Full text
CASE 0:22-cr-00223-NEB-DTS Doc. 796 Filed 02/13/26 Page 1 of 14
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Case No. 22-cr-223 (NEB/DTS)
Plaintiff,
MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY
v. ORDER OF FORFEITURE
3. SALIM AHMED SAID,
Defendant.
The United States of America, through Daniel N. Rosen, United States
Attorney for the District of Minnesota, and Craig R. Baune, Assistant United States
Attorney, respectfully moves this Court for a Preliminary Order of Forfeiture that
includes: (1) directly traceable assets set forth below; (2) a $7,837,656.60 money
judgment forfeiture pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(c), 28 U.S.C. § 2461(c) and Fed.
R. Crim. P. 32.2; (3) a General Order of Forfeiture pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P.
32.2(b)(2)(C); and (4) an order authorizing discovery to locate assets subject to
forfeiture.
BACKGROUND
On September 13, 2022, a Grand Jury in the District of Minnesota returned an
Indictment against Defendant Salim Ahmed Said and others. ECF No. 1 (“the
Indictment”). The Indictment contained Forfeiture Allegations providing notice that
pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 981(a)(1)(C) and Title 28, United
States Code, Section 2461(c), the United States sought forfeiture upon conviction of
any of Counts 1 through 40 of any property, real or personal, constituting or derived
CASE 0:22-cr-00223-NEB-DTS Doc. 796 Filed 02/13/26 Page 2 of 14
from proceeds traceable to any such violation. The Indictment also contained
Forfeiture Allegations providing notice that, pursuant to Title 18, United States Code,
Section 982(a)(1), the United States sought forfeiture upon conviction of any of Counts
41 through 61 of any property, real or personal, involved in a transaction or attempted
transaction in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1956 and 1957, and any property traceable to
such property. Id.
On March 19, 2025, following a lengthy trial, a jury found Said guilty of one
count of Conspiracy to Commit Wire Fraud (Count 1), four counts of Wire Fraud
(Counts 2, 5, 8, and 12), one Count of Conspiracy to Commit Federal Programs
Bribery (Count 15), nine counts of Federal Programs Bribery (Counts 16-19, 32, 34,
and 36-38), one count of Conspiracy to Commit Money Laundering (Count 41), and
five counts of Section 1957 Money Laundering (Counts 42, 44, 51, 52, and 57). ECF
No. 582.
The wire fraud conspiracy count concerned a massive fraud scheme through
which defendants conspired to, among other things, defraud the government through
the submission of claims that falsely asserted they were entitled to reimbursement for
meals they purported to have served to needy children. The money laundering
conspiracy concerned the laundering of those proceeds among and between co-
conspirators. The defendants, among other things, transferred the proceeds of the wire
fraud conspiracy between their respective companies, including sham entities, to hide
the source, nature and ownership of those funds. This included, for example, creating
invoices for alleged “consulting” services and the exchange of false invoices to create
2
CASE 0:22-cr-00223-NEB-DTS Doc. 796 Filed 02/13/26 Page 3 of 14
purportedly legitimate explanations for transfers of large sums of fraud proceeds
between various defendants and their bank accounts. The conspirators also used shell
companies to buy real estate, vehicles, personal property and expensive travel, among
other things, as proven at trial. See Declaration of Pauline Roase (“Roase Dec.”).
Said was a co-owner of Cosmopolitan Business Solutions, d.b.a. Safari
Restaurant (“Cosmopolitan Solutions”), along with Abdirahman Ahmed and
Abdulkadir Salah. Safari Restaurant was a small storefront restaurant and these
individuals enrolled Cosmopolitan Solutions in the Federal Child Nutrition Program
(“FCNP”), which they falsely invoiced for millions of dollars based upon claims that
the restaurant was serving meals to thousands of children every day. Roase Dec. ¶ 7.
In addition, Cosmopolitan Solutions acted as vendor purporting to deliver food to be
served at other FCNP sites. Id. Based on Said’s fraudulent claims, Cosmopolitan
Solutions and its owners received more than $47 million in Federal Child Nutrition
Program funds to which they were not entitled. Id. ¶ 6.
Through this motion, the United States seeks an order forfeiting certain property
seized from Said, imposing a money judgment forfeiture, authorizing discovery to
locate assets that could be forfeited from him, and allowing forfeiture of any
subsequently-discovered forfeitable assets.
3
CASE 0:22-cr-00223-NEB-DTS Doc. 796 Filed 02/13/26 Page 4 of 14
ARGUMENT
I. A PRELIMINARY ORDER OF FORFEITURE SHOULD BE ENTERED.
A. Legal Standard
The United States seeks a Preliminary Order of Forfeiture pursuant to Rule 32.2
of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. Rule 32.2(b) provides:
(b) Entering a Preliminary Order of Forfeiture.
(1) Forfeiture Phase of the Trial.
(A) Forfeiture Determinations. As soon as practical after a
verdict of finding of guilty . . ., on any count in an indictment
or information regarding which criminal forfeiture is sought,
the court must determine what property is subject to forfeiture
under the applicable statute. If the government seeks forfeiture
of specific property, the court must determine whether the
government has established the requisite nexus between the
property and the offense.. . .
(B) Evidence and Hearing. The court’s determination may be
based on evidence already in the record, including any written
plea agreement, and on any additional evidence or information
submitted by the parties and accepted by the court as relevant
and reliable. If the forfeiture is contested, on either party’s
request the court must conduct a hearing after the verdict or
finding of guilty.
(2) Preliminary Order.
(A) Contents of a Specific Order. If the court finds that property
is subject to forfeiture, it must promptly enter a preliminary
order of forfeiture . . . directing the forfeiture of specific
property, and directing the forfeiture of any substitute property
if the government has met the statutory criteria. The court must
enter the order without regard to any third party’s interest in
the property. Determining whether a third party has such an
interest must be deferred until any third party files a claim in
an ancillary proceeding under Rule 32.2(c).
4
CASE 0:22-cr-00223-NEB-DTS Doc. 796 Filed 02/13/26 Page 5 of 14
Criminal forfeiture is a part of sentencing; it is not a substantive element of the
offense. Libretti v. United States, 516 U.S. 29, 38-39 (1995). As such, the preponderance
of the evidence standard of proof applies. United States v. Huber, 462 F.3d 945, 949 (8th
Cir. 2006); see also, e.g., United States v. Peithman, 917 F.3d 635, 651 (8th Cir. 2019).
Because the governing statutes include compulsory terms, forfeiture is
mandatory. United States v. Williams, 720 F.3d 674, 702 (8th Cir. 2013) (differentiating
“shall” from “may” in forfeiture statutes). The plain language of 28 U.S.C. § 2461(c)
mandates forfeiture when a defendant is convicted of an offense giving rise to
forfeiture. Id. (“If the defendant is convicted of the offense giving rise to the forfeiture,
the court shall order the forfeiture of the property as part of the sentence in the criminal
case. . .”) (emphasis added); see also United States v. Blackman, 746 F.3d 137, 143 (4th
Cir. 2014) (“The word ‘shall’ does not convey discretion”).
Moreover, “Forfeiture is mandatory even when restitution is also imposed.” Id.;
see also United States v. Newman, 659 F.3d 1235, 1241 (9th Cir. 2011) (defendant,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 982(a)(2), is “not entitled to a credit for the amount that he
had repaid toward the fraudulently obtained loan.”); United States v. Adetiloye, 716 F.3d
1030, 1041 (8th Cir. 2013) (“Restitution is loss based, while forfeiture is gain based.”)
(citations omitted). Although forfeiture and restitution are separate aspects of a
criminal sentence, forfeited assets are often used to compensate criminal victims
through the remissions process authorized by 28 C.F.R. Part 9.
5
CASE 0:22-cr-00223-NEB-DTS Doc. 796 Filed 02/13/26 Page 6 of 14
Third-party claims to forfeitable property are addressed in an ancillary
proceeding and are not at issue at this stage of the forfeiture process. See 21 U.S.C. §
853(n) (as incorporated by 28 U.S.C. § 2461(c)); Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.2(c).
B. Forfeiture Authority
Said has been convicted of Wire Fraud and Wire Fraud Conspiracy in violation
of 18 U.S.C. §§ 371 and 1343. As a consequence, 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(C) mandates
forfeiture of “[a]ny property, real or personal, which constitutes or is derived from
proceeds traceable to . . . any offense constituting ‘specified unlawful activity’ (as
defined in section 1956(c)(7) of this title), or a conspiracy to commit such offense.” 1
Proceeds of a wire fraud scheme include all gross receipts of the scheme. See,
e.g., United States v. Simmons, 154 F.3d 765, 770-772 (8th Cir. 1998) (interpreting similar
forfeiture authority for RICO violation, holding, “the better view is the one that defines
proceeds as the gross receipts of the illegal activities); United States v. Huber, 404 F.3d
1047, 1058 (8th Cir. 2005) (defendant was not entitled to offset expenses, “even if the
expenses were legitimately incurred by Huber, they would not reduce the amount
subject to forfeiture”); United States v. Hively, 437 F.3d 752, 763 (8th Cir. 2006) (same);
1
Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1956(c)(7)(A), the term “specified unlawful activity” includes
any act or activity constituting an offense listed in section 1961(1). The offenses listed
in section 1961(1) include wire fraud. Although 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(C) is a civil
forfeiture provision, 28 U.S.C. § 2461(c) authorizes criminal forfeiture when a
defendant is convicted of an offense for which civil forfeiture is authorized, as it has
done here. ECF No. 1, Forfeiture Allegations. See, e.g., United States v. Jennings, 487
F.3d 564, 583-84 (8th Cir. 2007) (affirming money judgment forfeiture based on mail
fraud conviction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 981(a)(1)(C) and 28 U.S.C. § 2461(c));
Adetiloye, 716 F.3d at 1041.
6
CASE 0:22-cr-00223-NEB-DTS Doc. 796 Filed 02/13/26 Page 7 of 14
United States v. Lo, 839 F.3d 777, 792-94 (9th Cir. 2016) (all funds from defendant’s
fraud scheme were subject to forfeiture on conviction for mail and wire fraud, rather
than only the amounts specified in counts of conviction).
Said has also been convicted of Conspiracy to Commit Money Laundering in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956 and multiple counts of 18 U.S.C. § 1957 Money
Laundering. As a result, the Court “shall order that the person forfeit to the United
States any property, real or personal, involved in such offense, or any property
traceable to such property.” 18 U.S.C. § 982(a)(1).
II. DIRECTLY FORFEITABLE PROPERTY SEIZED FROM SAID IS
SUBJECT TO FORFEITURE
The following property is subject to forfeiture because it constitutes or is derived
from proceeds of the wire fraud conspiracy and scheme and because it was also
involved in money laundering or is traceable to such property:
a. $309,882.51 seized from Bell Bank account no. 6521112638 held in the
name of Cosmopolitan Business Solutions d/b/a Safari Restaurant;
b. $196,744.11 seized from Wells Fargo Bank account no. 3665380451 held
in the name of Salim Limited LLC;
c. $5,050.20 seized from Wells Fargo Bank account no. 6338840173 held
in the name of Salim Limited LLC;
d. $973.03 seized from Wells Fargo Bank account no. 6817825661 held in
the name of Salim Said;
e. $1,231.07 seized from Bell Bank account no. 6521110434 held in the
name of ASA Limited LLC;
f. The real property located at 2722 and 2742 Park Avenue South,
Minneapolis, Minnesota;
g. The real property located at 5150 Alvarado Ln., Plymouth, Minnesota;
h. The real property located at 2435 Stelzer Road, Columbus, Ohio;
i. 2021 Chevrolet Silverado, VIN: 1GC4YUEY4MF160143;
j. 2021 Mercedes Benz GLA, VIN: 4JGFF5KE1MA421736;
k. Miscellaneous Electronic Equipment seized from 2722 Park Avenue
South, Minneapolis, Minnesota;
7
CASE 0:22-cr-00223-NEB-DTS Doc. 796 Filed 02/13/26 Page 8 of 14
l. Miscellaneous Jewelry, Clothing, and Accessories seized from 5150
Alvarado Ln, Plymouth, Minnesota, as described in the Exhibit U.
The factual basis for the forfeiture of each of these items of property is set forth
in detail in the accompanying Declaration of FBI Forensic Accountant Pauline Roase.
As is explained in that Declaration, the assets above are subject to forfeiture as directly
forfeitable assets. More specifically, each of those assets is the proceeds of, or is
traceable to proceeds of, the wire fraud scheme and conspiracy for which Said was
convicted. All assets are traceable to FCNP funds, and there is no other likely source
from which Said would have acquired them. Because those assets are proceeds of, or
are traceable to proceeds of, the wire fraud scheme and conspiracy, they are all subject
to forfeiture.
The assets described above are also subject to forfeiture because they were
involved in money laundering or are traceable to assets involved in money laundering.
As was shown at trial and in the Roase Declaration, Said orchestrated a massive
conspiracy to launder proceeds of the food program fraud scheme. More than $44
million was processed through Cosmopolitan Solutions bank accounts, and those
accounts were central to the money laundering conspiracy. All Cosmopolitan
Solutions accounts were used to launder fraud proceeds, between Cosmopolitan
Solutions entities and owners, and also with co-conspirators and their entities.
The Roase Declaration sets forth more specifically how each bank account was
involved in the money laundering conspiracy and how the funds seized from the
accounts were traceable to such tainted funds. The real estate, vehicles, and
8
CASE 0:22-cr-00223-NEB-DTS Doc. 796 Filed 02/13/26 Page 9 of 14
miscellaneous properties are similarly involved in or are traceable to property involved
in the money laundering conspiracy, as was described at trial and set forth in the Roase
Declaration. Given the massive amount of funds Said laundered, it follows that nearly
everything he acquired during the conspiracy would be traceable to it.
Finally, the jury’s guilty verdict on the five Counts alleging violations of 18
U.S.C. § 1957 requires the court to find that all property involved in those violations,
including all property purchased through those violations, is subject to forfeiture. 18
U.S.C. § 982(a)(1); United States v. Hawkey, 148 F.3d 920, 927-28 (8th Cir. 1998)
(affirming forfeiture of motorhome that was traceable to a § 1957 violation, no credit
was due to defendant for the value of subsequent improvements); United States v.
Beltramea, 849 F.3d 753, 759-60 (8th Cir. 2017) (affirming forfeiture of real property
that was involved in, and used to facilitate, the money laundering violation).
This is consistent with evidence presented throughout trial in this case, which
established that Said generated and laundered many millions of dollars of proceeds of
the food program fraud scheme and spent millions of dollars of the proceeds of that
scheme on himself, in the form of real estate, vehicles, and bank accounts.
III. A MONEY JUDGMENT FORFEITURE OF $7,837,656.60 SHOULD BE
ENTERED AGAINST SALIM SAID.
A. Personal Money Judgments Forfeitures are Authorized in Criminal Actions.
Entry of a personal money judgment forfeiture is specifically authorized by Fed.
R. Civ. P. 32.2(b)(1), and such orders have been repeatedly upheld. See, e.g., United
States v. Johnson, 956 F.3d 510, 518 n.5 (8th Cir. 2020) (affirming $2.1 million money
9
CASE 0:22-cr-00223-NEB-DTS Doc. 796 Filed 02/13/26 Page 10 of 14
judgment forfeiture, with defendant receiving credit against that total for the value of
forfeited assets); Peithman, 917 F.3d at 652 (affirming money judgment forfeiture
imposed under 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(C), while remanding for a redetermination of the
amount of the money judgment issued under 21 U.S.C. § 853), cert. denied, 140 S. Ct.
340 (2019); United States v. Gregoire, 638 F.3d 962, 971-72 (8th Cir. 2011) (money
judgment forfeiture permitted based on mail fraud conviction; no jury determination
required for amount of money judgment forfeiture); Jennings, 487 F.3d at 586
(affirming money judgment for amount of proceeds defendant derived from “honest
services” mail fraud scheme).
“[T]he law does not demand mathematical exactitude in calculating the
proceeds subject to forfeiture. . . Rather, district courts may use general points of
reference as a starting point for a forfeiture calculation and make reasonable
extrapolations supported by a preponderance of the evidence.” Peithman, 917 F.3d at
651 (quoting United States v. Prather, 456 F.App’x 622, 626 (8th Cir. 2012)).
B. The United States is Entitled to a $7,837,656.60 Money Judgment Forfeiture
Against Said Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(C) and § 982(a)(1).
Said’s wire fraud and money laundering convictions involved a massive fraud
scheme through which the defendants collectively obtained tens of millions of dollars
of illicit fraud proceeds.2 Evidence introduced at trial included bank account records
and schedules for Said and the various entities he owned, controlled and used to
2
The United States is basing its requested money judgment forfeiture on only the Wire
Fraud Conspiracy, Wire Fraud Counts, and the Money Laundering Conspiracy
Counts (Counts 1, 2, 5, 8, 12, and 41).
10
CASE 0:22-cr-00223-NEB-DTS Doc. 796 Filed 02/13/26 Page 11 of 14
launder funds. In support of this motion, FA Roase created Exhibits W through CC
to her Declaration, which are a series of spreadsheets setting forth the amount of fraud
proceeds Said obtained, directly and indirectly, through in the fraud scheme.
As Exhibit W shows, Said obtained at least $7,837,656.60 through the fraud
scheme, and more than that amount was involved in his money laundering conspiracy.
This sum includes the following categories of proceeds Said obtained: (1) one-third of
the net deposits into Cosmopolitan Solutions bank accounts, excluding funds that were
transferred to other defendants, entities controlled by those defendants, and funds
directly spent on personal or real property for the defendants (that spending is
accounted for separately), totaling $1,521,220.23; (2) net deposits into Salim Limited
LLC bank accounts, totaling $5,324,973.13; (3) one-third of the net deposits into ASA
Limited bank accounts, totaling $617,511.81; (4) deposits to Salim Said’s personal
bank accounts, totaling $112,613.00; (5) deposits into Anisa Chekchekani’s personal
bank accounts, totaling $219,500.00; (6) and Salim Said’s credit card expenses paid by
Calikamin Enterprise LLC, totaling $41,838.43.
The basis for each of these categories of proceeds is set forth in detail in the
Roase Declaration. These sums are also consistent with trial testimony, which showed
that Said was a leader of the fraud and money laundering conspiracies. It is also
consistent with evidence showing that he funneled fraud proceeds through a variety of
entities and co-conspirators, and that he purchased property for himself through his
corporate entities. Despite the large total, the sums above are a relatively conservative
estimate of the fraud proceeds that Said obtained through the food program fraud
11
CASE 0:22-cr-00223-NEB-DTS Doc. 796 Filed 02/13/26 Page 12 of 14
scheme. For example, this calculation subtracts payments to co-conspirators from the
total and it divides net fraud proceeds received by Cosmopolitan Solutions and ASA
Limited LLC between their three owners.
The Conspiracy to Commit Money Laundering provides a separate justification
for a money judgement in at least that amount. In a money laundering conspiracy, all
funds and assets that are involved in the conspiracy are subject to forfeiture. Hively,
437 F.3d at 763. Here that would include all funds that moved through Said and
Cosmopolitan Solutions’s accounts because those accounts were involved in the
money laundering conspiracy. As is shown in Exhibit W, more than $7.8 million was
laundered through bank accounts controlled in whole or in part by Said. As a result,
the money laundering conspiracy conviction provides additional, independent support
for a money judgment forfeiture of at least $7,837,656.60 against Said.
IV. A GENERAL ORDER OF FORFEITURE SHOULD BE ENTERED
AGAINST SAID.
The United States also requests that a general order of forfeiture be entered
against Said pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.2(b)(2)(C). A general order of forfeiture,
which is expressly authorized by the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, allows the
government to seek the forfeiture of directly forfeitable property identified after the
date of sentencing:
(C) General Order. If, before sentencing, the court cannot identify all the
specific property subject to forfeiture or calculate the amount of the
money judgment, the court may enter a forfeiture order that:
(i) lists any identified property;
12
CASE 0:22-cr-00223-NEB-DTS Doc. 796 Filed 02/13/26 Page 13 of 14
(ii) describes other property in general terms;
(iii) states that the order will be amended under Rule 32.2(e)(1)
when additional specific property is identified or the amount of the
money judgment has been calculated.
Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.2(b)(2)(C).
The government requests that the preliminary order of forfeiture include a
general order of forfeiture as provided for in Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.2(b)(2)(C). Entry of
a general order of forfeiture will allow the government to pursue directly forfeitable
assets if any are identified after sentencing. Preserving the government’s right to seek
the direct forfeiture of assets based on evidence that such assets are traceable to the
fraud scheme would allow the government to clear title to such assets and seek to
recover proceeds that have been transferred to third parties. See 21 U.S.C. § 853(c)
(codifying the relation-back doctrine). A general order of forfeiture will provide an
important tool in addition to the money judgment forfeiture requested above.
V. THE GOVERNMENT IS ENTITLED TO DISCOVERY TO LOCATE
ASSETS SUBJECT TO FORFEITURE.
The United States also requests entry of an order pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P.
32.2(b)(3) authorizing it to conduct discovery for the purpose of identifying and
locating additional assets subject to forfeiture, including as a result of the General
Order of Forfeiture, or assets of Said that may be substituted up to the value of the
money judgment forfeiture. Rule 32.2(b)(3) authorizes the government, upon the entry
of a preliminary order of forfeiture, to “conduct any discovery the court considers
proper in identifying, locating, or disposing of the property” that has been forfeited to
13
CASE 0:22-cr-00223-NEB-DTS Doc. 796 Filed 02/13/26 Page 14 of 14
the United States. Such discovery may include the taking of depositions of witnesses.
See 21 U.S.C. § 853(m); United States v. Saccoccia, 898 F. Supp. 53 (D.R.I. 1995)
(government can take depositions for the purpose of locating assets controlled by the
defendant that are subject to forfeiture). In addition, the reference in Rule 32.2(b)(3)
to “any discovery the court considers proper” necessarily permits the court to
authorize discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Such discovery
includes but is not limited to the authority to issue a request for documents to a party
under Rule 34 and to a non-party under Rules 34(c) and 45.
The United States also requests that the Court retain jurisdiction over this action
pursuant to Rule 32.2(e) to forfeit any subsequently discovered directly forfeitable or
substitute property, and to dispose of any third-party claims to such assets.
III. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the United States moves this Court for a Preliminary
Order of Forfeiture.
Respectfully submitted,
Dated: 2/12/2026 DANIEL N. ROSEN
United States Attorney
s/Craig Baune
BY: CRAIG R. BAUNE
Assistant U.S. Attorney
Attorney ID No. 331727
600 United States Courthouse
300 South Fourth Street
Minneapolis, MN 55415
Phone: 612-664-5600
Craig.baune@usdoj.gov
14