Government’s Response Opposing Defendant’s Motion for Revocation of Detention Order [Ecf No. 24] — No. 5:25-cr-20543 (Dkt. 31, E.D. Mich.)

Summary

The Government's Response Opposing Defendant's Motion for Revocation of Detention Order [ECF No. 24], ECF No. 31, filed October 15, 2025 in United States v. Cemhan Biricik, Criminal No. 25-20543 (Case 5:25-cr-20543-JEL-KGA), in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division. The government asks the court to affirm U.S. Magistrate Judge Midori Lowry's detention order. It states that the indictment charges conspiracy to commit health care fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1349 and fifty-eight counts of health care fraud under 18 U.S.C. §1347, involving claims for Covid-19 testing services. It argues under 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g) that his international travel, ties to Turkey and potential sentence present a risk of non-appearance that no conditions can address.

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 5:25-cr-20543-JEL-KGA ECF No. 31, PageID.260 Filed 10/15/25 Page 1 of 15




                      UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                      EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
                           SOUTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

             Plaintiff,
                                                     Criminal No. 25-20543
v.
                                                     Honorable Judith E. Levy
D-1 CEMHAN “JIMMY” BIRICIK,

             Defendant.


        GOVERNMENT’S RESPONSE OPPOSING DEFENDANT’S
     MOTION FOR REVOCATION OF DETENTION ORDER [ECF No. 24]


       Defendant Cemhan Biricik, the alleged mastermind of a half-billion dollar

fraud scheme is a flight risk. He has a history of regular international travel, family

ties abroad, and is facing a significant custodial sentence. Further, he has presumed

access to millions in as-yet-unaccounted for fraud proceeds. Accordingly, he poses

a risk of non-appearance that no conditions of release can reasonably address.

       As discussed further in the government’ brief, the Court should affirm the

decision of U.S. Magistrate Judge Midori Lowry and deny Biricik’s motion to

revoke the detention order or re-open the hearing.




                                           1
Case 5:25-cr-20543-JEL-KGA ECF No. 31, PageID.261 Filed 10/15/25 Page 2 of 15




                      UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                      EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
                           SOUTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

      Plaintiff,
                                                     Criminal No. 25-20543
v.
                                                     Honorable Judith E. Levy
CEMHAN “JIMMY” BIRICIK,

     Defendant.
____________________________/

        Government’s Brief in Support of its Response Opposing Defendant’s
           Motion for Revocation of Detention Order [Ecf No. 24]

      Cemhan Biricik, a self-described “Serial Entrepreneur with an advanced

skill set in Marketing + Branding + Design” 1 asks the court to take him at his word

that he will stay and face the charges against him, rather than flee the country to

avoid the realistic possibility of spending upwards of 20 years in custody.

      Biricik is alleged to have orchestrated a simply massive healthcare billing

fraud through his company Fast Lab Technologies, by submitting claims for

Covid-19 testing services that were either never provided at all, or up-coded to

inflate the amount of the reimbursement. In total, Fast Lab submitted more than




1 LinkedIn, https://www.linkedin.com/in/cemhan, last accessed October 10, 2025.


                                          2
Case 5:25-cr-20543-JEL-KGA ECF No. 31, PageID.262 Filed 10/15/25 Page 3 of 15




$500M in claims for testing services and was paid more than $50M by federal

health programs and private insurers; much of that money has yet to be accounted

for. He has strong ties abroad and significant incentive to flee. The risk of his

non-appearance is of the sort that cannot be mitigated by conditions. The Court

should affirm the prior order of detention from the Northern District of Florida.

                        Background & Procedural History

      The indictment in this case charges Biricik with (i) conspiracy commit

health care fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1349, and (ii) fifty-eight counts of

health care fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §1347. (ECF No. 1). The indictment

was unsealed on July 31, 2025, when Biricik and his co-defendant Dr. Martin

Perlin were arrested, and multiple search warrants were executed at various

locations in three districts. Biricik was taken into custody in the Northern District

of Florida and had his initial appearance in Gainesville. The government sought

his detention, and a hearing was held the following day pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §

3142(f). At the conclusion of that hearing, U.S. Magistrate Judge Midori Lowry

ordered him detained; a written order to that effect was filed later that day.

(U.S v. Biricik, 25-mj-28-MAL, N.D.FL, Dkt. 9, Aug. 1, 2025). In her order, Judge

Lowry wrote that, “the Government showed that Defendant has motive, means,

and ability to flee,” and went on to discuss (i) the length of his potential sentence,

                                           3
Case 5:25-cr-20543-JEL-KGA ECF No. 31, PageID.263 Filed 10/15/25 Page 4 of 15




(ii) the millions in unaccounted fraud proceeds, and (iii) his foreign ties and

familiarity with international travel, ultimately finding that, “[t]he Government’s

proffer was more than sufficient to show by a preponderance of the evidence that

the Defendant poses a serious risk of flight.” The court then considered the factors

set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g), concluding that “no conditions or combination of

conditions will reasonably assure his presence as required.”

                                   ARGUMENT

      No condition or combination of conditions can reasonably assure Biricik’s

appearance at future proceedings should he be released on bond. Biricik’s motion

to revoke his detention order should be denied.

      A defendant may be detained pending trial if the Court finds that no

condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure the defendant’s

appearance as required or the safety of any other person or the community. 18

U.S.C. § 3142(e). The government must prove risk of flight by a preponderance

of the evidence and danger to the community by clear and convincing evidence.

United States v. Hinton, 113 Fed. App’x 76, 77 (6th Cir. 2004) (internal citations

omitted). When evaluating whether a defendant should be detained, the Court is

to consider: (i) the nature and circumstances of the charges; (ii) the weight of the

evidence as to risk of non-appearance; and (iii) the history and characteristics of

                                           4
Case 5:25-cr-20543-JEL-KGA ECF No. 31, PageID.264 Filed 10/15/25 Page 5 of 15




the defendant. 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g). The Court’s review of Magistrate Judge

Lowry’s conclusion that detention is warranted is de novo. United States v. Stone,

608 F.3d 939, 945 (6th Cir. 2010).

   I.      Biricik Should be Detained Based on Risk of Nonappearance

        The risk of non-appearance presented in this case does not turn on any one

fact in isolation, but on the totality of the facts and circumstances taken together.

        A. Nature and Circumstances of the Offense

        The first statutory factor to consider is the nature and circumstances of the

offense charged. 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g)(1). Here, the nature of the offense is a

years-long conspiracy wherein Biricik is alleged to have stood up a company that

submitted a full half-billion-dollars in claims for Covid-19 testing, much of which

was either never conducted or not performed as billed, touching on virtually every

state and a significant number of federal health programs. Biricik himself is a

master of reinvention, starting first with a computer parts and systems e-commerce

company; transitioning into branding, marketing, and photography; and

transitioning again into the healthcare space. See LinkedIn.com/in/Cemhan. Taken

together, this demonstrates Biricik’s proven ability to (1) innovate, (2) organize,

and (3) take action; all skills that would aid him in fleeing, if he were to decide it

were in his best interest to do so.

                                            5
Case 5:25-cr-20543-JEL-KGA ECF No. 31, PageID.265 Filed 10/15/25 Page 6 of 15




      The circumstances of the charged offense also involve the generation of

millions and millions of dollars in illicit gains, much of which was moved

repeatedly between bank accounts and a significant portion of which appears to

have been poured into investment accounts and cryptocurrencies: the government

identified evidence of a crypto “wallet” during execution of the resident search

warrant at Biricik’s house, and previously identified a Robinhood investment

account with approximately $1M that was transferred into either crypto-currencies

or crypto securities—the government’s further tracing of these funds remains

ongoing. There is a level of financial sophistication inherent to these transactions

that suggests an ability to make and acquire funds to finance international travel.

At least one third party with whom Biricik has a close personal relationship also

received a large amount of money from the scheme, which Biricik could

conceivably have access to upon release.

      The charged conduct also involved using the PII of thousands of customers

to submit insurance claims and concealing the truth of the fraud from many of his

own employees. These are significant risk factors for nonappearance, because they

speak to a willingness and ability to use deceit. See, e.g., United States v. Jones,

2011 WL 6300957, at *2 (W.D. Tenn. Dec. 16, 2011) (detention warranted based



                                           6
Case 5:25-cr-20543-JEL-KGA ECF No. 31, PageID.266 Filed 10/15/25 Page 7 of 15




on risk of flight where defendant’s “access to other people’s personal information

makes it likely that he could conceal his identity in order to flee”).

       Moreover, the nature of the charged offense is that it involves extremely

significant potential penalties for Biricik. Each of the charged counts carries a

maximum of 10 years in custody; if he were to be convicted of all counts and those

sentences were to run consecutive, his maximum potential exposure is 590 years.

Realistically though, given: (i) the dollar value of the claims involved in the

conspiracy, (ii) the fact of it being a federal health care offense, (iii) the

sophistication and methods involved, and (iv) his role in the offense, the

government calculates that Biricik’s sentencing guideline range will very likely

exceed 20 years imprisonment. As noted in the defendant’s motion, his lack of

criminal history means that he had never been in custody before his detention in

this case. Having now experienced a restriction on his freedom, this lengthy

potential penalty presents a powerful incentive to flee if released. See United

States v. Abboud, 42 F. App’x 784, 785 (6th Cir. 2002) (affirming detention based

on risk of flight where, among other factors, motive for flight was “strong” based

on defendant facing “further investigation, state and federal sentences, and

burdensome financial conditions”); United States v. Runnerstrand, 2008 WL

927774, at *3 (E.D. Mich. Apr. 4, 2008) (detention warranted based on risk of

                                            7
Case 5:25-cr-20543-JEL-KGA ECF No. 31, PageID.267 Filed 10/15/25 Page 8 of 15




flight where defendant faced significant penalty, had experience and ability to

travel internationally, and home was near an international border).

      B. History and Characteristics of the Defendant

      Biricik’s history and characteristics—another of the statutory factors to

consider—reinforce these same risk factors for nonappearance. 18 U.S.C. §

3142(g)(3).

      First, as discussed in the prior detention hearing (and in the defendant’s own

motion), Biricik has a history of international travel. While the defense paints this

as innocuous vacation travel, it still shows an ability to manage one’s affairs

abroad. He has a documented history of travel-related spending, including for

hotels and taxi and limousine services. And once outside the United States, the

ease of travel between countries increases almost exponentially.

      Next, the defendant has trained as a pilot and has familiarity with private air

travel. In raising this, the government does not mean to suggest that Biricik himself

would be able to fly a plane to Turkey. Rather, the government would highlight the

simple reality that Biricik has the knowledge and ability to travel by way of non-

commercial flights.2 Because while piloting a private plane to Turkey himself



2 Relatedly, during the seizure of Biricik’s plane, the government also learned from

a “hanger neighbor” that Biricik had previously remarked he had ordered a second

                                          8
Case 5:25-cr-20543-JEL-KGA ECF No. 31, PageID.268 Filed 10/15/25 Page 9 of 15




would almost certainly be impossible, piloting a private plane (or acquiring seats

on a private flight) to a permeable land boarder, or into a neighboring country, is

hardly improbable. In fact, between the prospect of (1) acquiring a false identity

and fraudulent international travel documents and purchasing tickets on a

commercial flight, or (2) simply chartering a plane to a state with a land-border,

walking across, and arranging further travel from there… the second option seems

far more likely.

      Regardless of whether private plane travel may be preferable, it cannot be

wholly discounted that given sufficient motivation—which the government alleges

is present here—and connections abroad, it would not be outside the realm of

possibility that the defendant could endeavor to procure a set of passable Turkish

travel documents and use those to leave the country.

      The defendant’s ties to Turkey should also not be understated. Regardless of

whether Biricik’s father is a “hermit”—a statement for which there has been no

corroboration—there is no dispute that his father does, in fact, live in Turkey. The



plane. Based on conversations with the FAA, if such a plane were on order, the
company likely required a substantial downpayment (if not prepayment in full). The
government’s investigation into this information remains ongoing; however, if
Biricik were able to take delivery of the plane he would have ready means to travel
and if he were able to refund the transaction, he could have several hundred
thousand dollars made available to him.

                                          9
Case 5:25-cr-20543-JEL-KGA ECF No. 31, PageID.269 Filed 10/15/25 Page 10 of 15




country where the defendant was born. And where the defendant was originally set

to travel the week after his arrest. His aunt’s motivation for being in Turkey is

also a red-herring; there is no dispute she was there and that Biricik was,

ostensibly, going to visit her. These are closer familial ties to a foreign country

than the vast majority of defendants possess. And when considered alongside the

potential penalty he is facing, the motivation to cleave to one’s homeland in a

moment of great personal significance is self-evident. It also should not be taken

lightly that Biricik does not need “succor” from these family members in order to

establish himself and his family there, given the high likelihood he still has some

access to proceeds from this offense. On that same point, it is also important to

acknowledge the highly favorable exchange rate between the two countries, with

$1 currently being equal to approximately $42 Turkish Lira.3 Regardless, his

familiarity and comfortability with a known foreign country is the real point here.

This all goes without discussing potential ties to one or more South American

countries, which he has revisited as recently as this summer.

       Further, the defense motion goes on at length about the potential for his

extradition if he were to choose to flee. Putting aside the question of whether he


3
  Western Union, Convert US Dollar to New Turkish Lira,
https://www.westernunion.com/us/en/currency-converter/usd-to-try-rate.html
(last visited Oct. 14, 2025).

                                             10
Case 5:25-cr-20543-JEL-KGA ECF No. 31, PageID.270 Filed 10/15/25 Page 11 of 15




could be extradited from Turkey, the government would simply note that there are

never any guarantees and that it would likely be a lengthy and involved process to

repatriate him. Inherent in the question of whether he could be extradited are also

a host of assumptions, including: (1) he arrives in Turkey under his own name and

continues to use that name; (2) he stays there as opposed to further relocating

elsewhere in the region, to a country that does not extradite; (3) the Turkish

authorities are able to locate and arrest him; and (4) Turkish authorities also share

the defense assessment that Biricik’s offense is eligible for extradition. The mere

fact that the probability of various outcomes under international law is being raised

in support of a defendant’s release should itself give pause—the Court is asked to

decide whether there are conditions that can “reasonably assure” his further

appearance, not whether it would be impossible or nearly impossible for the

government to make him answer the charges at some hypothetical future date.

      Finally, as to the reliability of a tether as a means of assuring his appearance,

the government would reiterate its belief that a tether is only as good as an

individual’s willingness to abide the restriction. Here, we have an individual

alleged to have engaged in a staggering level of fraud, with foreign ties, and a fair

probability of serving decades in federal prison if convicted. The fact that Pretrial

Services—presumably in Florida, where he would likely return and be under

                                          11
Case 5:25-cr-20543-JEL-KGA ECF No. 31, PageID.271 Filed 10/15/25 Page 12 of 15




courtesy supervision give his lack of ties to Michigan—would receive notice if he

were to cut a tether is hardly a reasonable assurance of his future appearance in this

district. Because even given perfect communication between all the various

agencies, the difficulty inherent to immediately standing up a search for the

defendant (in hopes of arresting him before he could escape the jurisdiction) poses

simply too great a risk. Government counsel has also personally been party to

cases wherein a defendant slipped a tether without triggering an alarm; suffice it to

say, it can be done.

      Given the potential penalties Biricik faces and his documented facility with

travel outside this country, there is high risk of flight at a baseline. As the gravity

of the allegations and potential penalties in this case sink in, the motivation to flee

will likely only increase. And for the reasons discussed above, Biricik’s myriad

professional skills and presumed ability to generate significant income; the as-yet-

unaccounted for proceeds of the charged conduct; his ties to Turkey and potentially

other countries; and his facility with both private air travel specifically and

international travel more generally, collectively establish by a preponderance of the

evidence that no condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure his

appearance.



                                           12
Case 5:25-cr-20543-JEL-KGA ECF No. 31, PageID.272 Filed 10/15/25 Page 13 of 15




            OPPOSITION TO REQUEST TO REOPEN HEARING

      As stated in the defense motion, a detention hearing may be “reopened,

before or after a determination by the judicial officer … if the judicial officer finds

that information exists that was not known to the movant at the time of the hearing

and that has a material bearing on the issue of whether there are conditions of

release that will reasonably assure the appearance of such person[.]” 18 U.S.C.

§ 3142(f)(2). Here, Biricik was represented at his detention hearing by highly

experienced counsel (herself a former federal prosecutor), and nothing raised in the

defense filing appears to have been unknown to Biricik himself. Whether current

counsel has learned information they believe to be material that prior counsel did

not make use of is a separate question, and one that is outside the scope of the

standard for re-opening the hearing. In broadest strokes, the arguments being

proffered by both sides on the operative questions of likelihood of nonappearance

and reasonable assurance of future appearance are the same arguments advanced

by the parties in front of Magistrate Judge Lowry.

      Accordingly, the government does not believe that the hearing needs to be

re-opened and would ask the Court to decide the motion on the basis of the briefs.




                                          13
Case 5:25-cr-20543-JEL-KGA ECF No. 31, PageID.273 Filed 10/15/25 Page 14 of 15




                                 CONCLUSION

      For the aforementioned reasons, a preponderance of the evidence establishes

that no conditions or combination of conditions can reasonably assure Biricik’s

appearance. Biricik’ s motion to revoke his detention order should be denied.

                                             Respectfully submitted,

                                             JEROME F. GORGON, JR.
                                             United States Attorney

                                             s/ Ryan A. Particka
                                             Ryan A. Particka
                                             Regina R. McCullough
                                             Assistant United States Attorneys
                                             211 W. Fort Street, Suite 2001
                                             Detroit, MI 48226
                                             (313) 226-9635
                                             Ryan.particka@usdoj.gov
Date: October 15, 2025




                                        14
Case 5:25-cr-20543-JEL-KGA ECF No. 31, PageID.274 Filed 10/15/25 Page 15 of 15




                         CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

      I hereby certify that on October 15, 2025, I electronically filed the foregoing

document with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF, which will provide

electronic notice to counsel of record.




                                               s/ Ryan A. Particka
                                               Ryan A. Particka
                                               Assistant United States Attorney
                                               211 W. Fort Street, Suite 2001
                                               Detroit, MI 48226
                                               (313) 226-9635
                                               Ryan.particka@usdoj.gov




                                          15


File and source

File

31.pdf

Size

229,573 bytes

SHA-256

c0b64daf667a68b89732a20fb673d8325ddc2eb86d868f31c353b6f1dee0a170

Our copy

31.pdf

Original

No public link identified.