United States v. Marlin Jean — Preliminary Order of Forfeiture (S.D. Fla., Document 54)

Summary

A preliminary order of forfeiture dated February 22, 2023 in United States v. Marlin Jean, Case No. 22-20018-CR-ALTMAN, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, entered February 23, 2023 as Document 54; the signature block names United States District Judge Roy K. Altman. It recites the four-count Indictment of January 20, 2022, Jean's December 21, 2022 guilty plea to Counts 1 and 2, and his agreement in the plea agreement to a forfeiture money judgment of $826,332.00. It restates the factual proffer: California EDD unemployment accounts opened in the names of approximately forty (40) victims, with approximately $826,000 in UI funds credited to them. The court grants the motion and enters a forfeiture money judgment of $826,000 under Title 18, United States Code, Section 982(a)(2)(B).

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-20018-RKA Document 54 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/23/2023 Page 1 of 4



                                UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                                SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

                                 CASE NO. 22-20018-CR-ALTMAN


   UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                   Plaintiff.
   v.

   MARLIN JEAN,

                   Defendant.

  ___________________________________/

                            PRELIMINARY ORDER OF FORFEITURE

         THIS MATTER comes before the Court upon the Motion by the United States of America

  (the “United States”) for a preliminary order of forfeiture (the “Motion”) [ECF No. 53]. Having

  reviewed the Motion, the record, and the applicable law, the Court finds as follows with respect to

  forfeiture and the Defendant, Marlin Jean:

         1.      On January 20, 2022, a federal grand jury charged the Defendant in a four-count

  Indictment. As relevant here, Count 1 of the Indictment charged the Defendant with possession of

  fifteen or more unauthorized access devices, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section

  1029(a)(3).

         2.      With respect to Count 1, and as relevant here, the Indictment sought forfeiture of any

  property constituting, or derived from, proceeds obtained directly or indirectly, as the result of such

  offense, pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 982(a)(2)(B).

         3.      On December 21, 2022, the Defendant pled guilty to Counts 1 and 2 of the

  Indictment. On pages 5 and 6 of the Plea Agreement [ECF No. 44], the Defendant agreed to forfeit

  to the United States a forfeiture money judgment in the sum of $826,332.00 in U.S. currency. The
Case 1:22-cr-20018-RKA Document 54 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/23/2023 Page 2 of 4
                                                                   CASE NO. 22-20018-CR-ALTMAN

  Defendant “further agree[d] that forfeiture is independent of any assessment, fine, cost, restitution, or

  penalty that may be imposed by the Court.” In support of the guilty plea, the Defendant executed a

  Factual Proffer [ECF No. 43], which provides a factual basis for the forfeiture money judgment.

          The federal government provides unemployment insurance (“UI”) benefits for qualified

  people who are unable to work. State employment offices administer the UI system for the federal

  government. In California, the agency responsible for oversight of the state’s UI system is the

  Employment Development Department (“EDD”). In March 2020, through the CARES Act, the

  federal government provided substantial UI funds to the states to help the American people during

  the economic crisis caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. For the times relevant to this case, the

  California EDD disbursed UI benefits primarily by issuing pre-paid Bank of America (“BofA”) debit

  cards, to provide easily accessible UI assistance to eligible California UI claimants.

          In 2021, Homeland Security Investigations (“HSI”) agents began to develop information

  leading them to believe that the Defendant was engaged in fraudulent activities. In or around August

  2021, they learned that he was traveling overseas and was scheduled to return to the United States that

  same month, through Miami International Airport (“MIA”).

          On or about August 15, 2021, the HSI agents and officers from U.S. Customs and Border

  Protection (“CBP”) were present during the Defendant’s arrival into MIA, where he and his travel

  companions were referred to secondary inspection.

          During that secondary inspection, the CBP agents learned that the Defendant’s travel

  companion was holding the Defendant’s phone, and the Defendant ultimately confirmed that it was

  indeed his phone. Accordingly, pursuant to their border search powers as federal “customs officers,”

  the HSI agents imaged the Defendant’s phone in order to conduct a forensic search of its contents.

          Most prominently, the Defendant’s phone data contained files demonstrating the Defendant’s

  use of illegally obtained access devices and the personal identifiable information (“PII”) and means of



                                                      2
Case 1:22-cr-20018-RKA Document 54 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/23/2023 Page 3 of 4
                                                                 CASE NO. 22-20018-CR-ALTMAN

  identification of other individuals, in order to fraudulently open California EDD accounts in the

  names of approximately forty (40) individual victims.

         Specifically, the phone evidence revealed that, starting in or around August 2021, the

  Defendant fraudulently opened California EDD UI accounts using the social security numbers

  (“SSNs”) and PII (e.g., names, dates of birth) of the individual victims, and then caused the state

  agency to mail out unauthorized BofA debit cards (pre-paid with UI funds) to various residential

  addresses (“drop sites”) throughout South Florida. Starting at around the same time, chats from the

  Defendant’s phone also showed that the Defendant directed an accomplice named “R.E.” to

  coordinate the pick-ups of EDD mailings from the drop sites, and then to deliver the mailings

  (containing the pre-paid BofA debit cards) to the Defendant.

         Account records provided by the California EDD and BofA confirmed that the names and

  SSNs of real individual victims were used to fraudulently open multiple California EDD accounts—

  often more than one account per victim. For example, during a subsequent interview, victim “T.R.”

  confirmed that he did not know the Defendant, that he did not authorize the Defendant to possess

  or use his name, date of birth, or SSN, and that he had never given anyone permission to apply for

  UI benefits under his name. In total, California EDD records showed that approximately $826,000 in

  UI funds were credited to those accounts opened in the name of the 40 individuals found on the

  Defendant’s phone, from in or around August 2020 through in or around October 2021.

         In addition to the California EDD accounts fraudulently opened in the name of those

  approximately forty (40) individuals, the Defendant’s phone also contained evidence of approximately

  fifty-three (53) other unauthorized access devices—e.g., personal credit cards and debit cards from

  other banks, personal and business checks, etc.—belonging to other individuals and business victims.

         Therefore, based on the foregoing, the Court hereby

         ORDERED and ADJUDGE that:



                                                   3
Case 1:22-cr-20018-RKA Document 54 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/23/2023 Page 4 of 4
                                                                  CASE NO. 22-20018-CR-ALTMAN

          1.      The Motion [ECF No. 53] is GRANTED.

          2.      A forfeiture money judgment in the amount of $826,000 shall be entered against the

  Defendant, pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 982(a)(2)(B), and Rule 32.2 of the Federal

  Rules of Criminal Procedure.

          3.      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)(1)(B) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, and Title 21, United States Code,

  Section 853(m).

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

  final as to the Defendant.

          5.      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 the Southern District of Florida on February 22, 2023.




                                                          ____________________________________
                                                          ROY K. ALTMAN
                                                          UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

  cc:     counsel of record




                                                     4


File and source

File

54-preliminary-order-of-forfeiture.pdf

Size

138,331 bytes

SHA-256

4d7b6e47ba30900ca31c378df0ab50897a7b62550495cc38971f657dbc69d01f

Our copy

54-preliminary-order-of-forfeiture.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)