Indictment — United States v. Dory Lindsay Ford, Northern District of California (Document 1)

Summary

A grand jury Indictment in United States v. Dory Lindsay Ford, Case 5:24-cr-00050-EJD, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose Division, filed January 25, 2024. It charges bank fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1344 in Count 1, wire fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1343 in Counts 2-4, and money laundering under 18 U.S.C. § 1957 in Counts 5 and 6. The indictment alleges that Ford, who operated the catering company Aqua Terra Culinary, Inc., received a $308,917 PPP loan and an EIDL loan in 2020, then falsely answered No to the delinquent-federal-loan question on a second PPP application, after which $446,183 was wired on or about March 11, 2021. It also alleges false promises and certifications on a Restaurant Revitalization Fund grant application, including that the business had not permanently closed.

Summary drafted by a model from the text of the original file linked on this page 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

Text recognized from a scanned document; may contain errors.

Case 5:24-cr-00050-EJD Document1 Filed 01/25/24 Page 1 of 14

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION . Le
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERI Ga 7 25 zy,
DORY LINDSAY FORD .. p Wb,
INDICTMENT
COUNT 1: 18 U.S.C. § 1344 — Bank Fraud

COUNTS 2-4: 18 U.S.C. § 1343 — Wire Fraud

COUNT 5: 18 U.S.C. § 1957 — Money Laundering
COUNT 6: 18 U.S.C. § 1957 — Money Laundering
— Foreperson

Filed in open court this let day of. Coumnary. A.D. 202 4_

United States Magistrate Judge
10
11

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

23
24
25
26
27
28

Case 5:24-cr-00050-EJD Document1 Filed 01/25/24 Page 2 of 14

ISMAIL J. RAMSEY (CABN 189820) 4

United States Attorney My &
“or “Op
My
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN JOSE DIVISION ;

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ), CASE NO. eau g ye

)

Plaintiff, ) VIOLATIONS:
) 18 U.S.C. § 1343 — Wire Fraud;
v. } 18 U.S.C. § 1344 — Bank Fraud;
18 U.S.C. § 1957 — Money Laundering;
a Le ene, 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(C) and 28 U.S.C. § 2461(c), 18
Defendant. ) U.S.C. §§ 982(a)(1), (2) — Forfeiture Allegation

)

) SAN JOSE VENUE

)

INDICTMENT
The Grand Jury charges:

Introductory Allegations

At all times relevant to this Indictment:

ft. Defendant Dory Lindsay Ford (“FORD”) resided in the Northern District of California.
He operated a catering company called Aqua Terra Culinary, Inc. (Aqua Terra) in Monterey County,
California.

2 Aqua Terra was a private company organized under the laws of the State of California
with a principal place of business in Pacific Grove, California. Aqua Terra provided catering services

for various events and entities.

INDICTMENT
Case 5:24-cr-00050-EJD Document1 Filed 01/25/24 Page 3 of 14

3. During the relevant time period, FORD controlled and was the sole signatory for a Bank
of America account ending in 3435 (BOA 3435). BOA 3435 was held in the name of Aqua Terra and
opened in or about February 2021.

4. During the relevant time period, FORD and his wife were signatories for an InBank
account ending in 3842 (InBank 3842). InBank 3842 was held in the name Aqua Terra and was opened
in or about June 2021.

5. During the relevant time period, FORD, his wife, and a third individual were signatories
for a Bank of America account ending in 0583 (BOA 0583). BOA 0583 was held in the name of Aqua

Terra and opened in or about December 2017.

6. During the relevant time period, Bank of America’s servers were located in Texas and
Pennsylvania.
7. During the relevant time period, InBank’s servers were located in New Mexico,

Colorado, Oklahoma, and Kansas.
The Restaurant Revitalization Fund (“RRF”)

8. The United States Small Business Administration (“SBA”) is a federal government
agency that was responsible for administering the Restaurant Revitalization Fund (“RRF”).

9. During the relevant time period, RRF applications were received and processed by SBA
servers in Oregon and all electronic payments made by the SBA under the RRF were processed, via
wire, through computer servers located in Virginia.

10. Section 5003 of American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (ARPA) established the RRF and
appropriated $28.6 billion to the SBA for the purpose of making grants under the RRF. The SBA
awarded funding through the RRF to restaurants, bars, and similar businesses serving food and drink.
The purpose of this funding was to provide support to eligible entities that suffered revenue losses as a
result of the COVID-19 pandemic and related mitigation measures.

11. According to ARPA, the SBA was authorized to provide funding up to $5,000,000 per
location (not to exceed $10,000,000 total for the applicant and any affiliated businesses) for applicants

who met certain conditions. Awardees were not required to repay funds received under the RRF unless

INDICTMENT 2
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Case 5:24-cr-00050-EJD Document1 Filed 01/25/24 Page 4 of 14

the funds were used for unauthorized purposes; were not used by March 11, 2023; or the recipient
permanently closed before using all funds on authorized purposes.

12. Pursuant to Section 5003(c)(5) of the ARPA and the SBA RRF program guidelines,
recipients of RRF funds were authorized to use the funds for only certain specified purposes, including,
among other things, business payroll costs; business maintenance expenses, including construction to
accommodate outdoor seating and walls, floors, deck surfaces, furniture, fixtures, and equipment; and
food and beverage expenses that are within the scope of the normal business practice of the recipient. A
list of eligible uses was also included on the RRF application. Use of RRF funds to purchase securities
was not an eligible expense under the ARPA or SBA program guidelines. Additionally, according to the
SBA RRF program guidelines, if awardees had not used all RRF funds on authorized purposes by
December 31, 2021, they were required to report to the SBA the amount of RRF funds that had been
used on each category of authorized purposes up to that date.

The Paycheck Protection Program

13. The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (“CARES”) Act was a federal law
enacted in or around March 2020 and designed to provide emergency financial assistance to the millions
of Americans who are suffering the economic effects caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. One source
of relief provided by the CARES Act was the authorization of up to $349 billion in forgivable loans to
small businesses for job retention and certain other expenses, through a program referred to as the
Paycheck Protection Program (“PPP”). In or around April 2020, Congress authorized over $300 billion
in additional PPP funding.

14. _ In order to obtain a PPP loan, a qualifying business was required to submit a PPP loan
application, which was signed by an authorized representative of the business. The PPP loan application
required the business (through its authorized representative) to acknowledge the program rules and make
certain affirmative certifications in order to be eligible to obtain the PPP loan. In the PPP loan
application, the small business (through its authorized representative) was required to state, among other
things, its: (a) average monthly payroll expenses; and (b) number of employees. These figures were

used to calculate the amount of money the small business was eligible to receive under the PPP. In

INDICTMENT 3
Oo wo nN Dn UH FP W NY

mw NHN NN NN N NY NY YF TF TR FF SF FE DCO pnp 2a s

Case 5:24-cr-00050-EJD Document1 Filed 01/25/24 Page 5 of 14

addition, businesses applying for a PPP loan were required to provide documentation showing their
payroll expenses.

15. A PPP loan application was required to be processed by a participating lender. Ifa PPP
loan application was approved, the participating lender funded the PPP loan using its own monies,
which were 100% guaranteed by the SBA. Data from the application, including information about the
borrower, the total amount of the loan, and the listed number of employees, was transmitted by the
lender to the SBA in the course of processing the loan.

16. PPP loan proceeds were required to be used by the business on certain permissible
expenses—payroll costs, mortgage payments, rent, and utilities. The PPP allowed the interest and
principal on the PPP loan to be entirely forgiven if the business spent the loan proceeds on these expense
items within a designated period of time after receiving the proceeds and used a certain amount of the
PPP loan proceeds on payroll expenses.

The Economic Injury Disaster Loan Program

17... The Economic Injury Disaster Loan (“EIDL”) program was an SBA program that
provided low-interest financing to small businesses, renters, and homeowners in regions affected by
declared disasters. During the relevant times servers that received EIDL applications were in Virginia,
Iowa, or Washington state. Disbursement of EIDL funds were initiated by SBA’s Finance Center,
located in Colorado.

18. | The CARES Act also authorized the SBA to provide EIDL loans of up to $2 million to
eligible small businesses experiencing substantial financial disruption due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
In addition, the CARES Act authorized the SBA to issue advances of up to $10,000 to small businesses
within three days of applying for an EIDL loan. The amount of the advance was determined by the
number of employees the applicant certified having. The advances did not have to be repaid.

19. Inorder to obtain an EIDL loan and/or advance, a qualifying business was required to
submit an application to the SBA and provide information about its operations, such as the number of
employees, gross revenues for the 12-month period preceding the disaster, and cost of goods sold in the

12-month period preceding the disaster. In the case of EIDL loans for COVID-19 relief, the 12-month

INDICTMENT 4
o nN ONO NAN Fe WY NY

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Case 5:24-cr-00050-EJD Document1 Filed 01/25/24 Page 6 of 14

period was that preceding January 31, 2020. The applicant was also required to certify that all of the
information in the application was true and correct to the best of the applicant’s knowledge.

20. EIDL applications were submitted directly to the SBA. The amount of the loan, if the
application was approved, was determined based, in part, on the information provided by the applicant
about employment, revenue, and cost of goods, as described above. Any funds issued under an EIDL
loan or advance were issued directly by the SBA. EIDL funds could be used for payroll expenses, sick
leave, production costs, and business obligations, such as debts, rent, and mortgage payments. If the
applicant also obtained a loan under the PPP, the EIDL funds amount needed to be declared by the
applicant and deducted from the total loan eligibility.

Relevant PPP Lenders and Affiliated Companies

21. During the relevant times, Lender 1 was a federally insured financial institution based in
North Carolina. Lender 1 was an SBA-approved PPP lender to small businesses.

The Scheme to Defraud

22. In furtherance of the scheme and artifice to defraud, FORD used a variety of means and
methods, including the false and fraudulent, representations, promises, and omissions and concealment
of material facts described below.

23. Onor about April 3, 2020, FORD applied for a PPP and an EIDL loan. On or about May
5, 2020, FORD received a PPP loan in the amount of $308,917 from Bank of America, which was wire
to BOA 0583. On or about June 9, 2020, the EIDL loan was wired to BOA 0583.

24. Onor about January 21, 2021, Lender ! received a second PPP application from FORD
seeking another loan for Aqua Terra.

25, The PPP application asked the borrower the following question:

Has the Applicant, an owner of a business, or any business owned or controlled by any of
them, ever obtained a direct or guaranteed loan from SBA or any other Federal agency
that is currently delinquent or has defaulted in the last 7 years and caused a loss to the
government?

FORD falsely stated “No” to this question.

INDICTMENT 5
Case 5:24-cr-00050-EJD Document1 Filed 01/25/24 Page 7 of 14

26. Relying on FORD’s false statement, Lender 1 approved the PPP application. On or about
March 11, 2021, $446,183 was wired to a Bank of America account ending in 3435, BOA 3435. BOA
3435 was controlled by FORD, and he was the sole signatory for the account. BOA 3435 was held in
the name of Aqua Terra and opened in or about February 2021.

27. | Onor about May 3, 2021, SBA received a RRF grant application from FORD seeking a
grant for Aqua Terra.

28. | Onthe RRF application, FORD made false promises by checking boxes indicating that he
would use RRF funds for (1) “Business Payroll Costs, including paid sick leave;” (2) “Business Rent /
Business Mortgage;” (3) “Business Debt Service;” (4) “Business Utilities;” (5) Business Food and
beverage expenses, including raw materials;” (6) “Business Maintenance Expenses;” and (7) “Business
Supplies;” (8) “Covered Supplier Costs;” and (9) “Business Operating Expenses.”

29. | FORD also made the following self-certifications on the RRF application by placing his
initials, “DF,” next to each statement:

a. “I ynderstand that the Applicant business must use all funds only on eligible uses within

the covered period, which is the period beginning on February 15, 2020 and ending on
March 11, 2023. If the business permanently closes, the covered period will end when
the business permanently closes or on March 11, 2023, whichever occurs sooner.
Awardees that are unable to use all of the funds received on eligible expenses by the end
of the covered period must return any unused funds to Treasury.”

b. “J understand that by signing this application and accepting RRF funds, I am agreeing
that no later than the end of the covered period, I will certify to SBA that the Applicant
business used all funds only on eligible uses within the covered period.”

C. “I further certify that the information provided in this application and the information
provided in all supporting documents and forms is true and accurate in all material
respects. I understand that knowingly making a false statement to obtain a grant from
SBA is punishable under the law, including under 18 U.S.C. 1001 and 3571 by
imprisonment of not more than five years and/or a fine of up to $250,000; under 15

U.S.C. 645 by imprisonment of not more than two years and/or a fine of not more than

INDICTMENT 6
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Case 5:24-cr-00050-EJD Document1 Filed 01/25/24 Page 8 of 14

$5,000; and, if submitted to a federally insured institution, under 18 U.S.C. 1014 by
imprisonment of not more than thirty years and/or fine of more than $1,000,000.”

30. FORD also falsely certified in the RRF form that “The Applicant business has not
permanently closed.”

31. Inreliance on the false promises that FORD would use RRF funds only on eligible uses
for Aqua Terra and other false certifications, on or about June 8, 2021, the SBA wired $3,313,398 to
BOA 3435.

32. Onor about June 15, 2021, and as part of the scheme to defraud, FORD wired
approximately $2,850,000 from BOA 3435 to an InBank account ending in 3842 (InBank 3842).
InBank3842 was held in the name Aqua Terra and FORD and his wife were the only signatories.
InBank 3842 was opened in or about June 2021.

33. On or about July 30, 2021, FORD wired $246,245 from InBank3842 to a real estate
company (Company 1). Company | is a based in Colorado and specializes in selling real estate in the
Placentia region. of the Central American nation of Belize. This $246,245 wiring was derived by funds
received though the RRF. FORD used this money to purchase a parcel of property in Placentia, Belize.

34. On or about October 29, 2021, FORD wired $339,485 from InBank 3842 to Company 1.
This $339,485 wiring was derived by funds received though the RRF. FORD used this money to
purchase two parcels of property in Placentia, Belize.

35. Between on or about June 15, 2021, and on or about October 25, 2021, FORD wired a
total of approximately $905,000 from BOA 3435 toa personal brokerage account (Brokerage 1). FORD
is the sole signatory for Brokerage 1. FORD used Brokerage | to purchase various stocks and ETFs.

36. Between August 6, 2021, and April 28, 2022, FORD wired a total of approximately
$380,000 from InBank 3842 to an InBank account ending in 6175 held in the name of Mycology
Sciences, a mushroom nutritional supplement company owned by FORD. The $380,000 was derived by
funds received though the RRF.

37. Onor about May 7, 2021, FORD applied for a $350,000 EIDL modification for Aqua
Terra. The purpose of the EIDL modification was to increase Aqua Terra’s prior $150,000 EIDL to a
total of $500,000. On the EIDL modification application, FORD falsely represented that Aqua Terra

INDICTMENT 7
Oo Oo NY DH vn F&F WO LY

Case 5:24-cr-00050-EJD Document1 Filed 01/25/24 Page 9 of 14

was still an operational company with 75 employees that needed additional EIDL funding to support its
operations and omitted material changes to his financial conditions.

38. Based on his false representations and omissions, SBA approved the EIDL modification.

39. Onor about September 16, 2021, FORD applied for a second EIDL modification in the
amount of $1,500,000 for Aqua Terra. The purpose of the EIDL modification was to increase Aqua
Terra’s prior $500,000 EIDL to a total of $2,000,000. On the second EIDL modification application,
FORD falsely represented that Aqua Terra was still an operational company with 75 employees that
needed additional EIDL funding to support its operations and omitted material changes to his financial
conditions.

40. SBA rejected FORD’s second EIDL modification.

41. ‘On April 4, 2023, as part of the scheme to defraud, FORD submitted a RRF Post Award
Report to the SBA. A RRF Post Award Report is a document that requires recipients of RRF grants to
report on how:RRF funds were used. FORD, signed under penalty of perjury, that he had spent all RRF
funds appropriately. FORD failed to disclose that he used RRF funds to purchase of properties in
Belize, fund:a different business venture, and make investments in the stock market.

COUNT ONE: (18 U.S.C. § 1344 - Bank Fraud)

42. Paragraphs 1 through 41 of this Indictment are re-alleged and incorporated as if fully set
forth here.

43. On or about January 21, 2021, in the Northern District of California, and elsewhere, the
defendant,

DORY LINDSAY FORD,
knowingly executed a scheme and artifice to defraud a financial institution and obtain moneys, funds,
credits, assets, and other property owned by and under the custody and control of federally insured
financial institutions by means of material false and fraudulent pretenses, representations, and promises,
and the concealment of material facts.

All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1344.

Ht
i

INDICTMENT 8
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Case 5:24-cr-00050-EJD Document1 Filed 01/25/24 Page 10 of 14

COUNTS TWO THROUGH FOUR: (18 U.S.C. § 1343 — Wire Fraud)

44. Paragraphs 1 through 41 of this Indictment are re-alleged and incorporated as if fully set
forth here.

45. Beginning on or about April 3, 2020, and continuing through on or about April 4, 2023 in
the Northern District of California and elsewhere, the defendant,

DORY LINDSAY FORD,
knowingly and with the intent to defraud participated in, devised, and intended to devise a scheme and
artifice to defraud as to a material matter, and to obtain money and property by means of materially false
and fraudulent pretenses, representations, and promises, and by means of omission and concealment of
material facts.

46. Onor about the dates set forth below, in the Northern District of California and
elsewhere, for the purpose of executing the aforementioned scheme and artifice to defraud and
attempting to do so, the defendant,

DORY LINDSAY FORD
did knowingly transmit and cause to be transmitted in interstate and foreign commerce, by means of a

wire communication, certain writings, signs, signals, pictures, and sounds, specifically identified below:

Count Approx. Date Description of Wire

2 June 8, 2021 Interstate wire transfer of $3,313,398 from SBA to FORD’s Bank of

America account ending in 3435.

3 August 10, 2021 | Interstate wire transfer of $350,000 from SBA to FORD’s Bank of

America account ending in 3435.

4 September 16, FORD’s EIDL modification was received via interstate wire.

2021

All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1343.

COUNTS FIVE: (18 U.S.C. § 1957 — Money Laundering)

47. Paragraphs 1 through 41 of this Indictment are re-alleged and incorporated as if fully set
forth here.

INDICTMENT 9
Case 5:24-cr-00050-EJD Document1 Filed 01/25/24 Page 11 of 14

48. On or about June 15, 2021, in the Northern District of California, and elsewhere, the

defendant,

DORY LINDSAY FORD,
did knowingly engage in a monetary transaction by, through, and to a financial institution, in affecting
interstate and foreign commerce, in criminally derived property of a value greater than $10,000, that is,
the wiring of $246,245 to purchase one parcel of land in Placentia, Belize, such property having been
derived from a specified unlawful activity, that is, Wire Fraud.

All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1957.

COUNTS SIX: (18 U.S.C. § 1957 — Money Laundering)

49. Paragraphs 1 through 41 of this Indictment are re-alleged and incorporated as if fully set
forth here.

50. On or about July 30, 2021, in the Northern District of California, and elsewhere, the
defendant,

DORY LINDSAY FORD,
did knowingly engage in a monetary transaction by, through, and to a financial institution, in affecting
interstate and foreign commerce, in criminally derived property of a value greater than $10,000, that is,
the wiring of $339,485 to purchase two parcels of land in Placentia, Belize, such property having been
derived from a specified unlawful activity, that is, Wire Fraud.

All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1957.

FORFEITURE ALLEGATION: (18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(C) and 28 U.S.C. § 2461(c), 18 U.S.C.
§§ 982(a)(1), (2))

51. The allegations contained in this Indictment are re-alleged and incorporated by reference
for the purpose of alleging forfeiture pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 981(a)(1)(C) and
Title 28, United States Code, Section 2461(c), and Title 18, United States Code, Sections 982(a)(1), (2).
Hf
H

INDICTMENT 10
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Case 5:24-cr-00050-EJD Document1 Filed 01/25/24 Page 12 of 14

52. Upon conviction for Count One of this Indictment, the defendant,
DOREY LINDSAY FORD,
shall forfeit to the United States, pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 982(a)(2) all property,
real or personal, constituting, or derived from proceeds the defendant obtained directly and indirectly, as
the result of those violations.
53. Upon conviction for Counts Two through Four of this Indictment, the defendant,
DOREY LINDSAY FORD,
shall forfeit to the United States, pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 981(a)(1)(C), Title
28, United States Code, Section 2461(c), and Title 18, United States Code, Section 982(a)(2), all
property, real or personal, constituting, or derived from proceeds the defendant obtained directly and
indirectly, as the result of those violations.
54. Upon conviction for Counts Five through Six of this Indictment, the defendant,
DOREY LINDSAY FORD,
shall forfeit to the United States, pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 982(a)(1) all property,
real or personal, constituting, or derived from proceeds the defendant obtained directly and indirectly, as
the result of those violations.
55. Ifany of the property described above, as a result of any act or omission of the defendant:
a. cannot be located upon 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 of America shall be entitled to forfeiture of substitute property pursuant to Title 21,
United States Code, Section 853(p), as incorporated by Title 28, United States Code, Section 2461©.

INDICTMENT 11
Nw

10
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

24
26
27
28

Case 5:24-cr-00050-EJD Document1 Filed 01/25/24 Page 13 of 14

All pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 981(a)(1)(C), Title 28, United States Code, Section

2461(c), Title 18, United States Code, Sections 982(a)(1), (2), and Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure

DATED:

ISMAIL J. RAMSEY
United States Attorney

NEAL C. HON
Assistant United States Attorney

INDICTMENT 12

A TRUE BILL

FOREPERSON |
AO 257 (Rev. 6/78)

Case 5:24-cr-00050-EJD Document1 Filed 01/25/24 Page 14 of 14

DEFENDANT INFORMATION RELATIVE TO A CRIMINAL ACTION - IN U.S. DIS

ICT COURT

BY: L] comptaint [] INFORMATION INDICTMENT

OFFENSE CHARGED

Name of District Court, and/or sega gag f)

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF AWS.

Counts 5-6: 10 years of imprisonment, $250,000 fine, 3 years of

a+

Cl a5
Count 1: 18 U.S.C. § 1344 - Bank Fraud [_] Petty — Nore us D L024
Counts 2-4: 18 U.S.C. § 1343 - Wire Fraud EAN Oyo STAI
Counts 5-6: 18 U.S.C. § 1957 — Money Laundering J Minor (- DEFENDANT - U.S Rr oe + S80 —
meanor » Dory Lindsay Ford
a seas DISTRICT COURT NUMBER
PENALTY: Count 1:30 years of imprisonment, $1,000,000 fine, 5 years of =
supervised release, $100 special assessment per felony, forfeiture 4") IPs fF ey 300 EJD
Count 2-4: 20 years of imprisonment, $250,000 fine, 3 years of f Hi es a. t WwW
supervised release, $100 special assessment per felony, forfeiture ii ~— J

DEFENDANT

PROCEEDING

IS NOT IN CUSTODY

Name of Complaintant Agency, or Person (& Title, if any)

Internal Revenue Service and Small Business Administration

person is awaiting trial in another Federal or State Court,
give name of court

this person/proceeding is transferred from another district
per (circle one) FRCrp 20, 21, or 40. Show District

this is a reprosecution of
charges previously dismissed
which were dismissed on motion SHOW

of: DOCKET NO.
[] U.S. ATTORNEY [] DEFENSE \
this prosecution relates to a

[_] pending case involving this same
defendant

MAGISTRATE

\ CASE NO.

prior proceedings or appearance(s)
before U.S. Magistrate regarding this
defendant were recorded under

L

Has not been arrested, pending outcome this proceeding.
1) If not detained give date any prior

summons was served on above charges
2) [] |s a Fugitive

3) [_] !s on Bail or Release from (show District)

IS IN CUSTODY
4) [_] On this charge

5) [_] On another conviction

} CJ Federal [] State

6) [_] Awaiting trial on other charges
If answer to (6) is "Yes", show name of institution

Has detainer L_] Yes slboen

been filed? give date
* [J] No filed

DATE OF > Month/Day/Year

ARREST

Or... if Arresting Agency & Warrant were not

Name and Office of Person

Furnishing Information on this form Ismail J. Ramsey

DATE TRANSFERRED Month/Day/Year

TO U.S. CUSTODY

[x] U.S. Attorney [] Other U.S. Agency

Name of Assistant U.S.

Attorney (if assigned) Neal C. Hong

C] This report amends AO 257 previously submitted

PROCESS:
SUMMONS [_] NOPROCESS* [_] WARRANT

If Summons, complete following:
xd Arraignment Initial Appearance

Defendant Address:

Comments:

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION OR COMMENTS

Bail Amount:

* Where defendant previously apprehended on complaint, no new summons or
warrant needed, since Magistrate has scheduled arraignment

Date/Time: 1/31/24 at 1 p.m. Before Judge: DeMarchi


File and source

File

1-indictment.pdf

Size

1,657,012 bytes

SHA-256

77447cf8f85c8da5777b945a1fc87e486df52b993d98d1e818497fe363952026

Our copy

1-indictment.pdf

Original

archive.org