Motion for Preliminary Order of Forfeiture — United States v. Salah (D. Minn., Doc. 835)
Summary
A Motion for Preliminary Order of Forfeiture filed April 17, 2026 as Doc. 835 in United States of America v. Abdi Nur Salah, Case No. 22-cr-223(6) (NEB/DTS), in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota. The United States moves under 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(C), 28 U.S.C. § 2461(c), and Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.2. The motion states that on January 28, 2025 the defendant entered a Plea Agreement to plead guilty to Count 6 of the Indictment, wire fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343, and that he consented to a money judgment forfeiture of $1,063,255. It asks for forfeiture of $343,418.98 seized from a credit union account and two parcels of real property, a general order of forfeiture, and discovery to locate assets. The signature block names Assistant U.S. Attorney Craig R. Baune.
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 Preliminary Order of Forfeiture — United States v. Salah (D. Minn., Doc. 835).”
Original at archive.org. Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/source-documents/motion-for-preliminary-order-of-forfeiture-united-states-v-bock-et-al-accd5f360b/
, SHA-256 8f31256f9105ec0819feed154839c5e7bad24c1e5620e5c36012512a50a2a615.Full text
CASE 0:22-cr-00223-NEB-DTS Doc. 835 Filed 04/17/26 Page 1 of 9
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Case No. 22-cr-223(6) (NEB/DTS)
Plaintiff,
MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY
v. ORDER OF FORFEITURE
ABDI NUR SALAH,
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 pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(C), and 28 U.S.C. § 2461(c), and Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.2.
BACKGROUND
On September 13, 2022, a Grand Jury in the District of Minnesota returned an
Indictment against Defendant Abdi Nur Salah. ECF No. 1. The Forfeiture Allegations
of the Indictment provided notice that the United States sought forfeiture of, among
other things, any property, real or personal, constituting or derived from proceeds
traceable to the commission of the wire fraud scheme, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§ 981(a)(1)(C) and 28 U.S.C. § 2461(c). Id.
On January 28, 2025, the United States and the Defendant entered into the Plea
Agreement through which he agreed to plead guilty to Count 6 of the Indictment,
which charged him with wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343. ECF No. 497, ¶
1. Salah admitted that from in or about April 2020 through in or about January 2022,
CASE 0:22-cr-00223-NEB-DTS Doc. 835 Filed 04/17/26 Page 2 of 9
he knowingly participated in a scheme to defraud the Federal Child Nutrition Program
(“FCNP”), a program designed to provide free meals to children in need. Id. ¶ 2.
In October 2020, Salah acquired a non-profit entity, Stigma-Free International,
for use in carrying out the fraud scheme after the Minnesota Department of Education
announced that it would no longer approve food sites run by for-profit entities. Id.
Salah transferred ownership of Stigma-Free to his co-conspirators, who used it to open
new FCNP sites. Salah and his co-conspirators submitted fraudulent meal counts and
false rosters in support of claims that Stigma-Free served meals to tens of thousands of
children per day. Salah and his co-conspirators received millions of dollars in FCNP
funds because of their fraud scheme. Id.
Salah created two shell companies, Stone Bridge Development LLC and ANS
Projects LLC, to receive and launder his share of the fraud proceeds, which he used to
purchase real estate and to fund his own personal spending. Salah also used ANS
Projects LLC to purchase a multi-family home in Minneapolis with FCNP funds. Id.
Salah and his co-conspirators transferred more than $1 million in FCNP funds
to another shell company called Five A’s Projects LLC to purchase a bar and
restaurant in Brooklyn Park, Minnesota. Id. In total, Defendant received $1,659,816
in FCNP funds because of his fraudulent claims. Salah agreed to forfeit, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(C) and 28 U.S.C. § 2461(c), all property, real or personal, which
constitutes or is derived from proceeds traceable to wire fraud, including:
a. $343,418.98 seized from Star Choice Credit Union account number 31109-
10, held in the name of Stone Bridge Development, LLC;
2
CASE 0:22-cr-00223-NEB-DTS Doc. 835 Filed 04/17/26 Page 3 of 9
b. the real property located at 8432 Noble Avenue, Brooklyn Park, Minnesota,
known previously as Kelly’s 19th Hole1; and
c. the real property located at 2529 12th Avenue South, Minneapolis,
Minnesota (collectively, “the Property”).
Salah also consented to a money judgment forfeiture in the amount of
$1,063,255 and admitted that sum represents the amount of proceeds he obtained from
the wire fraud scheme alleged in Count 6 of the Indictment. Id. ¶ 14.
ARGUMENT
I. A PRELIMINARY ORDER OF FORFEITURE SHOULD BE ENTERED
FOR DIRECTLY FORFEITABLE ASSETS.
A. Legal Standard
Rule 32.2(b) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure provides that:
(b) Entering a Preliminary Order of Forfeiture.
(1) Forfeiture Phase of the Trial.
(A) Forfeiture Determinations. As soon as practical . . . after a plea
of guilty . . . court must determine what property is subject to
forfeiture. . . 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.
1
This property was sold, pursuant to a Stipulation for Interlocutory Sale (ECF Nos.
785, 792), on or about April 13, 2026. As a result, the net proceeds of that interlocutory
sale are subject to forfeiture in lieu of the property itself.
3
CASE 0:22-cr-00223-NEB-DTS Doc. 835 Filed 04/17/26 Page 4 of 9
(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 . . . The court must enter the order without regard to any
third party’s interest in the property.
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
4
CASE 0:22-cr-00223-NEB-DTS Doc. 835 Filed 04/17/26 Page 5 of 9
through the remissions process authorized by 28 C.F.R. Part 9.
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). Accordingly,
the Court enters the preliminary order of forfeiture without consideration of third-party
interests in the property. See id. Determining any such interests “must be deferred until
any third party files a claim in an ancillary proceeding under Rule 32.2(c).” Fed. R.
Crim. P. 32.2(b)(2)(A).
B. Forfeiture is Authorized for Proceeds of a Wire Fraud Scheme.
Defendant has pleaded guilty to wire fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 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.”2
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
2
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. See, e.g., United States v. Jennings, 487 F.3d 564, 583-584 (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
5
CASE 0:22-cr-00223-NEB-DTS Doc. 835 Filed 04/17/26 Page 6 of 9
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);
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).
C. Directly Forfeitable Property is Subject to Forfeiture From Salah.
As is set forth in the Plea Agreement, Salah agreed that the Property is subject
to forfeiture forfeitable pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(C) and 28 U.S.C. § 2461(c)
because it constitutes or was derived from proceeds traceable to the wire fraud scheme
for which he has pleaded guilty.
II. MONEY JUDGMENT FORFEITURE OF $1,063,255 SHOULD BE
ENTERED.
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
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
6
CASE 0:22-cr-00223-NEB-DTS Doc. 835 Filed 04/17/26 Page 7 of 9
judgment forfeiture permitted based on mail fraud conviction); Jennings, 487 F.3d at
586 (affirming money judgment for “honest services” mail fraud scheme).
Salah has admitted through his plea agreement that he “knowingly participated
in a scheme to defraud the [FCNP].” ECF No. 497, ¶ 2. Salah consented to $1,063,255
money judgment forfeiture, which “represents the amount of proceeds he obtained
from the wire fraud scheme charged in Count 6.” Id., ¶ 14. Salah will receive a credit
against the money judgment forfeiture for the net value of each asset that is forfeited
from him in connection with this case. See Johnson, 956 F.3d at 518 n.5
III. A GENERAL ORDER OF FORFEITURE SHOULD BE ENTERED
AGAINST SALAH.
The United States requests that a general order of forfeiture be entered against
Salah 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 United
States to seek the forfeiture of directly forfeitable property identified after 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;
(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).
7
CASE 0:22-cr-00223-NEB-DTS Doc. 835 Filed 04/17/26 Page 8 of 9
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.
IV. 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 constituting or derived from proceeds
Salah obtained directly or indirectly from the wire fraud scheme, or assets of Salah
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 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
8
CASE 0:22-cr-00223-NEB-DTS Doc. 835 Filed 04/17/26 Page 9 of 9
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.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the United States respectfully moves this Court for a
Preliminary Order of Forfeiture.
Respectfully submitted,
Dated: 4/17/2026 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
9
File and source
- File
- 835-motion-for-preliminary-order-of-forfeiture-by-usa-as-to-abdi.pdf
- Size
- 257,098 bytes
- SHA-256
- 8f31256f9105ec0819feed154839c5e7bad24c1e5620e5c36012512a50a2a615
- Original
- archive.org