Motion for Modification of Post-Indictment Asset Seizure — No. 5:25-cr-20543 (Dkt. 23, E.D. Mich.)

Summary

A Motion for Modification of Post-Indictment Asset Seizure, ECF No. 23 filed September 30, 2025 in the Eastern District of Michigan (Case 5:25-cr-20543-JEL-KGA), United States v. Cemhan Biricik and Dr. Martin Perlin, filed by defense counsel Jeffrey Chabrowe. The July 22, 2025 indictment charges conspiracy to commit health care fraud and fifty-eight counts of health care fraud involving a Covid testing laboratory, FastLab, and alleges more than $50 million in illicit proceeds. The motion lists the assets seized under a July 29, 2025 sealed order, including an aircraft, vehicles and bank accounts, put at $6,483,781.31 plus a residence valued at $4,725,000, for a total of $11,208,781.31. It asks for family living expenses, defense costs and release of a car, and alternatively a probable cause hearing.

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

“Motion for Modification of Post-Indictment Asset Seizure — No. 5:25-cr-20543 (Dkt. 23, E.D. Mich.).” Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/source-documents/motion-for-modification-of-post-indictment-asset-seizure-no-5-25-cr-20-6e36ffce1a/, SHA-256 f9862a3834c8206bd956f55d9e5d3772066a920943c3db087b916d02295e8cc0.

Full text

Case 5:25-cr-20543-JEL-KGA ECF No. 23, PageID.221 Filed 09/30/25 Page 1 of 9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
_________________________________
)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )
)
v. ) Case 5:25-cr-20543
)
Cemhan “Jimmy” Biricik, )
Dr. Martin Perlin, )
)
Defendants. )
_________________________________ )

MOTION FOR MODIFICATION OF POST-INDICTMENT
ASSET SEIZURE

Defendant Cemhan Biricik (“Mr. Biricik”), by counsel, respectfully requests this Court modify

the post-indictment seizure of assets related to this criminal case. In support of this motion,

Defendant states as follows:

1. On July 22, 2025, Mr. Biricik and Codefendant Martin Perlin, M.D. were indicted in the

Eastern District of Michigan on one count of Conspiracy to Commit Health Care Fraud under 18

U.S.C. § 1349, and fifty-eight (58) counts of individual acts of health care fraud under 18 U.S.C.

§ 1347. The indictment included a forfeiture count under 18 U.S.C. §§ 981(a)(1)(C), 982(a) and

28 U.S.C. § 2461, claiming all gross proceeds it alleges traceable to the alleged offenses.

2. The substance of the Indictment centers on Mr. Biricik’s ownership and operation of a

laboratory – FastLab – that provided Covid tests to the general public, both antigen (i.e., point-

of-care) and PCR tests. FastLab submitted claims to Medicare and other insurance companies for

reimbursement. The government alleges he and his codefendant did so from September 2021 to

July 2025 without meeting what were concededly fast-changing Covid-based Medicare
Case 5:25-cr-20543-JEL-KGA ECF No. 23, PageID.222 Filed 09/30/25 Page 2 of 9

regulations. The government contends Mr. Biricik and his codefendant thus accrued more than

$50 million in illicit proceeds.

3. In Case 2:25-mc-50997, on July 29, 2025, the Eastern District of Michigan ordered,

under seal, seizure of much of Mr. Biricik’s real and personal property and financial assets. The

government reports it has seized the following of Mr. Biricik’s assets under forfeiture authority:
Asset Type Asset Description Estimated Balance (if applicable)
Aircraft 2025 Cirrus SR22T approx. $1.3 million
Vehicle 2023 Lamborghini Urus approx. $175,000
Financial Instrument All Funds on Deposit in Morgan Stanley Account #XXX-XX1145 $4,497,385.71
Vehicle 2023 Bentley Bentayga approx. $150,000
Vehicle 2022 Ford Bronco Raptor approx. $60,000
Financial Instrument All Funds on Deposit in Morgan Stanley Account #XXX-XX1585 $10,000.00
Financial Instrument All Funds on Deposit in Morgan Stanley Account #XXX-XX1785 $79,965.72
Vehicle 2024 BMW M4 approx. $70,000
Vehicle 2023 Rivian R1T approx. $50,000
Financial Instrument All Funds on Deposit in Bank of America Account #XXXXXXXX0411 $3,834.12
Financial Instrument All Funds on Deposit in JP Morgan Chase Bank Account #XXXXX1005 $1,460.92
Financial Instrument All Funds on Deposit in JP Morgan Chase Bank Account #XXXXX3500 $2,129.66
Financial Instrument All Funds on Deposit in JP Morgan Chase Bank Account #XXXXX2609 $11,145.39
Financial Instrument All Funds on Deposit in Truist Bank Account #XXXXXXXXX1794 $17,951.82
Financial Instrument All Funds on Deposit in Truist Bank Account #XXXXXXXXX1808 $4,401.66
Financial Instrument All Funds on Deposit in Truist Bank Account #XXXXXXXXX1816 $1,009.82
Financial Instrument All Funds on Deposit in Truist Bank Account #XXXXXXXXX1798 $17,177.48
Financial Instrument All Funds on Deposit in Sun Trust Bank Account #XXXXXXXXX2295 $29,638.88
Financial Instrument All Funds on Deposit in Social Financial Bank Account #XXXXXXXX7728 $2,680.13

The total value of the seized assets is approximately $6,483,781.31. (The purchase of the

automobiles was higher than the current fair market value.) The government has also recorded a

lis pendens on his residence at 9623 Macchiato Avenue, Boca Raton, Florida. That residence has

a market value of $4,725,000. The total asset seizure is thus $11,208,781.31. The 2024 BMW

M4 is owned by Mr. Biricik’s wife; she has title to the car. She has no other means of

transportation. She is currently borrowing a car, but it will soon be unavailable to her.

4. Mr. Biricik seeks modification of the seizure order to allow for reasonable family living

expenses and for his defense costs. He asks that the 2024 BMW be released to his wife.

2
Case 5:25-cr-20543-JEL-KGA ECF No. 23, PageID.223 Filed 09/30/25 Page 3 of 9

5. Mr. Biricik is 46 years old. He was born in Türkiye and is a U.S. citizen. He came to the

United States in 1983. His family worked in design and operated a wholesale and retail clothing

business and export company. From his youth, Mr. Biricik was exposed to imagery as an

expression of culture. Design and imagery have always fascinated him. He attended college and

studied Information Technology. He was a young and devoted father to his first child during

these years. Mr. Biricik married Isabel Biricik in 2001. He and Mrs. Biricik have two children

together. He is a nurturing and supportive father to all three of his children. He was deeply

involved in their childhood lives, active in their schools, and in their community and social

activities.

6. Initially, Mr. Biricik worked in the tech field. He started his own computer company at

age 21. It had a national market, selling computers and computer parts across the U.S. It sold

high-performing computer systems to various entities, including Hoffman Laroche and Pixar

employees. Mr. Biricik was a trading partner for intel and received Intel confidential CPUs.

He was the CEO and buyer for various New York and New Jersey luxury retail boutiques, such

as a luxury retail store in SoHo. His clientele included high-end companies such as Aquafina, the

St. Regis Hotel, the W Hotel, Fontainebleau hotels, the Waldorf Astoria, SLS hotels, and the

Glashutte company.

7. In 2011, Mr. Biricik experienced a serious accident and suffered a severe concussion. He

experienced months of memory loss and speech difficulties. This led him to relocate with his

family to Florida to recuperate. Mr. Biricik renewed his interest in images and photography. He

decided to pursue photography professionally and started a photography and video production

business. He has had significant success in this field, winning many awards. He shot

photography for Vogue, the Waldorf Astoria, the Ritz, the W Hotel and the Miami Dolphins.

3
Case 5:25-cr-20543-JEL-KGA ECF No. 23, PageID.224 Filed 09/30/25 Page 4 of 9

8. Mr. Biricik has always been deeply committed to caring for his family members. His

three children are completing college and starting their adult lives but still depend on him for

support. Mr. Biricik’s mother worked as a high school teacher, department chair, and curriculum

writer in the world languages. She spoke four languages and worked for the United Nations. She

was employed by the Jersey City Board of Education and is now retired. Mr. Biricik provides her

assistance. Mr. Biricik’s mother-in law was diagnosed with Parkinson’s Disease last year and he

also provides her with financial support. Mr. Biricik has one aunt who is hospitalized with a

terminal illness. Mr. Biricik provides her with support as well.

9. Currently, all of Mr. Biricik’s assets, including his bank accounts, have been seized. Mr.

Biricik has absolutely no funds available to support his wife and family members, nor to provide

for his legal defense.

10. FastLab has ceased operations, but it retains a brick-and-mortar presence. There are

senior level management employees and computer technicians who have access to data regarding

FastLab operations during the period of the ostensible offense conduct. Mr. Biricik requires this

data in order to defend the Indictment. He must pay these employees their back wages in order to

obtain the information, but he is unable to do so as all his assets are frozen. Six employees are

owed approximately $11,083. He cannot obtain the business operational data he needs without

making this back wage payment.

11. Mr. Biricik estimates the following family expenses: annually, he owes $64,000 in

property taxes, $27,000 in home and flood insurance, and $15,000 in HOA fees. The tuition and

housing costs for his three children cost Mr. Biricik about $106,000 yearly. This totals $212,000

a year, averaging $17,666 monthly. His regular monthly expenses include about $2,000 monthly

in utilities and ground maintenance, $1500 monthly for phone and internet, monthly food

4
Case 5:25-cr-20543-JEL-KGA ECF No. 23, PageID.225 Filed 09/30/25 Page 5 of 9

expenses of about $4000 (the family has special medical diet needs), $2500 monthly for health

insurance, $2400 for auto, and about $1500 monthly in medical bills, or $13,900 a month. Thus,

his average monthly expenses total approximately $31,566 a month. Mr. Biricik has significant

legal fees exceeding $300,000.

12. Health care fraud convictions carry with them mandatory forfeiture of property “derived,

directly or indirectly, from gross proceeds traceable to the commission of the offense. 18 U.S.C.

§ 982 (a)(7).” Forfeiture is governed by the provisions of 21 U.S.C. § 853. Id., § 982(b)(1).

Section 853(e)(1)(A) authorizes a court to issue a restraining order to preserve the availability of

criminally derived property after an indictment has issued but before conviction. 21 U.S.C. §

853. A court may issue a warrant authorizing seizure where “there is probable cause to believe

that the property to be seized would, in the event of conviction, be subject to forfeiture and that

an order under subsection (e) may not be sufficient to assure the availability of the property for

forfeiture, the court shall issue a warrant authorizing the seizure of such property.” 21 U.S.C. §

853(f). For the forfeiture statute to apply, the property needs to be tainted, meaning that it flows

from the crime. Honeycutt v. United States, 581 US 443, 448 (2017). Forfeiture is limited to

property that the defendant actually acquired from the offense. Id. See United States v Sexton,

894 F3d 787, 798 (6th Cir 2018).

13. There is no automatic exemption from § 853's forfeiture or pretrial restraining order

provisions for assets which a defendant wishes to use to retain an attorney. United States v.

Monsanto, 491 U.S. 600, 614 (1989). However, a defendant "may be entitled to a hearing

concerning the restraint of the subject properties to avoid an erroneous deprivation at a

meaningful time." United States v Jamieson, 427 F3d 394, 405-406 (6th Cir 2005), citing United

States v. Jones, 160 F.3d 641 (10th Cir. 1998). Such a hearing may be necessary to satisfy due

5
Case 5:25-cr-20543-JEL-KGA ECF No. 23, PageID.226 Filed 09/30/25 Page 6 of 9

process. United States v Kahn, 890 F3d 937, 940 (10th Cir 2018). The issue is whether the

unseized assets are adequate to provide "for reasonable legal and living expenses." Id. at 649. If

not, a hearing is justified upon a prima facie showing that seized assets are not traceable to the

charged offense. United States v Kahn, 890 F3d 937, 941 (10th Cir 2018). Untainted funds must

be made available, including for legal fees. See Luis v United States, 578 U.S. 5, 17 (2016).

Courts have allowed payments from seized funds to cover a defendant’s living expenses,

including family member educational costs. See, e.g., United States v Petters, 2011 US Dist

LEXIS 13357, at *6 (D Minn Feb. 10, 2011, No. 08-5348 ADM/JSM). Financial need is relevant

to the issue whether a hearing is required. United States v Prejean, 2005 US Dist LEXIS 36511,

at *7 (ED La Oct. 19, 2005). Availability of alternative assets to cover living expenses is also

relevant to the court’s analysis. Cf. SEC v Dobbins, 2004 US Dist LEXIS 6362, at *8 (ND Tex

Apr. 14, 2004, No. 3: 04-CV-0605-H).

14. Mr. Biricik asserts the government’s allegations in this case fall short of probable cause to

support forfeiture. Probable cause is an "objective standard requiring an analysis of the totality of

the circumstances." United States v. Jackson, 415 F.3d 88, 91, 367 U.S. App. D.C. 320

(D.C.Cir.2005) (citing authorities).

15. Here, the government claims over $50 million in loss from allegedly false Medicare and

other insurance claims. The Indictment alleges fifty-eight (58) specific incidents of unlawful

claims (Counts Two through Fifty-Nine), submitted under a variety of CPT codes, that range

from $75 to $325 billed amount per claim The actual reimbursement for these 58 claims (the

amount FastLab received) totals $4,497.88. The average amount paid for each claim is thus

$77.55. The government does not allege any process by which it extrapolates from fifty—eight

instances of alleged false claims, averaging $61.42, to the many hundreds of thousands of false

6
Case 5:25-cr-20543-JEL-KGA ECF No. 23, PageID.227 Filed 09/30/25 Page 7 of 9

claims necessary to establish $50 million in loss. This calculation is facially specious. It does not

support probable cause.

16. There are other apparent deficiencies in the government’s case. The government itself

notes that Covid test insurance coverage rules changed dramatically over the course of the

pandemic. There were periods of time a provider order was required; then period of times when

it was not, or at least not required for an initial Covid test. There were periods of time test

coverage required showing the test was necessary for management of a specific medical

problem. Coverage then expanded to include over-the-counter antigen tests. After the Covid

public health emergency ended in May 2023, over-the-counter tests were no longer covered.

Only tests ordered by a doctor and conducted in an office or pharmacy were covered.

17. The government alleges Mr. Biricik and his codefendant submitted claims for point-of-

care tests when their company was not observing the test, and PCR tests when it was not

collecting and testing samples. It also alleges Mr. Biricik and his codefendant submitted claims

for repeat tests not conducted at all. But it provides no estimate at all about the number of claims

that were for point-of-care instead of PCR tests (none were for over-the-counter tests), PCR tests

without laboratory analysis or those which did receive analysis (FastLab operated an ongoing

laboratory). It provides no estimate of claims that were follow-up tests. Instead, the government

asks for an assumption that literally all claims submitted by FastLab were false.

18. This assumption is facially unsupportable. Given the complexity of the claim procedure

and Medicare regulations, it is particularly important for Mr. Biricik to have access to sufficient

assets to pay the operational business costs necessary to obtain data critical to his defense.

19. Nor has the government shown there is no other source for the assets it seized. Mr.

Biricik had an established career in photography and videography over many years. He received

7
Case 5:25-cr-20543-JEL-KGA ECF No. 23, PageID.228 Filed 09/30/25 Page 8 of 9

nearly a dozen honors and awards. The courts have held the term "proceeds" as it is used

throughout § 982 establishes a "but for" factual test to determine what are considered forfeitable

assets under the statute. Consistent with forfeiture's fundamental objectives of disgorgement and

deterrence, if a defendant would not have derived certain funds or property but for committing

the criminal offense, the funds or property are forfeited. United States v. Porcelli, 865 F.2d 1352,

1365 (2nd Cir. 1989); United States v. Grant, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 73479, 2008 WL 4376365,

*2 n.1 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 25, 2008) ("Proceeds are property that a person would not have had but

for the criminal offense"). Here, there is ample evidence Mr. Biricik had the opportunity to have

obtained a portion of the seized assets wholly independently of the alleged offense conduct.

20. The government bears the burden to show probable cause of the commission of the

offense and that the seized assets flow from the offense. United States v. Bikundi, 125 F. Supp. 3d

178, 190 (D.D.C. 2015), cited in United States v Kazkaz, 2023 US Dist LEXIS 111532, at *16-17

(ED Mich June 28, 2023, No. 23-20022). The allegations of the offense do not provide that

probable cause.

21. Accordingly, Mr. Biricik requests the seizure of his assets be lifted, or alternatively, a

probable cause hearing on that seizure be ordered.

Dated: September 30, 2025 Respectfully submitted,
New York, NY

JEFFREY CHABROWE, ESQ.
LAW OFFICES OF JEFFREY CHABROWE
521 Fifth Avenue, 17th Floor
New York, NY 10175
(917) 529-3921
jeff@chabrowe.com

cc: Regina R. McCullough, Esq.

8
Case 5:25-cr-20543-JEL-KGA ECF No. 23, PageID.229 Filed 09/30/25 Page 9 of 9

regina.mccullough@usdoj.gov
Kenton Craig Welkener, Jr.
kenton.welkener@usdoj.gov

File and source

File: 23.pdf
Size: 245,247 bytes
SHA-256: f9862a3834c8206bd956f55d9e5d3772066a920943c3db087b916d02295e8cc0
Our copy: 23.pdf
Original: No public link identified.