United States' Motion for Order of Forfeiture (Money Judgment) — United States v. Wigenie Francois (Dkt. 11)

Summary

The United States' Motion for Order of Forfeiture (Money Judgment), Document 11, filed February 26, 2026 in United States of America v. Wigenie Francois, Criminal No. 25-10389-FDS, in the United States District Court, District of Massachusetts. The motion states that on October 1, 2025 a one-count Information charged the Defendant with Wire Fraud; Aiding and Abetting, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1343 and 2, and that on December 11, 2025 the Defendant pled guilty to Count One under a written plea agreement. It states that in Paragraph 6 of the plea agreement the Defendant agreed to forfeit $20,833, and asks for a personal money judgment in that amount under 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(C) and 28 U.S.C. § 2461(c). It is signed /s/ Carol E. Head.

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 1:25-cr-10389-FDS         Document 11        Filed 02/26/26     Page 1 of 4




                              UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                               DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA                      )
                                               )
                       v.                      )     Criminal No. 25-10389-FDS
                                               )
 WIGENIE FRANCOIS,                             )
                                               )
                 Defendant.                    )


UNITED STATES’ MOTION FOR ORDER OF FORFEITURE (MONEY JUDGMENT)

       The United States of America, by its attorney, Leah B. Foley, United States Attorney for

the District of Massachusetts, respectfully moves this Court for the issuance of an Order of

Forfeiture (Money Judgment) in the above-captioned case pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(C)

and 28 U.S.C. § 2461(c) and Rule 32.2(b) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. A

proposed Order of Forfeiture is submitted herewith. In support thereof, the United States sets

forth the following:

       1.      On October 1, 2025, the United States Attorney for the District of Massachusetts

filed a one-count Information, charging defendant Wigenie Francois (the “Defendant”), with

Wire Fraud; Aiding and Abetting, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1343 and 2 (Count One).

       2.      The Information also included a forfeiture allegation, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §

981(a)(1)(C) and 28 U.S.C. § 2461(c), which provided notice that the United States intended to

seek the forfeiture, upon conviction of the Defendant of the offense alleged in Count One of the

Information, of any property, real or personal, which constitutes or is derived from proceeds

traceable to the offense. Such property specifically included, without limitation:

       a.      $20,833 in U.S. currency, to be entered in the form of a forfeiture money
               judgment.

       3.      The Information further provided that, if any of the above-described forfeitable
        Case 1:25-cr-10389-FDS           Document 11        Filed 02/26/26      Page 2 of 4




property, as a result of any act or omission by the Defendant, (a) cannot be located upon the

exercise of due diligence; (b) has been transferred or sold to, or deposited with, a third party; (c)

has been placed beyond the jurisdiction of the Court; (d) has been substantially diminished in

value; or (e) has been commingled with other property which cannot be divided without

difficulty, the United States is entitled to seek forfeiture of any other property of the Defendant,

up to the value of such assets, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 853(p), as incoporated by 28 U.S.C. §

2461(c).

       4.      On December 11, 2025, at a hearing pursuant to Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of

Criminal Procedure, the Defendant pled guilty to Count One of the Information, pursuant to a

written plea agreement that she signed on September 26, 2025. See Docket Nos. 2, 8. In

Paragraph 6 of the plea agreement, the Defendant agreed to forfeit to the United States $20,833

on the grounds that such amount is equal to the amount of proceeds the Defendant derived from

the offense as a result of her guilty plea. Id. at 4.

       5.      Based on the Defendant’s admissions in the written plea agreement and her guilty

plea on December 11, 2025, the United States is entitled to an Order of Forfeiture consisting of a

personal money judgment against the Defendant, in the amount of $20,833, pursuant to 18

U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(C) and 28 U.S.C. § 2461(c). This amount represents the proceeds of the

Defendant=s crimes.

       6.      The entry of an Order of Forfeiture in the form of a personal money judgment is

specifically authorized by Rule 32.2(b)(1) and (c)(1) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure,

and such orders of forfeiture are commonplace. See, e.g., United States v. Ponzo, 853 F.3d 558,

589-90 (1st Cir. 2017) (criminal forfeiture order may take several forms, including an in


                                                   2
        Case 1:25-cr-10389-FDS            Document 11         Filed 02/26/26       Page 3 of 4




personam judgment against defendant for amount of money defendant obtained as proceeds of

offense); United States v. Zorrilla-Echevarria, 671 F.3d 1, 11 n.15 (1st Cir. 2011) (“A criminal

forfeiture may take the form of either (1) ‘an in personam judgment against the defendant for the

amount of money the defendant obtained as proceeds of the offense,’ (2) forfeiture of specific

assets related to criminal activity, or (3) forfeiture of ‘substitute assets’ if the specific assets are

unavailable.”) (citation omitted); United States v. Hall, 434 F.3d 42, 59 (1st Cir. 2006) (same).

        7.      Once the Order of Forfeiture is entered, the United States may move at any time,

pursuant to Rule 32.2(e)(1)(B), to amend the Order to forfeit specific property of the Defendant,

having a value up to the amount of the money judgment. See Zorrilla-Echevarria, 671 F.3d at

11 n.15 (“[a] money judgment permits the government to collect on the forfeiture order … even

if a defendant does not have sufficient funds to cover the forfeiture at the time of the conviction,

the government may seize future assets to satisfy the order”); United States v. Saccoccia, 564

F.3d 502, 506-07 (1st Cir. 2009) (once government obtains money judgment, it may move at any

time to forfeit direct or substitute assets in partial satisfaction of that judgment).

        8.      Upon entry of the Order of Forfeiture, the United States may also, pursuant to

Rule 32.2(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, “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), as incorporated by 28 U.S.C. § 2461; see also United States v. Saccoccia, 354

F.3d 9, 15 (1st Cir. 2003) (“the government may utilize its enforcement powers under [18 U.S.C.

§] 1963(k) to ‘trace’ tainted funds”); United States v. Saccoccia, 898 F. Supp. 53, 60 (D.R.I.

1995) (the United States can take depositions of defense counsel to determine source of their fees


                                                    3
        Case 1:25-cr-10389-FDS           Document 11        Filed 02/26/26       Page 4 of 4




for the purpose of locating a pool of assets controlled by defendant that is 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.

       WHEREFORE, the United States requests that this Court:

       a.      enter the Order of Forfeiture (Money Judgment) in the form submitted herewith;

       b.      retain jurisdiction in this case for purposes of enforcing the forfeiture;

       c.      include the forfeiture, as set forth in the Order of Forfeiture (Money Judgment), in

the oral pronouncement of the Defendant's sentence; and

       d.      incorporate the Order of Forfeiture (Money Judgment) in the criminal judgment

entered against the Defendant, pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.2(b)(4).


                                                       Respectfully submitted,

                                                       LEAH B. FOLEY
                                                       United States Attorney

                                               By:     /s/ Carol E. Head
                                                       CAROL E. HEAD
                                                       Assistant United States Attorney
                                                       United States Attorney’s Office
                                                       1 Courthouse Way, Suite 9200
                                                       Boston, MA 02210
                                                       (617) 748-3100
Dated: February 26, 2026                               carol.head@usdoj.gov




                                                  4


File and source

File

gov.uscourts.mad.289747.11.0.pdf

Size

167,081 bytes

SHA-256

dac72ef999eea213ac076cea814fe16b7a267fe6e9758a18e27ee79b46696040

Our copy

gov.uscourts.mad.289747.11.0.pdf

Original

No public link identified.