Government’s Notice of Intent to Introduce Inextricably Intertwined Evidence and Rule 404(b) Evidence — No. 0:22-cr-60028 (Dkt. 33, S.D. Fla.)

Summary

The Government's Notice of Intent to Introduce Inextricably Intertwined Evidence and Rule 404(b) Evidence, Document 33, entered July 25, 2022 in United States v. Luke Joselin, Case No. 22-60028-CR-DIMITROULEAS/SNOW (0:22-cr-60028-WPD), in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The notice states that the indictment returned February 24, 2022 charges conspiracy to commit wire fraud, nine associated counts of wire fraud and two associated counts of aggravated identity theft in connection with PPP loans. It describes the proposed evidence as Economic Injury Disaster Loan applications for four businesses and the defendant's possession, with a co-conspirator, of victims' personal identifying information before the pandemic. It argues the evidence is admissible as inextricably intertwined and under Rule 404(b).

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

“Government’s Notice of Intent to Introduce Inextricably Intertwined Evidence and Rule 404(b) Evidence — No. 0:22-cr-60028 (Dkt. 33, S.D. Fla.).” Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/source-documents/government-s-notice-of-intent-to-introduce-inextricably-intertwined-ev-7657d78012/, SHA-256 b2da6b857ab331fce99d9e02f327cc9f42fb71f76be2011f8a30d460af416550.

Full text

Case 0:22-cr-60028-WPD Document 33 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/25/2022 Page 1 of 9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 22-60028-CR-DIMITROULEAS/SNOW

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

LUKE JOSELIN,

Defendant.
__________________________________/

GOVERNMENT’S NOTICE OF INTENT TO INTRODUCE INEXTRICABLY
INTERTWINED EVIDENCE AND RULE 404(b) EVIDENCE

The government submits this notice of intent to introduce inextricably intertwined and Rule

404(b) evidence at Defendant Luke Joselin’s trial, which begins August 15, 2022.

This case is about Joselin’s efforts to enrich himself and others by defrauding the Paycheck

Protection Program (“PPP”), which Congress created to ease pandemic-related economic harms.

Through the PPP, lenders offered businesses potentially forgivable government-backed loans.

Joselin and his co-conspirators abused the program, obtaining several PPP loans through fraud.

Some of the loans they obtained through the scheme were in the names of unwitting victims.

At trial, the government will introduce evidence that in addition to the charged PPP loans,

Joselin and his co-conspirators applied for loans through a separate pandemic relief program: the

Economic Injury Disaster Loan (“EIDL”) program. As witnesses will testify, some of these EIDL

applications were themselves fraudulent, while others contained representations inconsistent with

the representations in the charged PPP loan applications. The government will also introduce

evidence that before the pandemic, Joselin and his co-conspirator, Judlex Jean Louis, jointly

possessed stolen victim personal identifying information (“PII”). Jean Louis will explain that the

pair always intended to use this PII for fraud and that the PPP just provided the best opportunity.
Case 0:22-cr-60028-WPD Document 33 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/25/2022 Page 2 of 9

BACKGROUND

A. Summary of Charged Offenses

On February 24, 2022, a federal grand jury sitting in the Southern District of Florida

returned an indictment charging Joselin with conspiracy to commit wire fraud, nine associated

counts of wire fraud, and two associated counts of aggravated identity theft. (DE 1). The indictment

alleges in Count 1 that Joselin, Judlex Jean Louis, Renaldo Harrison, 1 and others conspired and

used interstate wires to seek and obtain fraudulent PPP loans. In certain specific instances of wire

fraud, as charged in Counts 2 through 6, Joselin and his co-conspirators sought PPP loans of about

$20,000 each for sole proprietorships that did not actually exist. In two of these instances, as

charged in Counts 11 and 12, Joselin and Jean Louis applied for PPP loans for non-existent sole

proprietorships using the names and PII of two victims, J.A.G.C. and T.D. And in still other

instances, as charged in Counts 7 through 10, Joselin and his co-conspirators sought PPP loans of

about $180,000 each for businesses which either operated on a smaller scale than the applications

claimed or had not operated at all for many years.

The PPP loan applications Joselin and his co-conspirators submitted included false

statements about the purported business applicant’s income, average monthly payroll, or number

of employees—figures that drove the PPP loan eligibility formula. In support of these falsehoods,

Joselin and his co-conspirators submitted fabricated 2019 tax forms. The government must show

at trial that Joselin and his co-conspirators knowingly and willfully engaged in this conduct.

B. Proposed Evidence

Part of the government’s proof of the charged wire fraud conspiracy and wire fraud counts

1
Jean Louis and Harrison were charged separately and pled guilty. United States v. Jean Louis,
20-60140-CR-Singhal (S.D. Fla.); United States v. Harrison, 21-60265-CR-Scola (S.D. Fla.).

2
Case 0:22-cr-60028-WPD Document 33 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/25/2022 Page 3 of 9

is that some of the same businesses Joselin and his co-conspirators used to submit PPP loan

applications were also used to submit suspect EIDL applications. The four businesses for which

the conspirators submitted the PPP loan applications charged in Counts 7 through 10 of the

indictment—Joselin’s companies 24Hour Printing, Inc (“24Hour Printing”) and Hug a Print LLC

(“Hug a Print”), Jean Louis’s company Pricerite LLC (“Pricerite”), and Harrison’s company

Skicas LLC (“Skicas”)—also submitted EIDL applications within the timeframe of the conspiracy

charged in Count 1. All but the Pricerite EIDLs were then funded by SBA into bank accounts

controlled by Joselin (24Hour Printing and Hug a Print) or Harrison (Skicas). Joselin’s EIDL

applications for 24Hour Printing and Hug a Print contained sworn representations inconsistent

with the figures Joselin provided in the PPP loan applications charged at Counts 7 and 8 for the

same businesses.

To prove Joselin’s participation in the submission of the EIDLs, the government would

introduce records of EIDL applications submitted to the SBA, testimony from co-conspirator

Harrison about the preparation of and submission of an EIDL application at Joselin’s suggestion,

Joselin’s communications referencing the EIDLs, and loan, bank, and subscriber records.

Separately, as to the conspiracy charged in Count 1 and the aggravated identity theft

charged in Count 12, part of the government’s proof is that Joselin and Jean Louis possessed

multiple victims’ stolen PII years before the charged conduct; contemplated using this information

for fraud before the onset of the pandemic; and finally used the information—including T.D.’s

name and social security number—when the PPP presented the opportunity. To prove Joselin’s

conduct, the government will offer Jean Louis’s testimony and corroborating communications.

3
Case 0:22-cr-60028-WPD Document 33 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/25/2022 Page 4 of 9

ANALYSIS

A. The Proposed Evidence is Admissible as Inextricably Intertwined

“Evidence of criminal activity other than the offense charged is not extrinsic, provided that

the evidence is ‘(1) an uncharged offense which arose out of the same transaction or series of

transactions as the charged offense, (2) necessary to complete the story of the crime, or (3)

inextricably intertwined with the evidence regarding the charged offense.’” United States v.

Ellisor, 522 F.3d 1255, 1269 (11th Cir. 2008) (citing United States v. Jiminez, 224 F.3d 1243, 1249

(11th Cir. 2000) (citation omitted)); United States v. Williford, 764 F.2d 1493, 1499 (11th Cir.

1985) (“Evidence, not part of the crime charged but pertaining to the chain of events explaining

the context, motive and set-up of the crime, is properly admitted if linked in time and circumstances

with the charged crime, or forms an integral and natural part of an account of the crime, or is

necessary to complete the story of the crime for the jury.”).

Evidence of the 24Hour Printing, Hug a Print, Pricerite, and Skicas EIDLs is admissible as

inextricably intertwined with the charged offenses. These EIDLs arose out of the same discussions

that led to the submission of the charged PPP loan applications. The EIDL applications occurred

during the same timeframe as the charged conspiracy. Statements made in the sworn EIDL

applications contradict implausible statements made in the charged PPP loan applications, bringing

the truth of the charged PPP loan applications into question. And much of the most critical

evidence in this case—for instance communications between Joselin and Harrison referencing both

PPP loans and EIDLs, Joselin’s bank records reflecting both EIDL and PPP deposits, and

testimony from both co-conspirators regarding the conspiracy’s overarching goal to pilfer

pandemic relief aid—is impossible to disaggregate without creating a jilted and incomplete

presentation for the jury.

4
Case 0:22-cr-60028-WPD Document 33 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/25/2022 Page 5 of 9

Additionally, evidence of Joselin’s and Jean Louis’s joint possession of multiple victims’

PII before the pandemic—and their shared desire to monetize that PII before the PPP came into

existence—is inextricably intertwined in that it goes to the setup of the offenses charged in Counts

1 and 12. This evidence demonstrates Joselin’s fraudulent and deliberate intent to use PII with

Jean Louis in the PPP loan fraud conspiracy, and that Joselin knowingly used T.D.’s information

during and in relation to submitting the fraudulent T.D. PPP loan application.

For the reasons above, the evidence proposed in this notice is inextricably intertwined with

the charged conduct. See Ellisor, 522 F.3d at 1269; Williford, 764 F.2d at 1499.

B. The Proposed Evidence is Admissible Under Rule 404(b)

Even if the Court views the proposed evidence as extrinsic, it is admissible under Rule

404(b). Other-acts evidence is admissible for any purpose other than to show criminal propensity,

“such as proving motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, absence of

mistake, or lack of accident” with respect to the charged offense. Fed. R. Evid. 404(b). Rule 404(b)

is a rule of “inclusion which allows [extrinsic] evidence unless it tends to prove only criminal

propensity.” See United States v. Stephens, 365 F.3d 967, 975 (11th Cir. 2004) (quoting United

States v. Cohen, 888 F.2d 770, 776 (11th Cir. 1989)). The Eleventh Circuit evaluates the

admissibility of other-acts evidence using a three-part test: (1) “the evidence must be relevant to

an issue other than defendant’s character”; (2) “the government must offer sufficient proof so that

the jury could find that defendant committed the act”; and (3) the risk of undue prejudice must not

outweigh substantially the probative value. Ellisor, 522 F.3d at 1267.

As to the first part of the test, the evidence of the 24Hour Printing, Hug a Print, Pricerite,

and Skicas EIDLs and of Joselin’s pre-pandemic possession of victim PII are admissible under

Rule 404(b) because they are relevant for myriad purposes other than to show Joselin’s criminal

5
Case 0:22-cr-60028-WPD Document 33 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/25/2022 Page 6 of 9

propensity: to prove plan, knowledge and willfulness, identity, and lack of accident. F.R.E. 404(b).

For example, the 24Hour Printing EIDL application, which contains Joselin’s true social

security number, shows the falsity of the different social security number Joselin used to apply for

a PPP loan for his purported sole proprietorship as charged in Count 2. Likewise, the 24Hour

Printing EIDL application shows the implausibility of payroll figures in the 24Hour Printing PPP

loan application because the 2019 revenue and cost figures reported in the EIDL application are

not consistent with the sizeable monthly payroll figure in the PPP application. In another example,

the Skicas EIDL application was an integral part of discussions between Joselin and his co-

conspirator Harrison about obtaining illicit funds and was the source of far more fraud proceeds to

Harrison than the PPP loan charged in Count 4. Moreover, the Hug a Print, Pricerite, and Skicas

EIDL applications were all submitted soon after the reinstatement of the respective company with

FDOC following a lengthy period of dormancy, a plan that both Harrison and Jean Louis attributed

to Joselin. And finally, all four EIDLs were submitted during the same timeframe as the charged

PPP loan applications, tending to show that Joselin and his co-conspirators acted deliberately with

the purpose of obtaining as much money from pandemic relief programs in as short a timeframe

as possible, regardless of legitimate business need.

Moreover, Joselin’s possession of others’ PII with Jean Louis before the pandemic, and

their shared intention to use that information fraudulently before applying for PPP loans, negates

what will likely be Joselin’s defense: that he was unaware that Jean Louis intended to use PII on

scheme PPP loan applications.

Regarding the second part of the Rule 404(b) test, the government can present sufficient

proof to show that Joselin participated in the submission of the relevant EIDLs and had others’ PII

pre-pandemic as set forth above, including testimony and documents.

6
Case 0:22-cr-60028-WPD Document 33 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/25/2022 Page 7 of 9

Finally, as to the third part of the Rule 404(b) test, the probative value of the government’s

proffered evidence is not substantially outweighed by the risk of unfair prejudice. “Factors to be

considered [in determining the risk of unfair prejudice] include whether it appeared at the

commencement of trial that the defendant would contest the issue of intent, the overall similarity

of the charged and extrinsic offenses, and the temporal proximity between the charged and

extrinsic offenses.” United States v. Edouard, 485 F.3d 1324, 1345 (11th Cir. 2007). The charged

PPP loan applications and the proffered EIDL applications happened around the same time.

Further, Joselin will certainly contest the issue of intent. As in many fraud cases, intent is one of

the central issues in this case. The proffered evidence, regarding both the EIDL applications and

Jean Louis’ and Joselin’s shared possession of others’ PII, is crucial to establishing Joselin’s intent

to defraud: an element that is notoriously hard to prove. United States v. Manoocher Nostari–

Shamloo, 255 F.3d 1290, 1292 (11th Cir. 2001) (“A defendant’s intent is often difficult to prove

and often must be inferred from circumstantial evidence.”).

Moreover, any unfair prejudice from the admission of the proposed evidence can be cured

by a limiting instruction. The Court could instruct the jury against improperly considering the

proposed evidence for Joselin’s criminal propensity and presume that the jury would follow that

instruction. See United States v. Diaz-Lizaraza, 981 F.2d 1216, 1224 (11th Cir. 1993) (concluding

prejudice could be mitigated by giving a cautionary instruction on the limited use of such

evidence).

[This space left intentionally blank.]

7
Case 0:22-cr-60028-WPD Document 33 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/25/2022 Page 8 of 9

CONCLUSION

For the reasons above, the government requests that the Court admit the evidence described

above as inextricably intertwined and pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b).

Respectfully submitted,

JUAN ANTONIO GONZALEZ
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY

By:
Kiran N. Bhat
Assistant United States Attorney
Florida Bar No. 1008370
99 NE 4th Street
Miami, Florida 33132-2111
Phone: (305) 961-9103
Email: Kiran.Bhat@usdoj.gov

Michael B. Homer
Assistant United States Attorney
Court ID No. A5502497
99 Northeast 4th Street
Miami, Florida 33132-2111
Tel: (305) 961-9289
Email: Michael.Homer@usdoj.gov

8
Case 0:22-cr-60028-WPD Document 33 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/25/2022 Page 9 of 9

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that I electronically filed the foregoing document with the Clerk

of the Court using CM/ECF on July 25, 2022.

/s/ Kiran N. Bhat
Kiran N. Bhat
Assistant United States Attorney

File and source

File: 33.pdf
Size: 253,782 bytes
SHA-256: b2da6b857ab331fce99d9e02f327cc9f42fb71f76be2011f8a30d460af416550
Our copy: 33.pdf
Original: No public link identified.