United States v. Elisa Rivera — Preliminary Order of Forfeiture (S.D. Fla., Document 14)

Summary

A Preliminary Order of Forfeiture in United States of America v. Elisa Rivera, Case No. 22-CR-20028-DLG, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Miami Division, entered on the docket April 5, 2022 as Document 14. It recites that the Information charged the defendant with conspiracy to commit wire fraud and that the Court accepted the defendant's guilty plea on February 24, 2022. The order states that the defendant charged the Applicants a fee of up to $1,000 each for submitting false EIDL applications, that Four Applicants paid the Defendant, and that the proceeds total $2,000. It grants the government's motion and enters a forfeiture money judgment of $2,000 under 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(l)(C). The signature block names United States District Judge Donald L. Graham.

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 1:22-cr-20028-DLG Document 14 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/05/2022 Page 1 of 3



                              UNITED ST ATES DISTRICT COURT
                              SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
                                     MIAMI DIVISION
                                 CASE NO. 22-CR-20028-DLG


    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

    v.

    ELISA RIVERA,

                   Defendant.


                           PRELIMINARY ORDER OF FORFEITURE

          THIS MATTER is before the Court upon motion of the United States of America (the

   "United States") for entry of a Preliminary Order of Forfeiture ("Motion") against Defendant Elisa

   Rivera (the "Defendant"). The Court has considered the Motion, is otherwise advised in the

   premises, and finds as follows:

          On January 28 , 2022, the United States filed an Information charging the Defendant with

   conspiracy to commit wire fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1371 , 1343 . Information, [DE 1]. The

   Information also contained forfeiture allegations, which alleged that upon conviction of a

   conspiracy to commit wire fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343 , the Defendant shall forfeit any

   property, real or personal, which constitutes or is derived from proceeds traceable to such offense

   pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(l)(C). Id. at 6.

          On February 24, 2022, the Court accepted the Defendant 's guilty plea to the Information.

   Minute Entry, [DE 7]; Plea Agreement, [DE 8] . As part of the guilty plea, the Defendant agreed

   to the entry of a forfeiture money judgment in the amount of $2,000 in U.S. currency. [DE 8] at 4.

          In support of the guilty plea, the Defendant executed a Factual Proffer, and the Court found

   that there was a factual basis to support the Defendant's conviction. Factual Proffer, [DE 9] The
Case 1:22-cr-20028-DLG Document 14 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/05/2022 Page 2 of 3



   Factual Proffer also provided a basis for _the forfeiture of property . Id. at 4-5. The United States

   Probation Office has since conducted a presentence investigation, which included information on

   the Defendant's financial condition. Presentence Investigation Report, [DE 12].

          The Defendant, in agreement with Individual 1, caused Individual 1 to electronically

   submit an EIDL application to the SBA on behalf of the Defendant, which false ly and fraudulently

   stated that the Defendant was an independent contractor and owned an established for-profit

   business, which employed a dozen people, and had gross revenues in 2021 exceeding $325 ,000.

   [DE 9]. In actuality , and as the Defendant and Individual 1 knew, the Defendant did not own any

   business, was not an independent contractor, and had no employees or gross revenues. Id. As a

   result of this false and fraudulent EIDL application, the SBA disbursed to the Defendant both an

   advance and a loan. Id.

          After that, the Defendant submitted fraudulent EIDL applications to the SBA on behalf of

   a limited group of other individuals (the Applicants) who also did not own small businesses and

   did not qualify for EIDL relief. [DE 9]. It was the intent of the Defendant and the Applicants to

   obtain for the Applicants the EIDL advances from the SBA, but not obtain any additional loans .

   Id. In exchange for submitting these fraudulent EIDL applications to the SBA, the Defendant

   charged Applicants a fee of up to $1 ,000 each. Id.; [DE 12] at 8-9. Four Applicants paid the

   Defendant. [DE 12] at 8-9. As charged in the Information [DE 1] and stated in the Factual Proffer

   [DE 9] , on or about July 7, 2020 , the Defendant requested and received $500 from one of the

   Applicants as a fee for submitting the EIDL application on their behalf

          Based on the Defendant ' s guilty plea, the Information [DE 1] , the Factual Proffer [DE 9] ,

   and the Plea Agreement [DE 8] , and the record in this case, the total proceeds traceable to the

   offense of conviction is $2 ,000 in U .S. currency, which sum may be sought as a forfeiture money




                                                     2
Case 1:22-cr-20028-DLG Document 14 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/05/2022 Page 3 of 3



  judgment pursuant to Rule 32.2 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. Four Applicants paid

   to the Defendant at least $500 each for the Defendant to submit false and fraudulent EIDL

   applications, for a total of $2 ,000, which constitutes proceeds.

           Accordingly, based on the foregoing, the evidence in the record, and for good cause shown,

   the Motion is GRANTED , and it is hereby ORDERED that:

           1.       Pursuant to 18 U.S.C . § 981(a)(l)(C) and Rule 32.2 of the Federal Rules of

   Criminal Procedure, a forfeiture money judgment in the amount of $2,000 is hereby entered against

   the Defendant.

           2.       The United States is authorized to conduct any discovery that might be necessary

   to identify, locate, or dispose of forfeited property , and to resolve any third-party petition, pursuant

   to Rule 32.2(b)(3), (c)(l)(B) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and 21 U .S .C . § 853(m).

           3.       Pursuant to Rule 32.2(b )( 4) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, this Order

   is final as to the Defendant.

           4.       The Court shall retain jurisdiction in this matter for the purpose of enforcing this

   Order, and pursuant to Rule 32.2( e )( 1) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, shall amend

   this Order, or enter other orders as necessary, to forfeit additional specific property when

   identified.

           DONE AND ORDERED in Miami, Florida, this                ~ y of April 2022.




                                                           DONALD L. GRAHAM
                                                           UNITED ST A TES DISTRICT JUDGE




                                                       3


File and source

File

14-preliminary-order-of-forfeiture-elisa-rivera.pdf

Size

194,665 bytes

SHA-256

cad9e18a8b39d95d269447e072ac41d36a04b1728394b8a2b41593c7fa586857

Our copy

14-preliminary-order-of-forfeiture-elisa-rivera.pdf

Original

archive.org