forfeiture, as a substitute for published notice

22 as to those persons so notified.

23 Pursuant to Rule 32.2(b)(4) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, this Preliminary Order

24 of Forfeiture shall become final as to defendant at the time of sentencing and shall be made part of

25 defendant’s sentence and included in defendant’s judgment. The Court must pronounce the forfeiture

26 conditions orally as part of the sentence imposed on defendant, and must include the forfeiture in the

27 judgment and commitment order. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.2(b)(4)(B); see also United States v. Gaviria,

APP. FOR PRELIMINARY ORDER OF FORFEITURE
CR-24-00292-PCP 16
Case 5:24-cr-00292-PCP Document 43 Filed 04/09/25 Page 20 of 22

1 116 F.3d 1498, 1530 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (per curiam) (forfeiture portion of the defendant’s sentence must

2 be announced in her presence pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 43(a)).

3 The government recommends that the following language be read to defendant and modified as

4 necessary for inclusion in the judgment and commitment order at the time of her sentencing: Pursuant to

5 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(C), 28 U.S.C. § 2461(c), the information, and the bill of particulars, defendant

6 Cassie Will-Darnall has forfeited all of her right, title, and interest in the specific property more

7 particularly described in the Preliminary Order of Forfeiture entered on [date], and the government shall

8 be entitled to a money judgment of $1,406,594.56.

9 CONCLUSION

10 The United States therefore moves this Court to enter the accompanying proposed Preliminary

11 Order of Forfeiture which provides for the following:

12 a. authorizes the forfeiture of the Subject Property to the United States;

13 b. enters a $1,406,594.56 money judgment;

14 c. directs the United States, through its appropriate agency, to seize the forfeited property

15 forthwith;

16 d. authorizes the government to conduct discovery in order to identify, locate, or dispose of

17 property subject to forfeiture in accordance with Rule 32.2(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of

18 Criminal Procedure;

19 e. directs the United States to publish on a government website for at least thirty days, notice of

20 this Order, notice of the government’s intent to dispose of the property in such manner as the

21 Attorney General may direct and provide notice that any person, other than the defendant,

22 having or claiming a legal interest in the subject property must file a petition with the Court

23 and serve a copy on government counsel within thirty (30) days of the final publication of

24 notice or of receipt of actual notice, whichever is earlier; and

26 ///

28 ///

APP. FOR PRELIMINARY ORDER OF FORFEITURE
CR-24-00292-PCP 17
Case 5:24-cr-00292-PCP Document 43 Filed 04/09/25 Page 21 of 22

1 f. the Court retains jurisdiction to enforce the Preliminary Order of Forfeiture, and to amend it

2 as necessary, pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.2(e).

5 DATED: April 9, 2025 Respectfully submitted,
6 PATRICK D. ROBBINS
7 Acting United States Attorney

8
/s/
9 GALEN A. PHILLIPS
Assistant United States Attorney
10

18
19

APP. FOR PRELIMINARY ORDER OF FORFEITURE
CR-24-00292-PCP 18
Case 5:24-cr-00292-PCP Document 43 Filed 04/09/25 Page 22 of 22

1
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
2
The undersigned hereby certifies that she is an employee in the Office of the United States
3
Attorney for the Northern District of California and is a person of such age and discretion to be
4
competent to serve papers. The undersigned further certifies that she caused a copy of the following
5
documents:
6
• APPLICATION OF THE UNITED STATES FOR PRELIMINARY ORDER OF
7 FORFEITURE
8 • [PROPOSED] PRELIMINARY ORDER OF FORFEITURE
9 to be served this date by CM/ECF Electronic Case Filing Notification and/or United States Mail

10 Delivery and Electronic Mail Delivery upon the person(s) below at the place(s) and address(es) which is

11 the last known address(es):

12 Varell Laphalle Fuller John R. Setlich
55 South Market Street Suite 820 LAW OFFICES OF JOHN R. SETLICH
13
San Jose, CA 95113 15342 El Prado Road Suite 200B
14 Email: Varell_Fuller@fd.org Chino, California 91710
Attorney for Defendant Email: jrsetlich@setlichlegal.com
15 Attorney for Sandra Will
16 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing
17 is true and correct to the best of my knowledge.

18 Executed this 9th day of April 2025 at San Francisco, California.

19
_____/S/_____________
20
CAROLYN JUSAY
21 FSA Paralegal
Asset Forfeiture Unit
22

APP. FOR PRELIMINARY ORDER OF FORFEITURE
CR-24-00292-PCP 19

File and source

File: gov.uscourts.cand.430212.43.0.pdf
Size: 354,215 bytes
SHA-256: a396e640bc7b6db33fee58be38babcce37112ab35616cfae29ae19e8659e093f
Our copy: gov.uscourts.cand.430212.43.0.pdf
Original: No public link identified.