Superseding Information, United States v. J. Mitchell Lowe (S.D. Fla., September 12, 2024)
Summary
An Information in United States of America v. J. Mitchell Lowe, Case No. 22-20521-CR-LEIBOWITZ(s), in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, entered on the docket September 12, 2024 as Document 139, charging conspiracy to commit securities fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 371. It states that Lowe was Chief Executive Officer of MoviePass and Coconspirator 1 was Chief Executive Officer of Helios & Matheson Analytics Inc. (HMNY). It alleges that from at least in or around August 2017 through at least in or around March 2019 the two made materially false and misleading representations about the $9.95 "unlimited" plan to inflate HMNY's stock price. It alleges Lowe received at least $388,224 in salary payments traceable to the offense. The penalty sheet gives Count#: 1 a maximum term of 5 years.
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
Cite this document
“Superseding Information, United States v. J. Mitchell Lowe (S.D. Fla., September 12, 2024).”
Original at ecf.flsd.uscourts.gov. Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/source-documents/superseding-information-usa-v-farnsworth-dkt-139-s-d-fla-f1a49c3bf9/
, SHA-256 9c648aeefb34277a4b54ce88d326429e949d1517b13cf0c9a8c8dd5bdad1198b.Full text
Case 1:22-cr-20521-DSL Document 139 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/12/2024 Page 1 of 31
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO.: 22-20521-CR-LEIBOWITZ(s)
18 u.s.c. § 371
18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(l)(C)
MP
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Sep 11, 2024
Miami
v.
J. MITCHELL LOWE,
Defendant
----------------I
INFORMATION
The United States Attorney charges:
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
At various times material to this Information:
Entities
1. Helios & Matheson Analytics Inc. ("HMNY") was a publicly traded company with
offices in Miami, Florida, and New York, New York. HMNY's common stock traded on the
NASDAQ exchange until in or around February 2019, after which it was delisted from the
exchange and began trading "over the counter." HMNY described its product offerings as "a range
of technology platforms focusing on big data, artificial intelligence, business intelligence, social
listening, and consumer-centric technology."
2. MoviePass Inc. ("MoviePass") was a privately held company with offices in New
York, New York. MoviePass offered a subscription service through which subscribers paid a flat
monthly fee in exchange for a certain number of movie tickets per month. To use the service, a
1
Case 1:22-cr-20521-DSL Document 139 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/12/2024 Page 2 of 31
subscriber would select a movie, theater, and show time through the MoviePass application on the
subscriber's smartphone, and then use a MoviePass-branded debit card that was loaded with the
cost of the movie ticket to pay at the selected theater.
3. The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC"), is an agency within the
executive branch of the federal government responsible for regulating the securities markets,
including the issuance, marketing and trading of securities. HMNY securities were regulated by
the SEC. Public companies, like HMNY, provide information to the SEC and investors by filing
certain SEC Forms, such as the Form 8-K and Form DEF 14A, with the SEC using the agency's
Electronic Data Gathering, Analysis, and Retrieval ("EDGAR") system. EDGAR is a database
available to investors and the general public via the Internet.
Defendant and Coconspirator
4. Coconspirator 1 was an individual who resided in the Southern District of Florida
and served as the Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board of Directors of HMNY.
5. Defendant J. MITCHELL LOWE was an individual who resided in the Southern
District of Florida and Puerto Vallarta, Mexico. LOWE served as the Chief Executive Officer of
MoviePass. Before joining MoviePass, LOWE was a co-founding executive ofNetflix and former
President of Redbox.
Conspiracy to Commit Securities Fraud
(18 u.s.c. § 371)
1. The General Allegations section of this Information is hereby re-alleged and fully
incorporated herein by reference.
2. From at least in or around August 2017, and continuing through at least in or around
March 2019, within the Southern District of Florida and elsewhere, the defendant,
J. MITCHELL LOWE,
2
Case 1:22-cr-20521-DSL Document 139 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/12/2024 Page 3 of 31
did willfully, that is, with the intent to further the object of the conspiracy, and knowingly combine,
conspire, confederate and agree with Coconspirator 1 and others known and unknown to the United
States Attorney, to knowingly and willfully, in connection with the purchase and sale of a security,
that is, common stock issued by HMNY, by use of the means and instrumentalities of interstate
commerce, and by use of the mails, directly and indirectly, use and employ, and cause others to
use and employ, manipulative and deceptive devices and contrivances, in violation of Title 17,
Code of Federal Regulations, Section 240.l0b-5, by: (a) employing, and causing others to employ,
devices, schemes, and artifices to defraud; (b) making, and causing others to make, untrue
statements of material fact and omitting to state, and causing others to omit to state, material facts
necessary in order to make the statements made, in the light of the circumstances under which they
were made, not misleading; and (c) engaging, and causing others to engage, in acts, practices, and
courses of business which operated and would operate as a fraud and deceit upon persons, in
violation of Title 15, United States Code, Sections 78j and 78ff, and Title 17, Code of Federal
Regulations, Section 240 .1 0b-5.
PURPOSE OF THE CONSPIRACY
3. It was the purpose of the conspiracy for Coconspirator 1 and the defendant, J.
MITCHELL LOWE, to unjustly enrich themselves by: (i) making materially false and
misleading representations to investors relating to the businesses and operations of HMNY and
MoviePass, including HMNY's and MoviePass's product offerings, technology, and capabilities,
in order to artificially increase the price of HMNY common stock and attract new investors; (ii)
concealing from investors the true facts; (iii) diverting the proceeds of the conspiracy for their
3
Case 1:22-cr-20521-DSL Document 139 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/12/2024 Page 4 of 31
personal use and benefit through bonuses and misuse of corporate funds for personal expenses;
and (iv) concealing the conspiracy from regulators, law enforcement, investors, and the media.
MANNER AND MEANS OF THE CONSPIRACY
The manner and means by which Coconspirator 1 and the defendant sought to
accomplish the purpose of the conspiracy included, but were not limited to, the following:
4. To artificially inflate the price of HMNY common stock and attract new investors,
Coconspirator 1 and J. MITCHELL LOWE made materially false and misleading
representations about the businesses and operations of HMNY and MoviePass. For example,
Coconspirator 1 and LOWE represented that:
a. MoviePass's new $9.95 "unlimited" plan was tested, sustainable, and would be
profitable or break even on subscription fees alone;
b. HMNY had technology and capabilities it would use, and was using, to generate
revenue by analyzing and monetizing MoviePass's subscriber data;
c. MoviePass also had multiple non-subscription revenue streams that would make
MoviePass profitable and even self-sufficient rather than dependent on HMNY for
funding; and
d. MoviePass's cost of goods, as reflected in the number of tickets each subscriber
purchased using his or her subscription, was naturally declining over time
consistent with Coconspirator 1'sand LOWE's stated expectations.
5. All of these representations, which were made to artificially inflate HMNY's stock
price and attract new investors, were materially false and misleading. In truth and in fact, and as
Coconspirator 1 and J. MITCHELL LOWE knew:
4
Case 1:22-cr-20521-DSL Document 139 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/12/2024 Page 5 of 31
a. The $9.95 "unlimited" plan was a temporary marketing gimmick to drive subscriber
growth, and MoviePass was losing money as a result;
b. HMNY did not possess the technology or capabilities to generate revenue by
analyzing MoviePass's subscriber data and had not integrated any HMNY
technology or capabilities into the MoviePass application;
c. MoviePass did not have non-subscription revenue streams that would make
MoviePass self-sufficient or otherwise offset the losses MoviePass experienced as
a result of the unprofitable $9.95 "unlimited" plan; and
d. Behind the scenes, MoviePass was actively preventing subscribers from using the
purportedly "unlimited" service for which they had paid because Coconspirator 1
and LOWE personally directed MoviePass employees to "throttle" subscribers
who most frequently used the service to buy movie tickets and then Coconspirator
1 and LOWE concealed the true nature of their "tactics" from investors and
subscribers.
6. In furtherance of the conspiracy, Coconspirator 1 and the defendant, J.
MITCHELL LOWE, made these materially false and misleading representations in press
releases, SEC filings, interviews on podcasts and on television, and in print and online media, all
of which were intended to reach, and at times did in fact reach, investors and the general public
throughout the United States, including within the Southern District of Florida, and elsewhere.
Coconspirator 1 and LOWE appeared in the media and reviewed and approved the press releases
and SEC filings.
7. To conceal the conspiracy from regulators, J. MITCHELL LOWE also made
materially false and misleading statements in sworn testimony to the SEC.
5
Case 1:22-cr-20521-DSL Document 139 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/12/2024 Page 6 of 31
HMNY's Acquisition of MoviePass
8. By 2017, MoviePass was running out of money. MoviePass had been operating at
a loss for years and was unable to obtain additional financing. J. MITCHELL LOWE was on
the verge of shutting down MoviePass's business operations when he met Coconspirator 1.
9. On or about August 15, 2017, at the direction of Coconspirator 1 and J.
MITCHELL LOWE, HMNY issued a press release announcing that HMNY had agreed to
acquire a majority ownership interest in MoviePass (the "Acquisition"). HMNY also announced
that MoviePass had launched a new nationwide subscription program that enabled new subscribers
to see "unlimited" movies in theaters with no blackout dates for a flat monthly fee of $9.95. The
strategic rationale for the Acquisition, according to the press release, was to "increase shareholder
value" by using HMNY's "big data" and "artificial intelligence" capabilities to monetize
MoviePass's subscriber data, including from the new subscribers MoviePass expected to sign up
as a result of the $9.95 "unlimited" plan.
10. As a term of the Acquisition, MoviePass had c,1.greed, following the closing of the
Acquisition, to apply for listing and seek to begin trading on the NASDAQ or the New York Stock
Exchange by March 31, 2018, and HMNY would remain the majority shareholder of MoviePass.
11. Beginning with the announcement of the Acquisition, Coconspirator 1 and J.
MITCHELL LOWE launched a campaign to artificially inflate the price of HMNY common
stock by publicly promoting materially false and misleading information, as described below.
Coconspirator 1 and LOWE appeared for numerous interviews on television, and in print and
online media, available throughout the United States and elsewhere, including within the Southern
District of Florida. For example, Coconspirator 1 was interviewed by the Miami Herald for an
article titled "Hollywood Is Being Run Out of Miami." Coconspirator 1 and LOWE also issued,
6
Case 1:22-cr-20521-DSL Document 139 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/12/2024 Page 7 of 31
or caused to be issued, numerous press releases on behalf of HMNY and MoviePass, many of
which were disseminated through Business Wire via the Internet to media outlets throughout the
United States and elsewhere, including within the Southern District of Florida. Many of these
interviews and press releases were filed with the SEC on Form DEF 14A and Form 8-K,
respectively, and available online via the SEC's EDGAR website.
12. Following the Acquisition, HMNY raised hundreds of millions of dollars from debt
and equity offerings. This included money raised from three sets of convertible notes in November
2017, January 2018, and June 2018, as well as from three sets of equity offerings in February 2018,
April 2018, and October 2018.
13. Coconspirator 1's compensation was based, in part, on the sale ofHMNY securities.
In or around mid-December 2017, Coconspirator 1 negotiated a $1,000,000 bonus for his role in
raising capital up to that point. And in or around March 2018, Coconspirator 1 negotiated a
$1,500,000 bonus for his role in completed offerings of HMNY securities totaling $190,000,000
in gross proceeds since mid-December 2017.
14. Coconspirator 1's and J. MITCHELL LOWE's employment agreements also
provided for the payment of multi-million-dollar bonuses based on milestones tied to the stock
price ofHMNY Specifically, LOWE received at least $388,224 in salary payments during and in
furtherance of the conspiracy in 2017, 2018, and 2019, which constitute proceeds traceable to the
commission of the offense.
OVERT ACTS
In furtherance of the conspiracy and to achieve the objects and purpose thereof, at least
one conspirator committed and caused to be committed, in the Southern District of Florida and
elsewhere, at least one of the following overt acts, among others:
7
Case 1:22-cr-20521-DSL Document 139 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/12/2024 Page 8 of 31
Coconspirator 1 and the Defendant Made Materially False and Misleading Representations
About MoviePass's Subscription Model
15. In the course of negotiating the Acquisition, Coconspirator 1 proposed to J.
MITCHELL LOWE that MoviePass slash its price point and offer an "unlimited" plan where,
for $9.95 per month, subscribers could see "any movie, any theater, any day." On or about July 6,
2017, LOWE emailed MoviePass executives about Coconspirator l's proposal, which LOWE
acknowledged would cause MoviePass to lose money, writing:
Ok now for the crazy idea. I would like each of you to tell me why this is a
bad idea. I want to change our one and only pricing to $9.95 per month. A
movie a day. Try it for Free for either 2 weeks or 1 month. Please no reason
to tell me how much money we could lose.
In response to LOWE's email, and at various times thereafter, members of the MoviePass
executive team confirmed to Coconspirator 1 and LOWE that the $9.95 "unlimited" plan was
unprofitable and unsustainable.
16. Believing that HMNY's stock price was tied, in part, to MoviePass's subscriber
count, Coconspirator 1 and J. MITCHELL LOWE launched the $9.95 "unlimited" plan as a
marketing gimmick to attract new subscribers and increase the price of HMNY stock. In response
to questions about whether the $9.95 "unlimited" plan was "too good to be true," Coconspirator 1
and LOWE made materially false and misleading representations that the plan had been tested
and was a profitable and sustainable business model, when in fact they knew it had not been tested
and was neither profitable nor sustainable.
17. For example, on or about August 16, 2017, Coconspirator 1 and J. MITCHELL
LOWE appeared for a joint interview on Fox Business, during which they were specifically asked
whether MoviePass would lose money on the $9.95 "unlimited" plan. LOWE promoted the
materially false narrative that the $9.95 "unlimited" plan would not lose money even though he
8
Case 1:22-cr-20521-DSL Document 139 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/12/2024 Page 9 of 31
had privately acknowledged weeks earlier that it was a "crazy idea" that would lose money:
LOWE: We have figured out a way to give people a deal where they cannot believe we
can even afford to give.
Interviewer: Yea, because you lose money.
LOWE: Yea, no, we actually don't. Uh, and.
Interviewer: How do you not lose money?
LOWE: We have built a system that attracts people - a price point that attracts people that
only go three to six times a year. •
18. J. MITCHELL LOWE's representations were materially false and misleading
because, in truth and in fact, and as Coconspirator 1 and the defendant both knew, neither HMNY
nor MoviePass had tested the $9.95 "unlimited" plan, which had only been proposed for the first
time internally weeks before. Coconspirator 1 and the defendant also knew LOWE's
representations were materially false and misleading because, in reality, Coconspirator 1 and the
defendant knew the $9.95 "unlimited" plan would lose money.
19. On or about August 16, 2017, J. MITCHELL LOWE appeared for a print
interview for Variety.com, which HMNY filed with the SEC on Form DEF 14A, and again
promoted the materially false narrative that the $9.95 "unlimited" plan was profitable and
sustainable:
Interviewer: You are operating at a loss and subsidizing the tickets your customers buy.
AMC claims that at some point you will have to raise your prices or you'll go out of
business. Are they correct?
LOWE: The answer is no. They don't understand our business model.
20. J. MITCHELL LOWE's representation was materially false and misleading
because, in truth and in fact, and as Coconspirator 1 and the defendant both knew, the $9.95
"unlimited" plan was a temporary measure that was unprofitable.
9
Case 1:22-cr-20521-DSL Document 139 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/12/2024 Page 10 of 31
21. On or about September 22, 2017, Coconspirator 1 appeared for a print interview
with Pipeline Data, LLC ("Pipeline Data"), which HMNY filed with the SEC on Form DEF 14A.
Coconspirator 1 repeated the materially false claims that the $9.95 "unlimited" plan had been
tested and proven profitable:
Interviewer: How is the $9.95 pricing going to work within your business model?
Coconspirator 1: MoviePass has been around for five years, so we have a wealth of
historical data. At $39, the average customer would go to four movies a month. At $29, the
average dropped to three movies a month. When MoviePass went to $19, the average
customer went to two movies a month. So we think we can be profitable on the
subscriptions at $9.95 and then make the real money from the additional revenue sources.
The size of our customer base will give us a lot of leverage.
Interviewer: So, you think you can break even on the subscriptions alone?
Coconspirator 1: I'm confident that we will. We already see it in our first 30 days at $9.95.
Usage was even lower than we anticipated.
22. Coconspirator 1's representations were materially false and misleading because, in
truth and in fact, and as Coconspirator 1 and the defendant both knew, no testing had been done
on the $9.95 "unlimited" plan and it was a temporary gimmick that was unprofitable.
23. Within weeks of Coconspirator 1's Pipeline Data interview, J. MITCHELL
LOWE privately inquired about changing the $9.95 "unlimited" plan that he publicly claimed was
sustainable. On or about October 6, 2017, LOWE emailed a team of MoviePass executives to
request "everyones [sic] feedback on removing theaters who charge above $12 or $13. Thoughts?"
In response, one MoviePass executive wrote:
Tricky situation. This creates a few different issues in a few different areas.
First, it removes a majority of theaters in large markets: NYC, LA, DC, SF, Seattle,
Philadelphia. Across only the top 15 major networks it impacts, it affects 50% of our user
base.
***
10
Case 1:22-cr-20521-DSL Document 139 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/12/2024 Page 11 of 31
Then we get into the press/publicity aspect of it. Basically, that would give AMC validation
that they were right all along; that this is not a sustainable product and it completely kills
any credibility we have left.
24. Coconspirator 1 and J. MITCHELL LOWE continued to make similar materially
false and misleading representations about the profitability and sustainability of the $9.95
"unlimited" plan. For example, on or about January 9, 2018, Coconspirator 1 and LOWE
appeared for a joint interview on Yahoo! Finance. When asked during that interview whether
$9.95 was "too low of a price point," Coconspirator 1 falsely responded, "No," while LOWE
misleadingly added that the price point attracted moviegoers who only attended movies five times
a year.
25. In that same interview, J. MITCHELL LOWE also made the materially false and
misleading representation that it was "not true at all" that MoviePass needed movie theaters to
agree to provide MoviePass with lower ticket prices to tum a profit (i.e., to reduce the difference
between the price MoviePass paid for a move ticket and the amount MoviePass received from
monthly subscribers). LOWE knew his representation was materially false and misleading when
he made it because, as described in paragraph 23, LOWE had earlier explored the possibility of
removing from the subscription service theaters that charged more than $12 or $13 for a movie
ticket.
26. On or about January 16, 2018,-one week following the January 9, 2018, joint
interview with Yahoo! Finance- J. MITCHELL LOWE texted Coconspirator 1 and HMNY
Executive 1 concerning the losses caused by subscribers' use of the service for which they were
paying and to suggest MoviePass terminate the $9.95 "unlimited" plan.
27. The next day, on or about January 17, 2018, J. MITCHELL LOWE again texted
Coconspirator 1 about the need to change the $9.95 "unlimited" plan. In his private
11
Case 1:22-cr-20521-DSL Document 139 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/12/2024 Page 12 of 31
communication to Coconspirator 1, LOWE acknowledged that the $9.95 "unlimited" plan always
had been a temporary measure and that it was not sustainable.
28. Approximately one week later, on or about January 26, 2018, J. MITCHELL
LOWE appeared for a print interview with The Hollywood Reporter, and again promoted the
materially false narrative that the $9.95 "unlimited" plan was tested, sustainable, and
profitable:
Interviewer: Is there a point when you'll just not be able to afford more subs [i.e.,
subscribers] because you're buying them too many tickets?
LOWE: No. I don't know why everybody believes that our customers are watching so
many movies. At some point we'll share more data with you and you'll be shocked ....
***
Interviewer: Is there a point where you'll need to raise the price of a sub?
LOWE: We don't need to raise the price. I spent a year studying how I can get people who
spend $50 a year going to movies to spend $120 a year, and $9.95 is the price point that
gets them into the theaters more often.
29. J. MITCHELL LOWE's representations were materially false and misleading
because, in truth and in fact, and as Coconspirator 1 and the defendant both knew, no testing had
been done on the $9.95 "unlimited" plan and it was a temporary measure that was unprofitable.
Indeed, by the time of this interview, Coconspirator 1 and LOWE had already agreed privately to
abandon the $9.95 "unlimited" plan.
30. On or about February 18, 2018, while appearing on an episode of the Recode Media
podcast, J. MITCHELL LOWE again falsely represented that MoviePass "tested like crazy until
we were ready to roll out the $9.95 plan." At the time LOWE made this representation, he knew
that MoviePass had not tested the $9.95 "unlimited" plan.
12
Case 1:22-cr-20521-DSL Document 139 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/12/2024 Page 13 of 31
31. On or about April 13, 2018, MoviePass announced it was retiring the $9.95
"unlimited" plan. Coconspirator 1 and J. MITCHELL LOWE, however, continued to make
materially false and misleading representations about MoviePass's subscription plan to artificially
inflate the price of HMNY's stock. For example, on or about April 27, 2018, LOWE texted
Coconspirator 1 to suggest MoviePass reintroduce the $9.95 "unlimited" plan to artificially inflate
HMNY's stock price and cause investors who speculated that the price of HMNY would decline
(commonly referred to as "short sellers" or "shorts") to "panic":
LOWE: We could blow people away if on Wednesday we do Unlimited for $9.95
Coconspirator 1: I know
LOWE: We should
Coconspirator 1: Change the whole story[.] I agree[.] And just keep throttle ing[.] And
not tell anyone
LOWE: The shorts will panic
Coconspirator 1: 0mg ® listen to you!!!! Your [sic] starting to scare me lol
O
LOWE: Learning
Coconspirator 1: Lol
On or about May 2, 2018, fewer than three weeks after it was retired, the $9.9? "unlimited" plan
was reintroduced for this fraudulent purpose.
Coconspirator 1 and the Defendant Made Materially False and Misleading Representations
About HMNY's Data Analytics Technology and Capabilities
32. Coconspirator 1 and J. MITCHELL LOWE repeatedly made the materially false
claim that the strategic rationale behind HMNY's acquisition ofMoviePass was to enable HMNY
13
Case 1:22-cr-20521-DSL Document 139 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/12/2024 Page 14 of 31
to leverage its data analytics technology and capabilities to increase shareholder value by
monetizing MoviePass's subscriber data.
33. For example, in HMNY's August 15, 2017, press release, which was disseminated
to investors through Business Wire and filed with the SEC on Form 8-K, Co conspirator 1 was
quoted as saying: "I believe the technology platforms that Helios and Matheson has built over the
years are a perfect fit for the MoviePass family[.] With our big data and artificial intelligence
platforms and other technologies that we own, we will be able to bring a significant technological
advantage to MoviePass."
34. These representations in HMNY's August 15, 2017, press release were materially
false and misleading because, in truth and in fact, and as Coconspirator 1 and the defendant both
knew, HMNY did not possess or otherwise "own" the types of technologies described in the press
release, including "big data" and "artificial intelligence" platforms or any other technologies
capable of monetizing MoviePass's subscriber data.
35. Following the Acquisition, Coconspirator 1 and J. MITCHELL LOWE
repeatedly made the materially false claim that HMNY's technologies were being used to analyze
MoviePass's subscriber data and integrated into the MoviePass application. For example, on or
about September 14, 2017, HMNY issued a press release that was disseminated to investors and
the market online through Business Wire, The Miami Herald website, and an 8-K filed with the
SEC, among other means. The press release stated:
Using the Helios and Matheson Analytics resources, MoviePass Inc. analyzes consumer
trends, patterns and activities to engage subscribers with movie related merchandise,
advertising, and concessions relevant to their MoviePass experiences. Helios and Matheson
believes its technology stack combined with the MoviePass business model will transform
the movie going experience and create great value for both companies. . . . Helios and
Matheson's technology learns individual moviegoer's tastes and makes recommendations
based on recorded preferences for specific genres, actors and even the opinions of friends
with similar likings ....
14
Case 1:22-cr-20521-DSL Document 139 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/12/2024 Page 15 of 31
Also in the press release, Coconspirator 1 was quoted as saying: "This explains our sustainable
business model: Helios and Matheson is incorporating advertising models with the MoviePass
application using artificial intelligence, algorithms, and machine learning so we can provide
studios with more precise data for their advertising efforts."
36. These representations in HMNY's September 14, 2017, press release were
materially false and misleading because, in truth and in fact, and as Coconspirator 1 and the
defendant both knew, HMNY did not possess the types of technologies described in the press
release, HMNY had not used any of its technologies to analyze MoviePass's subscriber data, and
HMNY had not integrated any of its technologies into the MoviePass application.
37. On or about October 24, 2017, HMNY issued a press release that was disseminated
to investors and the market online through Business Wire, The Miami Herald website, and an 8-K
filed with the SEC, among other means. The press release stated:
Following HMNY's purchase of a majority stake in MoviePass, which remains subject to
the approval of HMNY's stockholders, HMNY plans to further integrate its data analytics
capabilities with the MoviePass service to analyze moviegoer's behaviors and preferences,
with the goal of helping the film industry better understand what audiences want. With
HMNY's capabilities, HMNY believes that MoviePass can bridge an intelligence gap for
the movie theater industry so the entire film ecosystem can better serve audiences in areas
ranging from production to advertising.
In the press release, Coconspirator 1 was quoted as saying: "When you apply computer science
and machine learning to an industry that we believe has lacked significant innovation, useful
patterns start to emerge. . . . Together, I believe HMNY and MoviePass can offer important
analytics to movie studios and exhibitors while serving the interests of moviegoers in the process."
38. These representations from HMNY's October 24, 2017, press release were
materially false and misleading because, in truth and in fact, and as Coconspirator 1 and the
defendant both knew, HMNY did not possess the types of technologies described in the press
15
Case 1:22-cr-20521-DSL Document 139 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/12/2024 Page 16 of 31
release, HMNY had not used any of its technologies to analyze MoviePass's subscriber data, and
HMNY had not integrated any of its technologies into the MoviePass application.
39. Coconspirator 1 and J. MITCHELL LOWE also repeatedly made the materially
false representation that HMNY's technologies were being integrated into the MoviePass
application to create a revenue stream based on a "Night at the Movies" concept whereby
MoviePass integrated data about subscribers' activities before and after they attended a movie into
its business model. For example, on or about October 16, 2017, LOWE appeared for an interview
on Fox Business during which he explained the "Night of the Movies" initiative:
Interviewer: And you said that your company MoviePass is planning to make a profit by
selling user-data to Uber, Hollywood Studios, restaurants close to the theaters. Basically,
bottom line is, you say you're not selling data but you're using the data to inform.
LOWE: Right. You know, people want to go to the movies more often but they don't want
to take the risk of a bad movie. So, what we do at MoviePass is we help them make a better
decision as far as enjoying the movie. But going to the movies there's much more to it than
just going straight to the movie theater. You go to dinner. You might have drinks. You might
use Uber or Lyft. So, we're going to help our subscriber to get to all those businesses and
get discount and benefits and -
Interviewer: So, will Uber pay for that information? Do the Hollywood restaurants - I
mean, are they paying for that data?
LOWE: They will. As we drive more and more of our subscribers to their businesses we'll
take a share of the incremental profit.
Interviewer: And how do you know where people are going after they go to the movies?
LOWE: Well, you know, today with your phone in your pocket, people can track pretty
much where you are. You log on to Facebook, they know where you are. When you log in
to our app, we know where you are. Because we automate your movie subscription by
essentially what theater you're close to.
40. J. MITCHELL LOWE's representations were materially false because, in truth
and in fact, and as Coconspirator 1 and the defendant both knew, neither HMNY nor MoviePass
tracked or collected data on the location of MoviePass subscribers at any point when the
16
Case 1:22-cr-20521-DSL Document 139 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/12/2024 Page 17 of 31
MoviePass application was not active for the purpose of searching for a nearby theater or
checking into a theater. Moreover, as Coconspirator 1 and the defendant also knew, HMNY had
not used any of its technologies to analyze MoviePass's subscriber data, and HMNY had not
integrated any of its technologies into the MoviePass application.
41. During their January 9, 2018,joint interview on Yahoo! Finance, Coconspirator 1
and J. MITCHELL LOWE were specifically asked about the source of HMNY's and
MoviePass's revenues. Coconspirator 1 and LOWE promoted the materially false and misleading
narrative that HMNY's monetization of MoviePass's subscriber data was driving the companies'
revenues:
Interviewer: How are you possibly making money?
Coconspirator 1: Sure. Well, I think, people ask us that all the time. And we've known from
day one, Helios is a ... analytics company. So when I first got together with Mitch, and we
looked at all the data, the analytics, what it was, that's really what made us make the
decision to invest in MoviePass.
* * *
Interviewer: Let's work our way through a couple of the short arguments out there. The
idea of selling data is totally overvalued. There so much data out there, nobody wants to
buy it. You can't monetize the data part."
Coconspirator 1: "When we look at the data side, it's a different story ... that's where
you're making your money, on, on the data, the advertising.
* * *
Interviewer: So, what does Helios & Matheson do? Because we report on the stock all the
time, and we joke 'they should just change their name to MoviePass ... '
Coconspirator 1: ... Helios is really a data analytics company, which really made the perfect
marriage of MoviePass and the data analytics of how we're driving the revenues of the
company right now....
17
Case 1:22-cr-20521-DSL Document 139 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/12/2024 Page 18 of 31
42. These representations were materially false and misleading because, in truth and in
fact, and as Coconspirator 1 and the defendant both knew, HMNY did not possess the types of
technologies that could be used to monetize MoviePass's subscriber data, HMNY had not used
any of its technologies to analyze MoviePass's subscriber data, and HMNY had not integrated any
of its technologies into the MoviePass application.
4 3. Co conspirator 1 and the defendant also knew these representations were materially
false and misleading because, in reality, data analytics were not driving the companies' revenues.
For th~ fiscal year that ended nine days prior to that interview, MoviePass reported only revenue
from subscriptions. In the first quarter of 2018, MoviePass reported revenues composed
overwhelmingly of subscription revenue. Indeed, after one MoviePass executive notified
Coconspirator 1 and J. MITCHELL LOWE about closing a deal, he joked that it was in an
amount that "Doesn't pay anyone's salary yet."
44. On or about March 2, 2018, J. MITCHELL LOWE spoke at the Entertainment
Finance Forum, giving a speech titled, "Data is the New Oil: How Will MoviePass Monetize It?"
LOWE repeated his materially false claim that MoviePass gathered data about its subscribers by
tracking them through their smart phones as part of its "Night at the Movies" initiative. LOWE
falsely stated:
We get an enormous amount of information.... because you are being tracked in your GPS
by the phone, our patent basically turns on and off our payment system by hooking that
card to the device ID on your phone, so we watch how you drive from home to the movies.
We watch where you go afterwards, and so we know the movies you watch. We know all
about you.
After the interview, when it was pointed out that tracking subscribers violated MoviePass 's privacy
policy, a media backlash ensued.
18
Case 1:22-cr-20521-DSL Document 139 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/12/2024 Page 19 of 31
45. On or about March 7, 2018, one of Coconspirator 1's assistants texted
Coconspirator 1 a statement to make to a reporter, which Coconspirator 1 approved. The statement,
which further supported Coconspirator 1'sand J. MITCHELL LOWE's materially false narrative
about HMNY's use of data analytics to monetize MoviePass's subscriber data, read as follows:
It is a mystery to me why so many people are surprised that HMNY (a big data analytics
company) and MoviePass are using data to innovate the movie industry. . . . For months
we've been hearing "how does MoviePass plan to make a profit," this is how. The analysis
and understanding of consumer behavior is precisely how we are able to deliver a movie a
day for $9.95 a month to 2 million subscribers .... What we will do is turn your data into
valuable marketplace information so that we and everyone we work with can create the best
possible experience for audiences, the studios, and the exhibitors. That said, Our [sic]
members will always have the option to choose the location-based services that are right
for them today and in the future.
46. On or about March 12, 2018, J. MITCHELL LOWE issued an email apology to
MoviePass's subscribers, partners, and employees. LOWE admitted that MoviePass "does not
track and has never tracked or collected data on the location of our members at any point when the
app is not active," and "does not use and has never used [background tracking capabilities]."
LOWE claimed that he was 'joking around" when he stated otherwise.
47. On or about March 13, 2018, Coconspirator 1 privately texted J. MITCHELL
LOWE, admitting: "Our stock is tanking on that letter that went out. They're saying the exact
thing I was afraid of that we are not a big data company and we just admitted it in the letter. We
got to get you on CNBC start changing the narrative."
48. Throughout the remainder of 2018, through at least March 2019, Coconspirator 1
and the defendant continued to promote the materially false narrative that HMNY possessed data
analytics technology and capabilities that it was using to monetize MoviePass's subscriber data
when, in truth and in fact, and as Coconspirator 1 and the defendant knew, HMNY did not possess
any such technology and capabilities.
19
Case 1:22-cr-20521-DSL Document 139 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/12/2024 Page 20 of 31
Coconspirator 1 and the Defendant Made Materially False and Misleading Representations
About Non-Subscription Revenue
49. In addition to materially misrepresenting that data analytics was a revenue stream
for MoviePass, Coconspirator 1 and J. MITCHELL LOWE promoted a materially false and
misleading narrative about the existence of multiple other non-subscription streams of revenue to
help persuade investors that MoviePass could build a sustainable and profitable business. For
example, when asked during the September 22, 2017, interview with Pipeline Data how MoviePass
would be profitable with the $9.95 "unlimited" plan, Coconspirator 1 responded:
We'll generate revenue from many sources. Tickets, concessions, advertisements ... We
already have deals in place. We can also sell soundtracks, posters, and other movie-related
products, right from their phones. As soon as they're walking out of the theater, we'll
contact them. We tested it and 5-8% of people buy product from us.
50. Coconspirator 1's representations in this interview were materially false and
misleading. In truth and in fact, and as Coconspirator 1 and the defendant both knew, at this point
in time, Coconspirator 1 and J. MITCHELL LOWE still did not have a plan for how to bridge
the gap between the cost of goods associated with the $9.95 "unlimited" plan and achieving
profitability. On or about October 8, 2017, LOWE wrote Coconspirator 1 and a team of
MoviePass executives to ask them to brainstorm "ideas" about how to generate revenue: "So now
that we have gotten into month 2 of our new pricing model we will need to create a plan on how
we get from the usage level now to the desired profitable model in the future. This will be
critical to have well grounded assumptions in order to raise growth capital early in 2018."
51. During the January 9, 2018, Yahoo! Finance joint interview, Coconspirator I
falsely stated that, "within the next sixty days, [MoviePass] should be self-sufficient on its own."
When asked what revenue streams would make that possible, J. MITCHELL LOWE
misleadingly claimed that there were "Multiple revenue streams. We're signing deals with studios.
20
Case 1:22-cr-20521-DSL Document 139 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/12/2024 Page 21 of 31
We're getting discounts from exhibitors."
52. Coconspirator 1 and the defendant knew that the claim that MoviePass should be
self-sufficient within 60 days was materially false and misleading because, in truth and in fact,
around the same time that Coconspirator 1 and J. MITCHELL LOWE were publicly claiming
that MoviePass was 60 days from being self-sufficient, they were privately discussing in text
messages the fact that, every week, MoviePass required millions of dollars from HMNY to
survive. As Coconspirator 1 and the defendant also knew, the few deals that MoviePass had
signed could not close the company's multi-million-dollar weekly cash shortfall. And, as
discussed in the text message described in paragraph 26 above, Coconspirator 1 privately
acknowledged to LOWE that HMNY was not prepared to cover the growth in costs resulting
from the millions of subscribers attracted by the $9.95 "unlimited" plan.
53. On or about March 23, 2018, HMNY and MoviePass issued a joint press release
that was disseminated to investors through Business Wire and the South Florida Business Journal
website, among other means. The press release announced that, for a limited time, MoviePass
was offering its annual subscription to new subscribers for $6.95 per month. The press release
stated: "MoviePass has gained momentum in diversifying its revenue streams due to a series of
marketing agreements with studios and distributors, as well as partnerships with a number of
theater exhibitors. This recent success in forming relationships with studios, exhibitors, and
marketing partners has encouraged MoviePass to offer an even more attractive deal to
consumers." Also in the press release, J. MITCHELL LOWE was quoted as saying: "With the
current growth and support that we've seen within the last several months, our studio and exhibitor
revenues and other marketing partnerships have motivated us to lower the price once again,
offering movie lovers greater access to MoviePass."
21
Case 1:22-cr-20521-DSL Document 139 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/12/2024 Page 22 of 31
54. These representations were materially false and misleading because, in truth and
m fact, and as Coconspirator 1 and the defendant both knew, Coconspirator 1's and J.
MITCHELL LOWE's reason for lowering the price was not MoviePass's ability to generate
non-subscription revenue but, rather, its need to receive the full year's subscription payments up
front in order to try to ease HMNY's and MoviePass 's cash shortfalls. Indeed, as early as January
2018, Coconspirator 1 and LOWE were texting about their desperate need to access "massive
cash" and how an "Annual plan can provide cash flow."
Coconspirator 1 and the Defendant Made Materially False and Misleading Representations
About the Nature and Cause of MoviePass Subscribers' Lower Usage Rates and Associated
Drop in Cost of Goods
55. Coconspirator 1 and J. MITCHELL LOWE repeatedly publicly assured investors
that, based on historical data, subscriber usage of the $9.95 "unlimited" plan would naturally
decline over time as subscribers settled into a predictable, low rate of usage. Their talking points
were intended to reconcile for investors how MoviePass's subscriber growth rate could increase at
breakneck speed without the company running out of money. As Coconspirator 1 and the
defendant knew, however, this explanation lacked any basis in fact, and subscriber usage did not
naturally decline as Coconspirator 1 and LOWE had falsely claimed it would.
56. Beginning in or around January 2018, Coconspirator 1 and J. MITCHELL LOWE
agreed to artificially reduce subscriber usage through behind-the-scenes tactics aimed at reducing
the amount of money that MoviePass spent buying movie tickets. For example, on January 24,
2018, LOWE texted Coconspirator 1 to discuss which tactics they should use against subscribers:
LOWE: I need your direction in order to give me time to impact cash flow needs. If we
cant [sic] get sufficient funding i can slow down new sub acquisition by reducing card
shipments.
Coconspirator 1: Ok
22
Case 1:22-cr-20521-DSL Document 139 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/12/2024 Page 23 of 31
***
LOWE: Ok so we will reduce new card mailings weekly by 60k which will reduce burn
starting in 2 weeks by $600k weekly and in 5 weeks exceed $2m lower weekly burn
Coconspirator 1: Wow
LOWE: Second we are removing 15 Ame [sic], Regal and Cinemarks that will reduce
$500k weekly[.] 3rd we will condtrain [sic] usage of 10 plus ysers [sic] probably saving
$500k weekly in next week
57. In or around April 2018, as MoviePass's cash-flow situation worsened,
Coconspirator 1 and J. MITCHELL LOWE directed MoviePass employees to reset the
passwords of the highest volume users to disrupt or slow their usage of the MoviePass application
to buy movie tickets. One MoviePass executive warned LOWE in bolded text that "there is high
risk this would catch the FTC's attention (and the State AG's attention)" because MoviePass
would be "targeting all of our heavy users." LOWE responded, "Ok I get it" and selected the top
2% of the highest volume users for the password reset. LOWE then reconsidered and selected the
75,000 highest volume users, increasing the percentage of top users who were targeted from 2%
to approximately 3.4%. In addition, LOWE also added a requirement that the top 7% of the
highest volume users be required to verify their purchases by requiring them to take a picture of
the movie ticket they purchased. LOWE's decision to dramatically expand the number of users
who were subject to service disruption prompted one MoviePass executive to write: "lol, project
2%- 7 %- 11% lol."
58. On or about April 14, 2018, the day after the password reset and ticket verification
measures were implemented, J. MITCHELL LOWE texted Coconspirator 1 to inform him that
they had successfully prevented paying subscribers from buying hundreds of thousands of dollars'
worth of tickets. Coconspirator 1 responded with approval and then sent LOWE a photo of the
23
Case 1:22-cr-20521-DSL Document 139 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/12/2024 Page 24 of 31
private jet that he rented using investor money to fly himself and some MoviePass executives to
the Coachella Music Festival:
LOWE: We think the tactics we launched yesterday saved $400k
Coconspirator 1: Oh wow
LOWE: I was hoping for more. Today will have less impact because within minutes
Reddit posted solution to resetting password[.] We did though greatly expand the ticket
verification which reduces almost by 1 movie weekly for those in the program
***
Coconspirator 1: You would have had a blast on the jet
***
LOWE: Looks like fun.
***
LOWE: I hope you know how much i admire you. Every day i am more proud to be your
partner on this mission.
59. Coconspirator 1 and J. MITCHELL LOWE subsequently made materially false
and misleading representations reporting that the first quarter reduction in subscriber usage was
the result of a maturation of the subscriber base and natural decline over time as subscribers
settled into a predictable, low rate of usage. For example, on or about May 16, 2018, HMNY and
MoviePass issued a joint press release titled "[HMNY] and MoviePass Report First Quarter
Earnings" that was disseminated to investors through Business Wire, the South Florida Business
Journal website, and an 8-K filed with the SEC, among other means. The press release announced
that HMNY and MoviePass had their "biggest quarter" in their combined history and stated:
Our core strategy has always been to provide a compelling value proposition to consumers
that vastly improves their movie-going experience. As our subscriber base rapidly grows
and matures, our financial goal is to breakeven on subscribers and generate alternative
revenue streams ... Recent trends related to average ticket purchases, churning net growth
and reducing abuse has bolstered our confidence in our economic model being viable and
shows significant improvement in achieving our objectives. MoviePass is releasing key
24
Case 1:22-cr-20521-DSL Document 139 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/12/2024 Page 25 of 31
metrics that demonstrate significant improvements to its economic model and strong appeal
to customers. The trendline based on our data suggests this figure will be reduced further
in the coming months. As our subscriber base matures, we are also naturally seeing
significantly reduced usage over time.
60. These representations were materially false and misleading because, in truth and in
fact, and as Coconspirator 1 and the defendant both knew, the reduction in subscribers' usage and
movie consumption was attributable to a forced reduction in subscriber usage, not a maturation of
the subscriber base or natural cycle of use. These representations were also materially false and
misleading because they omitted mention of the fact that, as Coconspirator 1 and the defendant
also knew, MoviePass had selected paying subscribers for involuntary inclusion in programs to
prevent or slow use of the service to buy movie tickets based exclusively on the fact that, in the
past, these subscribers had used the service the most.
Defendant LOWE Made Materially False and Misleading Representations to the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission
61. On or about July 25, 2022, J. MITCHELL LOWE provided sworn testimony to
the SEC. Several answers that LOWE provided in response to the SEC's questions were
materially false and misleading and intended to conceal the existence of the conspiracy and
LOWE's role in the conspiracy. For example, in response to the SEC's questions about how
LOWE selected the subscribers whose passwords were reset, LOWE falsely represented that he
did not select the subscribers based on the volume of movie tickets that they purchased but for
other reasons:
SEC: [!]isn't it true though that you were selecting the subscribers whose passwords would
be reset based on the heaviest users of the MoviePass product?
LOWE: No, ... And of course, I had many people ask me, well, isn't that why you targeted
those people. And that's absolutely not how those people got into that group. They got into
the group because they were changing their phone more than what seemed reasonable over
a short period of time.
25
Case 1:22-cr-20521-DSL Document 139 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/12/2024 Page 26 of 31
LOWE knew his representation was materially false because LOWE targeted subscribers for the
password reset based on their usage.
62. Similarly, in response to the SEC's questions about how J. MITCHELL LOWE
targeted subscribers for ticket verification, LOWE falsely represented that he did not select them
based on the amount of movie tickets that they purchased but for other reasons:
SEC: So for ticket verification, is it your testimony like the password reset, there's a list
out there with subscribers that you believe are violating MoviePass's terms of service and
that should be subject to the ticket verification tactic?
LOWE: Yes .... And again, this is an imperfect science, we would look at various
indicators that at least gave us the belief that it was possible that this individual was
violating the Ts and Cs, ...
Like LOWE's sworn testimony about the password reset, this representation was materially false
because LOWE targeted subscribers for ticket verification based on the volume of movie tickets
that they purchased.
63. When asked by the SEC about representations made in a draft Form 10-Q, J.
MITCHELL LOWE falsely stated "I don't even know what a l0Q is." In truth and in fact,
LOWE not only had knowledge of particular HMNY 10-Qs about which he corresponded by
email, but he also had knowledge of the terminology more generally. For example, in a text to
Coconspirator 1 on or about May 13, 2018, LOWE specifically referenced "the Q."
All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 371.
FORFEITURE ALLEGATIONS
(18 U.S.C. § 98l(a)(l)(C))
1. The allegations of this Information are hereby re-alleged and by this reference fully
incorporated herein for the purpose of alleging forfeiture to the United States of America of certain
property in which the defendant, J. MITCHELL LOWE, has an interest.
2. Upon conviction of a violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 371, as
26
Case 1:22-cr-20521-DSL Document 139 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/12/2024 Page 27 of 31
alleged in this Information, the defendant shall forfeit to the United States any property, real or
personal, which constitutes or is derived from proceeds traceable to such offense, pursuant to Title
18, United States Code, Section 981(a)(l)(C).
3. The property subject to forfeiture as a result of the alleged offense includes a
forfeiture money judgment in the sum of $388,224 in U.S. currency, which sum represents the
amount subject to forfeiture.
4. If any of the property subject to forfeiture, as a result of any act or omission of the
defendant:
a. cannot be located upon the exercise of due diligence;
b. has been transferred or sold to, or deposited with, a third party;
c. has been placed beyond the jurisdiction of the court;
d. has been substantially diminished in value; or
e. has been commingled with other property which cannot be divided without
difficulty.
[THIS SPACE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]
27
Case 1:22-cr-20521-DSL Document 139 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/12/2024 Page 28 of 31
the United States shall be entitled to forfeiture of substitute property under the provisions of Title
21, United States Code, Section 853(p).
All pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 981(a)(l)(C), Title 21, United States
Code, Section 853, and Title 28, United States Code, Section 2461(c).
~'MA~INlli
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
ENNS.LEON
RIEF
FRAUD SECTION, CRIMINAL DIVISION
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
oL
llt STOPHER FENTON
LAUREN ARCHER
MATTHEW REILLY
TRIAL ATTORNEYS
FRAUD SECTION, CRIMINAL DIVISION
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
28
Case 1:22-cr-20521-DSL Document 139 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/12/2024 Page 29 of 31
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA CASE NO.: 22-20521-CR-LEIBOWITZ ( s)
v.
CERTIFICATE OF TRIAL ATTORNEY
J. Mitchell Lowe
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -I Superseding Case Information:
Court Division (select one) New Defendant(s) (Yes or No) No
~ M"1am1•
re'! w Key west
IFI CIFTP Number of New Defendants
□ FTL □ WPB Total number of new counts -1-
I do hereby certify that:
1. I have carefully considered the allegations of the indictment, the number of defendants, the number of probable
witnesses and the legal complexities of the Indictment/Information attached hereto.
2. I am aware that the information supplied on this statement will be relied upon by the Judges of this Court in setting
their calendars and scheduling criminal trials under the mandate of the Speedy Trial Act, Title 28 U.S.C. §3161.
3. Interpreter: (Yes or No) No
List language and/or dialect:
-------
4. This case will take _0_ days for the parties to try.
5. Please check appropriate category and type of offense listed below:
(Check only one) (Check only one)
I liB'.I Oto 5 days □ Petty
II □ 6 to 10 days □ Minor
III □ 11 to 20 days □ Misdemeanor
IV Cl 21 to 60 days 15'1 Felony
V □ 61 days and over
6. Has this case been previously filed in this District Court? (Yes or No) Yes
If yes, Judge Leibowitz Case No. 22-20521-CR
.
7. . Has a complaint been filed in this matter? (Yes or No) No ----------------
If yes, Magistrate Case No. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
8. Does this case relate to a previously filed matter in this District Court? (Yes or No) Yes
If yes, Judge Leibowitz Case No. 22-20521-CR
9. Defendant(s) in federal custody as of NIA ----------------
10. Defendant(s) in state custody as of _N_/A ~---------------------
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
11. Rule 20 from the _ _ _ _ District of _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
12. Is this a potential death penalty case? (Yes or No) No
13. Does this case originate from a matter pending in the Northern Region of the U.S. Attorney's Office
prior to August 8, 2014 (Mag. Judge Shaniek Maynard? (Yes or No) No
14. Does this case originate from a matter pending in the Central Region of the U.S. Attorney's Office prior
to October 3, 2019 (Mag. Judge Jared Strauss? (Yes or No) No
15. Did this matter involve the participation of or consultation with Magistrate Judge Eduardo I. Sanchez
during his tenure at the U.S. Attorney's Office, which concluded on January 22, 2023? No
16. Did this matter involve the participation of or consultation with now Magistrate Judge Marta Fulgueira
Elfenbein during her tenure at the U.S. Attorney's Office, which concluded on March 5, 2024? No
By: Ma~4f_.__..-/
DOJ Trial Attorney
Court ID No. A550306
Case 1:22-cr-20521-DSL Document 139 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/12/2024 Page 30 of 31
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
PENAL TY SHEET
Defendant's Name: _ _ _ _J~·---=M=it~ch~e~l~l.c!::L~o_:.,w~e'---------------------
Case No: ----------=2=-=2~-2~0~5:..=:2~1~-C::'..!Rc::.--"=L=e=ib=o'-'-w=it=z:>.!:(s'-J..)_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Count#: 1
Conspiracy to Commit Securities Fraud
Title 18 United States Code 371
*Max.Term of Imprisonment: 5 years
* Mandatory Min. Term of Imprisonment (if applicable): N/A
* Max. Supervised Release: 3 years
* Max. Fine: $250,000 or twice the gross gain or loss resulting from the offense
*Refers only to possible term of incarceration, supervised release and fines. It does not include
restitution, special assessments, parole terms, or forfeitures that may be applicable.
Case 1:22-cr-20521-DSL Document 139 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/12/2024 Page 31 of 31
AO 455 (Rev. 01/09) Waiver of an Indictment
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
for the
Southern District of Florida
United States of America )
v. ) Case No. 22-20521-CR-LEIBOWITZ ( s)
J. MITCHELL LOWE )
)
Defendant )
WAIVER OF AN INDICTMENT
I understand that I have been accused of one or more offenses punishable by imprisonment for more than one
year. I was advised in open court ofmy rights and the nature of the proposed charges against me.
After receiving this advice, I waive my right to prosecution by indictment and consent to prosecution by
information.
Date: ----=-0=9/--=-16=/=20=2::....:4_ _
Defendant's signature
Signature of defendant's attorney
David Markus
Printed name of defendant's attorney
Judge 's signature
Hon. David S. Leibowitz, USDJ
Judge 'sprinted name and title
File and source
- File
- 139-superseding-information-as-to-j-mitchell-lowe.pdf
- Size
- 417,789 bytes
- SHA-256
- 9c648aeefb34277a4b54ce88d326429e949d1517b13cf0c9a8c8dd5bdad1198b
- Original
- PACER (login required)