United States' Motion for Order of Forfeiture and Preliminary Order of Forfeiture for Specific Assets — United States v. Emmet Bowens (Dkt. 245)

Summary

Document 245, filed March 31, 2026 in Case No. 6:21-cr-141-RBD-NWH in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Orlando Division, is the United States' motion for an order of forfeiture and a preliminary order of forfeiture for specific assets against Emmet Bowens. It seeks a money order of at least $739,582.50, described as proceeds of the wire fraud scheme in Counts One and Two. It also seeks sums seized from three Barclays Bank accounts in his name, of approximately $250,610.82, $250,668.76 and $115,321.18. The motion recounts that he pled guilty on January 26, 2026 to Counts One through Six without a plea agreement and admitted the funds were transferred on May 29, 2020. It relies on 18 U.S.C. §§ 981(a)(1)(C) and 982(a)(1), 28 U.S.C. § 2461(c) and Rule 32.2(b)(2).

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

“United States' Motion for Order of Forfeiture and Preliminary Order of Forfeiture for Specific Assets — United States v. Emmet Bowens (Dkt. 245).” Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/source-documents/gov-uscourts-flmd-396523-245-0-2a19e7b2dd/, SHA-256 cb8e7bae95b46e81e5abff4220faa5d99919e24f472bb23227cb08c43ce3d600.

Full text

Case 6:21-cr-00141-RBD-NWH Document 245 Filed 03/31/26 Page 1 of 9 PageID 909

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
ORLANDO DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v. Case No. 6:21-cr-141-RBD-NWH

EMMET BOWENS

UNITED STATES’ MOTION FOR ORDER OF FORFEITURE AND
PRELIMINARY ORDER OF FORFEITURE FOR SPECIFIC ASSETS

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 981(a)(1)(C), 982(a)(1), 28 U.S.C. § 2461(c), and

Rule 32.2(b)(2), the United States files this motion for an order of forfeiture against

the defendant in the amount of at least $739,582.50, representing the amount of

proceeds he obtained from the wire fraud scheme charged in Counts One and Two of

the Indictment, as well as, the following specific assets which 1) constitute or are

derived from proceeds obtained, directly or indirectly, as a result of the offenses

charged in Counts One and Two, and/or 2) is property involved in the money

laundering offenses charged in Counts Four through Six of the Indictment:

a. approximately $250,610.82 seized from Barclays Bank
account number 130006679467 held in the name of Emmet
Bowens;

b. approximately $250,668.76 seized from Barclays Bank
account number 130006698297 held in the name of Emmet
Bowens; and

c. approximately $115,321.18 seized from Barclays Bank
account number 130006698303 held in the name of Emmet
Bowens.
Case 6:21-cr-00141-RBD-NWH Document 245 Filed 03/31/26 Page 2 of 9 PageID 910

In support of its motion, the United States submits the following

memorandum of law.

MEMORANDUM OF LAW

I. Statement of Facts

A. Allegations Against the Defendant

1. In pertinent part, Counts One and Two charge the defendant with a

wire fraud scheme, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343. Counts Four through Six charge

the defendant with money laundering, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1957. Doc. 1.

2. The Indictment also contained forfeiture allegations putting the

defendant on notice that, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 981(a)(1)(C), 982(a)(1), and 28

U.S.C. § 2461(c), the United States would seek an order of forfeiture in the amount

of $739,582.50, representing the amount of proceeds the the defendant obtained from

his participation in the wire fraud scheme, as well as the specific assets identied

above. Id. at 9-10.

B. Finding of Guilt and Admissions of Fact

3. On January 26, 2026, the defendant, without the benefit of a plea

agreement, pled guilty in open court to Counts One through Six of the Indictment.

Doc. 222 and Transcript of Guilty Plea Hearing at p.16. The Court accepted the

defendant’s plea and adjudicated him guilty. Id.

2
Case 6:21-cr-00141-RBD-NWH Document 245 Filed 03/31/26 Page 3 of 9 PageID 911

4. Specifically, the defendant admitted that beginning on an unknown

date, but at least by or about May 5, 2020 and continuing through on or

about May 29, 2020, he knowingly, and with the intent to defraud, devised a scheme

and artifice to defraud for obtaining money by means of materially false and

fraudulent pretenses, representations, and promises. Transcript of Guilty Plea

Hearing at pp. 17-18 & 28. Additionally, on May 29, 2020, the defendant did

knowingly engage and attempt to engage in three monetary transactions in and

affecting interstate commerce, specifically, drafts from Trustco Bank account ending

in 4892 in his name to three Barclays Bank accounts in his name. Id. at 18 & 28. The

money involved in these transactions were derived from a specified unlawful activity,

that is, the wire fraud scheme charged in Counts One and Two of the Indictment. Id.

C. Admissions Relating to Forfeiture

5. The defendant further admitted that as a result of his wire fraud

scheme, he obtained $739,582, which was wired transferred into his personal Trustco

Bank account ending in 4982. Id. at 22-24 & 28. From that account, the defendant

then opened new bank accounts at Barclays Bank, into which he transferred a

portion of these funds. Id. at 25-26 & 28. Specifically, Barclays Bank account number

130006679467 held in the name of Emmet Bowens was opened on May 14, 2020,

with the defendant as the sole signatory. On May 29, 2020, while located in the

Middle District of Florida as confirmed by his IP address, the defendant initiated an

internet transfer from his Trustco account ending in 4982 to this account in the

3
Case 6:21-cr-00141-RBD-NWH Document 245 Filed 03/31/26 Page 4 of 9 PageID 912

amount of $250,000. The balance of this account prior to the transfer was zero

dollars. There were no other deposits to the account. There were also no additional

deposits into the account other than accrued interest or withdrawals from the

account by the defendant after this initial transfer. These funds were subsequently

seized by the FBI. Id. at 26 & 28.

6. Barclays Bank account number 130006698297 held in the name of

Emmet Bowens was opened on May 28, 2020, with the defendant as the

sole signatory. On May 29, 2020, the defendant, while located in the Middle District

of Florida as confirmed by his IP address, initiated an internet transfer from his

Trustco account ending in 4982 to this account in the amount of $250,000. The

balance of this account prior to the transfer was $25, which represents the fee

required to open the account. There were no additional deposits to the account other

than accrued interest and no withdrawals from the account. These funds were also

subsequently seized by the FBI. Id. at 26-28.

7. Barclays Bank account number 130006698303 held in the name of

Emmet Bowens was opened on May 28, 2020, with the defendant as the sole

signatory. On May 29, 2020, the defendant, while located in the Middle

District of Florida as confirmed by his IP address, initiated a transfer from his

Trustco account to this account in the amount of $115,000. The balance of this

account prior to the transfer was $25, again, the fee required to open the account.

4
Case 6:21-cr-00141-RBD-NWH Document 245 Filed 03/31/26 Page 5 of 9 PageID 913

There were no additional deposits into the account other than interest and no

withdrawals from that account. These funds were also seized by the FBI. Id. at 27-28.

8. The defendant admitted that he spent the remaining funds on his wife

and daughter, retails purchases, dinners, a cross county vacation, and on cash

withdrawals. Id. at 25, 27, & 28.

II. Applicable Law

A. Applicable Forfeiture Statutes

The Court’s authority to order civil forfeiture of property for violations of 18

U.S.C. § 1343 is found in 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(C). Section 981(a)(1)(C) provides for

the civil forfeiture of any property, real or personal, which constitutes or is derived

from proceeds from any offense constituting “specified unlawful activity” as defined

in 18 U.S.C. § 1956(c)(7). A “specified unlawful activity,” as defined in 18 U.S.C. §

1956(c)(7), includes offenses listed in 18 U.S.C. § 1961(1). Specifically, 18 U.S.C. §

1961(1) includes violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1343. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2461(c), the

government is authorized to forfeit this property criminally, and the procedures for

the forfeiture and disposition of the property are governed by 21 U.S.C. § 853.

In sentencing a person convicted of money laundering, in violation of 18

U.S.C. § 1957, the Court's authority to forfeit property is found in 18 U.S.C. §

982(a)(1), which provides for the forfeiture of any property, real or personal, involved

in such offense, and any property traceable to such property.

5
Case 6:21-cr-00141-RBD-NWH Document 245 Filed 03/31/26 Page 6 of 9 PageID 914

B. Order of Forfeiture

For cases in which a defendant no longer has the actual dollars or property

traceable to proceeds in his possession, or the government cannot locate those assets,

the obligation to forfeit simply takes the form of an order of forfeiture in favor of the

United States. See United States v. Padron, 527 F.3d 1156, 1161-62 (11th Cir. 2008).

Rule 32.2(b)(1) provides that, where the government seeks an order of forfeiture, the

Court must determine the amount of money that the defendant will be ordered to

pay.

The defendant admitted that he has dissipated the criminal proceeds that were

not recovered by the FBI. Transcript of Guilty Plea Hearing at pp. 25-28. Because of

this, the United States seeks an order of forfeiture against the defendant in the

amount of $739,582.50, pursuant to Rule 32.2(b)(2). As the defendant has admitted,

he obtained $739,582.50 in proceeds as a result of his participation in the wire fraud

scheme. If the Court finds that at least $739,582.50 was obtained by the defendant,

and that he has dissipated those proceeds, then it is appropriate for the Court to enter

an order of forfeiture against the defendant in that amount pursuant to Rule

32.2(b)(2).

C. Forfeiture of Specific Assets

Rule 32.2(b)(1) provides that, when the government seeks to forfeit specific

property, the Court must determine whether the government has established the

requisite nexus between the property and the defendant’s crime. Fed. R. Crim. P.

6
Case 6:21-cr-00141-RBD-NWH Document 245 Filed 03/31/26 Page 7 of 9 PageID 915

32.2(b)(1). The Rule requires this be done as soon as practical after a verdict or

finding of guilty, or after a plea of guilty is accepted. Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.2(b)(1)(A).

The Court’s determination may be based on evidence already in the record, or

any additional evidence submitted by the parties and accepted by the Court as

relevant and reliable. Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.2(b)(1)(B). As the defendant has admitted,

the specific assets identified above are the proceeds the defendant obtained from his

wire fraud scheme and/or property involved in the money laundering offenses

charged in Counts Four through Six. Therefore, the specific assets are subject to

forfeiture pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 981(a)(1)(C), 982(a)(1), and 28 U.S.C. § 2461(c).

The net proceeds from the forfeiture of the assets identified above will be

credited to and reduce the amount the United States shall be entitled to forfeit as

substitute assets pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 853(p).

III. Conclusion

For the reasons stated above, the United States requests that, pursuant to 18

U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(C), 28 U.S.C. § 2461(c), and Rule 32.2(b)(2), the Court enter an

order of forfeiture against the defendant in the amount of $739,582.50, for which he

will be held liable.

The United States further requests that, because the $739,582.50 in proceeds

was dissipated by the defendant, the United States may seek, as a substitute asset,

pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 853(p), as incorporated by 28 U.S.C. § 2461(c), forfeiture of

any of the defendant’s property up to the value of $739,582.50.

7
Case 6:21-cr-00141-RBD-NWH Document 245 Filed 03/31/26 Page 8 of 9 PageID 916

The United States further requests that, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 981(a)(1)(C),

982(a)(1), and 28 U.S.C. § 2461(c), the Court enter a preliminary order of forfeiture

for the specific assets identified above.

The order of forfeiture and preliminary order of forfeiture for specific assets

become final as to the defendant at sentencing.

Upon issuance of the Preliminary Order of Forfeiture for Specific Assets, the

United States will provide written notice to all third parties known to have an alleged

legal interest in the property and will publish notice on the Internet at

www.forfeiture.gov of its intent to forfeit the property. Determining whether a third

party has any interest in the property must be deferred until a third party files a claim

in an ancillary proceeding under Rule 32.2(c).

As required by Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.2(b)(4)(B), the United

States requests that the Court include the forfeiture when orally pronouncing the

sentence and in the judgment. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.2(b)(4)(B) and United States v.

Kennedy, 201 F.3d 1324, 1326 (11th Cir. 2000).

The United States further requests that the Court retain jurisdiction to address

any third party claim that may be asserted in these proceedings, to enter any further

order necessary for the forfeiture and disposition of such property, and to order any

8
Case 6:21-cr-00141-RBD-NWH Document 245 Filed 03/31/26 Page 9 of 9 PageID 917

other substitute assets forfeited to the United States up to the amount of the order of

forfeiture.

Respectfully Submitted,

GREGORY W. KEHOE
United States Attorney

By: s/Nicole M. Andrejko
NICOLE M. ANDREJKO
Assistant United States Attorney
Florida Bar No. 0820601
400 West Washington Street, Suite 3100
Orlando, Florida 32801
Telephone: (407) 648-7560
Facsimile: (407) 648-7643
E-Mail: Nicole.Andrejko@usdoj.gov

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on March 30, 2026, I electronically filed the foregoing with

the Clerk of the Court by using the CM/ECF system that will send a notice of

electronic filing to counsel of record.

s/Nicole M. Andrejko
NICOLE M. ANDREJKO
Assistant United States Attorney

File and source

File: gov.uscourts.flmd.396523.245.0.pdf
Size: 141,010 bytes
SHA-256: cb8e7bae95b46e81e5abff4220faa5d99919e24f472bb23227cb08c43ce3d600
Our copy: gov.uscourts.flmd.396523.245.0.pdf
Original: No public link identified.