Preliminary Order of Forfeiture — United States v. Edward Moise (Dkt. 20.1)

Summary

A Preliminary Order of Forfeiture, Document 20-1 entered on the docket March 15, 2022 in United States of America v. Edward Moise, Case No. 21-60293-CR-DIMITROULEAS, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. It recites that on October 26, 2021 the United States filed an Information charging conspiracy to commit bank fraud under Title 18, United States Code, Section 371, and that on December 3, 2021, the Court accepted the Defendant's guilty plea to the one-count Information. It recites a Factual Proffer describing a PPP loan request of approximately $175,022 for a company in the name of MLG. The order text states that a forfeiture money judgment of $175,022 is entered against the Defendant.

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

“Preliminary Order of Forfeiture — United States v. Edward Moise (Dkt. 20.1).” Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/source-documents/gov-uscourts-flsd-602275-20-1-fc99f730d2/, SHA-256 2d1b3f948c1dba0de66904adb831e964ac22b93b0c0f87077ae7e8cd8a379ade.

Full text

Case 0:21-cr-60293-WPD Document 20-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/15/2022 Page 1 of 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 21-60293-CR-DIMITROULEAS

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

EDWARD MOISE,

Defendant.

PRELIMINARY ORDER OF FORFEITURE

THIS MATTER is before the Court upon the United States of America’s Unopposed

Motion for Preliminary Order of Forfeiture (“Motion”) (ECF No.___ ) against Defendant

EDWARD MOISE (the “Defendant”). The Court has considered the Motion, is otherwise advised

in the premises, and finds as follows:

On October 26, 2021, the United States filed an Information charging the Defendant with

conspiracy to commit bank fraud in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 371.

Information, ECF No. 1. The Information also contained forfeiture allegations, which alleged that

upon conviction of a violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 371, the Defendant shall

forfeit to the United States any property constituting, or derived from, any proceeds the Defendant

obtained, directly or indirectly, as the result of such violation pursuant to Title 18, United States

Code, Section 982(a)(2)(A). See id. at 8.

On December 3, 2021, the Court accepted the Defendant’s guilty plea to the one-count

Information charging the Defendant with conspiracy to commit bank fraud, in violation of Title

18, United States Code, Section 371. See Minute Entry, ECF No. 10; Plea Agreement, ECF No.

11. As part of the guilty plea, among other provisions in the Plea Agreement, the Defendant agreed
Case 0:21-cr-60293-WPD Document 20-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/15/2022 Page 2 of 4

to the following:

13. The defendant agrees, in an individual and any other capacity, to forfeit to
the United States voluntarily and immediately, any right, title, and interest to all
property, real or personal, which constitutes or is derived from proceeds obtained
directly or indirectly, as a result of the violation to which he is pleading guilty,
pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 982(a)(2)(A). In addition, the
defendant agrees to forfeiture of substitute property pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 853(p).
The property subject to forfeiture includes, but is not limited to a forfeiture money
judgment in an amount to be determined later, which sum represents the value of
the property subject to forfeiture; and (sic)”

Plea Agreement ¶13, ECF No. 11.

In support of the guilty plea, the Defendant executed a Factual Proffer, and the Court found

that there was a factual basis to support the Defendant’s conviction. See Factual Proffer, ECF No.

12.

From in or around June 2020, through in or around November 2020, the Defendant

participated in a scheme to submit and cause the submission of false and fraudulent applications

for loans and grants made available through the Small Business Administration to provide relief

for the economic effects caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, including Paycheck Protection

Program ("PPP") loans and Economic Injury Disaster Loans ("EIDL"); paid and facilitated the

payments of kickbacks in furtherance of the scheme; and received the proceeds from fraudulent

PPP loans and EIDLs submitted on behalf of companies under his control. Factual Proffer 1.

The Defendant requested a PPP loan in the approximate amount of $175,022 purportedly

to pay a monthly payroll of approximately $70,009 for 31 employees for a company in the name

of MLG. See id. at 2. Four quarterly IRS Forms 941 for 2019 with identical figures were attached

to the PPP loan application, which purported to report that MLG had 31 salaried employees and

total quarterly wages of $365,100. Id. The Florida Department of Revenue records for MLG in

2019 and 2020, however, showed that MLG reported no employees and had paid $0 in wages in

2
Case 0:21-cr-60293-WPD Document 20-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/15/2022 Page 3 of 4

2019 and 2020. Id. Although the Defendant did not review the MLG PPP loan application or

supporting tax documents, the Defendant knew that the MLG PPP loan application contained false

information about the payroll obligations of the Defendant’s company MLG to obtain PPP loan

funds in excess of what MLG would otherwise be entitled. Id. at 3.

On or about June 19, 2020, Bank #1, a financial institution insured by the Federal Deposit

Insurance Corporation ("FDIC"), deposited approximately $175,022 in PPP funds into MLG's

business account, for which the Defendant was an authorized signatory. Id. at 3. MLG's business

bank account balance before receiving the PPP loan was approximately $188.89. Id.

Based on the record in this case, the total value of proceeds traceable to the offense of

conviction is $175,022, which sum may be sought as a forfeiture money judgment pursuant to Rule

32.2 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.

Accordingly, based on the foregoing, the evidence in the record, and for good cause shown,

the Motion is GRANTED, and it is hereby ORDERED that:

1. Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 982(a)(2)(A), and Rule 32.2 of the Federal Rules of

Criminal Procedure, a forfeiture money judgment in the amount of $175,022 is hereby entered

against the Defendant.

2. The United States is authorized to conduct any discovery that might be necessary

to identify, locate, or dispose of forfeited property, and to resolve any third-party petition, pursuant

to Rule 32.2(b)(3), (c)(1)(B) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and 21 U.S.C. § 853(m).

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

is final as to the Defendant.

4. The Court shall retain jurisdiction in this matter for the purpose of enforcing this

Order, and pursuant to Rule 32.2(e)(1) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, shall amend

3
Case 0:21-cr-60293-WPD Document 20-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/15/2022 Page 4 of 4

this Order, or enter other orders as necessary, to forfeit additional specific property when

identified.

DONE AND ORDERED in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, this _______ day of March, 2022.

____________________________________
WILLIAM P. DIMITROULEAS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Copies furnished to:
Counsel of Record

File and source

File: gov.uscourts.flsd.602275.20.1.pdf
Size: 188,565 bytes
SHA-256: 2d1b3f948c1dba0de66904adb831e964ac22b93b0c0f87077ae7e8cd8a379ade
Our copy: gov.uscourts.flsd.602275.20.1.pdf
Original: No public link identified.