Motion for Order of Forfeiture by USA — USA v. Simmerer et al (Dkt. 272, M.D. Fla.)
Summary
United States' Motion for an Order of Forfeiture against defendant Seth Downes in United States of America v. Seth Downes, Case No. 6:24-cr-53-RBD-RMN (Document 272), Middle District of Florida, Orlando Division, filed February 23, 2026. The motion asks the court to order forfeiture of $194,000, described as proceeds from the conspiracy offense charged in Count One of the Superseding Indictment. It states that a jury found the defendant guilty on Counts One and Three, and that the United States introduced evidence that on or about July 2, 2020, the defendant and a co-conspirator obtained $194,000 from a false and fraudulent PPP loan application. A footnote states that the United States will not collect more than $344,300 from all defendants. The signature line reads s/Nicole M. Andrejko.
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 Order of Forfeiture by USA — USA v. Simmerer et al (Dkt. 272, M.D. Fla.).”
Original at ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov. Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/source-documents/motion-for-order-of-forfeiture-by-usa-usa-v-simmerer-et-al-dkt-272-m-d-069d91e5b8/
, SHA-256 74009c8b8bde2bf29f30c10905becf590dcc6cd2e7d919301d0e66127729064b.Full text
Case 6:24-cr-00053-RBD-RMN Document 272 Filed 02/23/26 Page 1 of 5 PageID 3180
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
ORLANDO DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v. Case No. 6:24-cr-53-RBD-RMN
SETH DOWNES
UNITED STATES’ MOTION
FOR AN ORDER OF FORFEITURE
The United States moves this Court, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(C), 28
U.S.C. § 2461(c), and Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.2(b)(2), to enter an order of forfeiture
against the defendant in the amount of $194,000, representing the amount of
proceeds the defendant obtained as a result of the conspiracy offense for which he is
charged in Count One of the Superseding Indictment. In support thereof, the United
States submits the following.
MEMORANDUM OF LAW
I. Statement of Facts
A. Allegations Against the Defendant
1. In pertinent part, the defendant was charged in a Superseding
Indictment with conspiracy to commit wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1349
(Count One). Doc. 115.
2. The Superseding Indictment contained forfeiture allegations putting the
defendant on notice that, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(C) and 28 U.S.C. §
2461(c), the United States would forfeit any property constituting, or derived from
Case 6:24-cr-00053-RBD-RMN Document 272 Filed 02/23/26 Page 2 of 5 PageID 3181
proceeds the defendant obtained, directly or indirectly, as a result of such conspiracy.
Id. at 14-15.
B. Findings of Guilt and Admissions Related to Forfeiture
3. A jury trial commenced, and at the conclusion of the trial, the jury
found the defendant guilty on Counts One and Three of the Superseding Indictment.
Docs. 237.
C. Relevant Facts Established at Trial
4. At trial, the United States introduced evidence that established that on
or about July 2, 2020, the defendant and his co-conspirator committed wire fraud
when they obtained $194,000 from a false and fraudulent PPP loan application,
which was deposited into a bank account controlled by the defendant and his co-
conspirator. See Government’s Trial Exhibits 3c, 3d, 7a, 7c, and Docs. 115 & 237.
II. Applicable Law
A. Forfeiture Statute
The Court's authority to order forfeiture of property for a wire fraud
conspiracy, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1349, is found in 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(C),
which provides for the civil forfeiture of any property, real or personal, which
constitutes or is derived from proceeds from any offense constituting "specified
unlawful activity," or a conspiracy to commit such offense. The term “specified
unlawful activity” includes offenses listed in 18 U.S.C. § 1961(1). 18 U.S.C. §
1956(c)(7)(A). Specifically, 18 U.S.C. § 1961(1)(B) includes as an offense any act
2
Case 6:24-cr-00053-RBD-RMN Document 272 Filed 02/23/26 Page 3 of 5 PageID 3182
which is indictable under 18 U.S.C. § 1343. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2461(c), the
United States is authorized to forfeit this property criminally utilizing the procedures
set forth in 21 U.S.C. § 853.
B. Court’s Determination of Forfeiture
Pursuant to Rule 32.2(b)(2), because the United States could not locate the
specific property constituting or derived from the proceeds the defendant obtained
from his wire fraud offenses, defendant’s the United States seeks an order of forfeiture
against the defendant in the amount of proceeds obtained from his offenses. Indeed,
for cases in which a defendant no longer has the actual dollars or property traceable to
proceeds in his/her possession, or the government cannot locate those assets, the
obligation to forfeit simply takes the form of an order of forfeiture in favor of the
United States. See United States v. Padron, 527 F.3d 1156, 1161-62 (11th Cir. 2008).
Rule 32.2(b)(1) provides that the court must determine the amount of money
that the defendants will be ordered to pay. The Rule requires this be done as soon as
practical after a verdict or finding of guilty, or after a plea of guilty is accepted. Fed. R.
Crim. P. 32.2(b)(1)(A).
The Court’s determination may be based on evidence already in the record, or
any additional evidence submitted by the parties and accepted by the Court as relevant
and reliable. Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.2(b)(1)(B). From the testimony and exhibits
presented at trial, the United States established that the defendant obtained $194,000
from his participation in the wire fraud conspiracy. If the Court finds that the
3
Case 6:24-cr-00053-RBD-RMN Document 272 Filed 02/23/26 Page 4 of 5 PageID 3183
defendant obtained at least $194,000 as a result of his participation in the wire fraud
conspiracy and that the defendant has dissipated those proceeds, see Defendant’s
Presentence Investigation Report, Doc. 259 at ¶¶76-78 and Government’s Trial
Exhibit 30b, then it is appropriate for the Court to enter an order of forfeiture against
the defendant in that amount pursuant to Rule 32.2(b)(2).
III. Conclusion
For the reasons stated above, the United States requests that the Court,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(C), 28 U.S.C. § 2461(c), and Fed. R. Crim. P.
32.2(b)(2), enter an Order of Forfeiture against the defendant in the amount of
$194,000. Any funds forfeited from Shawn Simmerer will not be applied to the
defendant’s Order of Forfeiture until Shawn Simmerer’s Order of Forfeiture balance
is $194,000. 1
As required by Rule 32.2(b)(4)(B), the United States requests that the Court
include the forfeiture when orally pronouncing the sentence and, in the judgment.
See Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.2(b)(4)(B) and United States v. Kennedy, 201 F.3d 1324, 1326
(11th Cir. 2000).
1
The United States will not collect more than $344,300 from all defendants.
4
Case 6:24-cr-00053-RBD-RMN Document 272 Filed 02/23/26 Page 5 of 5 PageID 3184
The United States further requests that the Court retain jurisdiction to enter
any further order necessary for the forfeiture and disposition of such property.
Respectfully Submitted,
GREGORY W. KEHOE
United States Attorney
By: s/Nicole M. Andrejko_____________
NICOLE M. ANDREJKO
Assistant United States Attorney
Florida Bar No. 0820601
400 West Washington Street, Suite 3100
Orlando, Florida 32801
Telephone: (407) 648-7560
Facsimile: (407) 648-7643
E-Mail: Nicole.Andrejko@usdoj.gov
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on February 23, 2026, I electronically filed the foregoing
with the Clerk of the Court by using the CM/ECF system that will send a notice of
electronic filing to counsel of record.
s/Nicole M. Andrejko___________
NICOLE M. ANDREJKO
Assistant United States Attorney
5
File and source
- File
- 272-motion-for-order-of-forfeiture-by-usa.pdf
- Size
- 111,048 bytes
- SHA-256
- 74009c8b8bde2bf29f30c10905becf590dcc6cd2e7d919301d0e66127729064b
- Original
- PACER (login required)