Pandemic Darlings The pandemic economy, in original documents
Home Source documents Memorandum and Order on Defendant’s Motion to Quash Indictment Based on Either/Or Misled [Sic] Grand Jury or Perjured Testimony Saylor, C.j — No. 1:23-cr-10299 (Dkt. 79, D. Mass.)

Memorandum and Order on Defendant’s Motion to Quash Indictment Based on Either/Or Misled [Sic] Grand Jury or Perjured Testimony Saylor, C.j — No. 1:23-cr-10299 (Dkt. 79, D. Mass.)

Summary

Memorandum and order of August 26, 2024 by Chief Judge F. Dennis Saylor IV in the District of Massachusetts, United States v. Dean A. Tran, case 1:23-cr-10299, Dkt. 79. The indictment alleges Tran filed fraudulent claims for Pandemic Unemployment Assistance while working as a paid consultant and underreported his income on his tax returns for 2020, 2021 and 2022. Tran moved to quash it, arguing a Department of Labor special agent misled the grand jury by saying he was ineligible because he worked full-time. The court found the testimony not materially misleading and no perjury, and denied the motion.

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

“Memorandum and Order on Defendant’s Motion to Quash Indictment Based on Either/Or Misled [Sic] Grand Jury or Perjured Testimony Saylor, C.j — No. 1:23-cr-10299 (Dkt. 79, D. Mass.).” Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/source-documents/memorandum-and-order-on-defendant-s-motion-to-quash-indictment-based-o-0c3d3b2786/, SHA-256 56b87aec51909b056bf55e2cb0bcbd968475b66572069fb8ccf21c56e06a2c2f.

Full text

          Case 1:23-cr-10299-FDS Document 79 Filed 08/26/24 Page 1 of 2




                            UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                             DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

_______________________________________
                                       )
UNITED STATES of AMERICA               )
                                       )                     Criminal No.
      v.                               )                     23-10299-FDS
                                       )
DEAN A. TRAN,                          )
                                       )
            Defendant.                 )
_______________________________________)

         MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION
  TO QUASH INDICTMENT BASED ON EITHER/OR MISLED [SIC] GRAND JURY
                    OR PERJURED TESTIMONY


SAYLOR, C.J.

       This is a criminal case arising from alleged wire fraud and filing of false tax returns.

According to the indictment, defendant Dean A. Tran submitted fraudulent claims for Pandemic

Unemployment Assistance (“PUA”) while working and receiving income as a consultant. The

indictment also alleges that he willfully underreported his income on federal tax returns for the

years 2020, 2021, and 2022.

       Defendant has moved to quash the indictment on the ground that a special agent of the

United States Department of Labor – Office of the Inspector General either misled, or gave

perjured testimony to, the grand jury. In substance, he contends that the agent falsely testified

that defendant was ineligible to receive PUA benefits because he was working full-time, when in

fact (1) defendant was working as a consultant, not a full-time employee, and (2) under some

circumstances, individuals can earn income and receive PUA benefits.

       Considered in the context of his other testimony, the testimony of the agent was not

materially misleading and certainly does not constitute perjury. While it perhaps might have
          Case 1:23-cr-10299-FDS Document 79 Filed 08/26/24 Page 2 of 2




been somewhat more precise in certain spots, that is hardly grounds for quashing the indictment.

See Bank of Nova Scotia v. United States, 487 U.S. 250, 256-57 (1988) (stating that “dismissal of

an indictment is appropriate only ‘if it is established that the violation substantially influenced

the grand jury’s decision to indict,’ or if there is ‘grave doubt’ that the decision to indict was free

from the substantial influence of such violations”) (internal citations omitted).

       For the foregoing reasons, defendant’s motion to quash the indictment is DENIED.

So Ordered.


                                                   /s/ F. Dennis Saylor IV
                                                   F. Dennis Saylor IV
Dated: August 26, 2024                             Chief Judge, United States District Court




                                                   2

File and source

File
79.pdf
Size
129,519 bytes
SHA-256
56b87aec51909b056bf55e2cb0bcbd968475b66572069fb8ccf21c56e06a2c2f
Our copy
79.pdf
Original
No public link identified.
Back to top