Motion for Order of Forfeiture — United States of America v. Alexander Alli, M.D. Fla. (Document 136)

Summary

The United States' motion for an order of forfeiture, filed April 24, 2024 as Document 136 in United States v. Alexander Alli, Case No. 8:23-cr-24-CEH-SPF, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division. It asks the court under 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 of $82,400. The motion states the jury found the defendant guilty on Counts One through Three of the Superseding Indictment and that trial evidence showed the defendant's business was not operational when the EIDL application was submitted. It states the defendant received a $2,000 advance on May 1, 2020 and an $80,400 EIDL payment on July 20, 2020, and seeks substitute assets because the proceeds were dissipated. It is signed by Assistant United States Attorney Suzanne C. Nebesky.

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

Case 8:23-cr-00024-CEH-SPF       Document 136      Filed 04/24/24   Page 1 of 5 PageID 1020




                         UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                          MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
                                TAMPA DIVISION

   UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

   v.                                          Case No. 8:23-cr-24-CEH-SPF

   ALEXANDER ALLI

                             UNITED STATES’ MOTION
                            FOR ORDER OF FORFEITURE

        The United States moves this Court, pursuant 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 $82,400. In support, the United States

  submits the following memorandum of law.

                               MEMORANDUM OF LAW

  I.    Statement of Facts

        A.     Allegations Against the Defendant

        1.     The defendant was charged in a Superseding Indictment with a wire

  conspiracy, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1349 (Count One), and a wire fraud scheme,

  in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1343 and 2 (Counts Two and Three). Doc. 46.

        2.     The Superseding Indictment also 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 seek to forfeit the $80,400 the defendant

  obtained as a result of the offense. Id. at 6.
Case 8:23-cr-00024-CEH-SPF       Document 136       Filed 04/24/24    Page 2 of 5 PageID 1021




         B.     Finding of Guilt

         3.     A jury trial commenced, and at the conclusion of the trial, the jury

  found the defendant guilty on Counts One through Three, and the Court adjudicated

  him guilty. Docs. 126, 132.

  II.    Applicable Law

         The United States is entitled to an order of forfeiture against the defendant,

  pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(C). The United States may civilly forfeit,

  pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(C), any property, real or personal, which

  constitutes or is derived from proceeds of any "specified unlawful activity," as

  defined in 18 U.S.C. § 1956(c)(7), or a conspiracy to commit such offense. A

  “specified unlawful activity” includes any offense listed in section 1961(1), which, in

  turn, includes any violation of section 1343 (wire fraud) or a conspiracy (1349).

  Because the United States is entitled to civilly forfeit proceeds of such offenses, it

  may criminally forfeit the proceeds, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2461(c), which

  authorizes the criminal forfeiture of any property that can be forfeited civilly, using

  the procedures set forth in 21 U.S.C. § 853.

         For cases in which a defendant no longer has the actual dollars or property

  traceable to proceeds in his 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, where the government seeks an order of forfeiture, the


                                              2
Case 8:23-cr-00024-CEH-SPF      Document 136      Filed 04/24/24   Page 3 of 5 PageID 1022




  Court must determine the amount of money that the defendant will be ordered to

  pay.

         As was established at trial, the defendant submitted a fraudulent Economic

  Injury Disaster Loan (EIDL) application to the Small Business Administration

  (SBA). In his application, the defendant falsely represented that he had a business

  suffering injury due to the effects of the Covid-19 pandemic and that the EIDL funds

  would be used only for business-related purposes, as specified in the loan agreement.

  However, as Special Agent James Pierre testified, and the government’s exhibits

  showed (Gov. Exs. 10A and 10C) the defendant’s business was no longer operational

  at the time his EIDL application was submitted and had ceased operations and

  closed its bank account prior to the start of the pandemic. Additionally, while the

  defendant certified on the loan agreement that the EIDL funds would be used for his

  business, the evidence showed he spent the funds fraudulently. As SBA

  Representative Michael Burchfiel and FBI Forensic Accountant Gianine Lorie

  testified, and as the defendant’s bank records confirmed (Gov. Exs. 13B and 13D),

  the defendant received a total of $82,400 in EIDL funds (a $2,000 advance on May 1,

  2020, and an $80,400 EIDL payment on July 20, 2020) as a result of the fraud. In a

  recorded interview, defendant admitted that he obtained the EIDL funds into his

  personal bank account and that he intended to use the funds to start a new

  “trucking” business. Based on these facts, and others, the jury convicted the

  defendant of a (1) wire fraud conspiracy, and (2) wire fraud scheme; therefore, the


                                             3
Case 8:23-cr-00024-CEH-SPF       Document 136      Filed 04/24/24   Page 4 of 5 PageID 1023




  United States is entitled to an order of forfeiture against the defendant in the amount

  of $82,400, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(C) and 28 U.S.C. § 2461(c).

  III.   Conclusion

         For the reasons stated above, the United States requests that, pursuant to 18

  U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(C), 28 U.S.C. § 2461(c), and Rule 32.2(b)(2), the Court enter an

  order of forfeiture against the defendant in the amount of $82,400, for which he will

  be held liable.

         The United States further requests that, because the $82,400 in proceeds was

  dissipated by the defendant, the United States may seek, as a substitute asset,

  pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 853(p), as incorporated by 28 U.S.C. § 2461(c), forfeiture of

  any of the defendant’s property up to the value of $82,400.

         The United States further requests that order of forfeiture become final as to

  the defendant at sentencing.

         As required by Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 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).

         The United States further requests that the Court retain jurisdiction to address

  any third-party claim that may be asserted in these proceedings, to enter any further

  order necessary for the forfeiture and disposition of such property, and to order any




                                             4
Case 8:23-cr-00024-CEH-SPF       Document 136      Filed 04/24/24     Page 5 of 5 PageID 1024




  substitute assets forfeited to the United States up to the amount of the order of

  forfeiture.

                                            Respectfully submitted,

                                            ROGER B. HANDBERG
                                            United States Attorney



                                     By:    s/Suzanne C. Nebesky
                                            SUZANNE C. NEBESKY
                                            Assistant United States Attorney
                                            Fla. Bar No. 59377
                                            400 N. Tampa Street, Suite 3200
                                            Tampa, Florida 33602
                                            Tel:   (813) 274-6000
                                            E-mail: suzanne.nebesky@usdoj.gov




                              CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

         I hereby certify that on April 24, 2024, I electronically filed the foregoing with

  the Clerk of the Court by using the CM/ECF system which will send a notice of

  electronic filing to counsel of record.

                                            s/Suzanne C. Nebesky
                                            SUZANNE C. NEBESKY
                                            Assistant United States Attorney




                                              5


File and source

File

136-motion-for-order-of-forfeiture-by-usa-as-to-alexander-alli.pdf

Size

91,130 bytes

SHA-256

5722f705e89c830c70454c052d1e019244e1ebda3231436c3f582aa702dda251

Our copy

136-motion-for-order-of-forfeiture-by-usa-as-to-alexander-alli.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)