Supplemental Motion for Modification of Post-Indictment Asset Seizure; Request for Monsanto Hearing — No. 5:25-cr-20543 (Dkt. 44, E.D. Mich.)
Summary
Cemhan "Jimmy" Biricik, through lawyer Jeffrey Chabrowe, filed this supplemental motion on 11/20/25 in Case 5:25-cr-20543 in the Eastern District of Michigan, asking the court to lift the pretrial restraints on assets or hold a Monsanto hearing. It says Biricik and codefendant Martin Perlin, M.D. were indicted on July 22, 2025 on one count of conspiracy to commit health care fraud and fifty-eight (58) counts of health care fraud over a business called "FastLab", which the government alleges billed Medicare, Medicaid, and other insurance entities for Covid tests from about September 2021 to July 2025 and accrued more than $50 million in illicit proceeds. The seized assets include seven automobiles, one airplane and bank and brokerage accounts. The motion argues that substantial categories of the assets lack any demonstrated nexus to the alleged offense.
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
Full text
Case 5:25-cr-20543-JEL-KGA ECF No. 44, PageID.344 Filed 11/20/25 Page 1 of 13
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
_______________________________________
)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )
)
v. ) Case 5:25-cr-20543
)
Cemhan “Jimmy” Biricik, )
Dr. Martin Perlin, )
)
Defendants. )
______________________________________ )
SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION FOR MODIFICATION OF POST-INDICTMENT ASSET
SEIZURE; REQUEST FOR MONSANTO HEARING
Defendant Cemhan Biricik (“Mr. Biricik”), by counsel, respectfully renews his request for a
Monsanto hearing. This Supplemental Motion builds on his September 30, 2025 motion to
modify post-indictment asset seizure, to incorporate newly obtained information from the
government’s seizure warrants and supporting affidavits.
I. INTRODUCTION
The government has executed an extraordinarily broad pretrial seizure—freezing every bank
account, investment account, vehicle, and major asset associated with Mr. Biricik, including
assets acquired years before the alleged conduct. This sweeping restraint has deprived. Biricik of
the ability to retain counsel, support his family, or pay for basic living expenses. Because
substantial categories of the seized assets lack any demonstrated nexus to the alleged offense and
because the restraint violates both due process and the Sixth Amendment, a Monsanto hearing is
required.
Case 5:25-cr-20543-JEL-KGA ECF No. 44, PageID.345 Filed 11/20/25 Page 2 of 13
II. BACKGROUND
A. Charges
Briefly, on July 22, 2025, Mr. Biricik and Codefendant Martin Perlin, M.D. were indicted in
the Eastern District of Michigan on one count of Conspiracy to Commit Health Care Fraud under
18 U.S.C. § 1349, and fifty-eight (58) counts of individual acts of health care fraud under 18
U.S.C. § 1347. The Indictment included a forfeiture count under 18 U.S.C. §§ 981(a)(1)(C),
982(a) and 28 U.S.C. § 2461, claiming all gross proceeds it alleges traceable to the alleged
offenses. The government alleges the defendants, by its operation of a business called “FastLab”
from about September 2021 to July 2025, billed Medicare, Medicaid, and other insurance entities
for Covid tests without complying with government regulations. The government alleges the
defendants accrued more than $50 million in illicit proceeds from insurance companies.
B. Pre-Trial Seizure
In Case 2:25-mc-50997 in the Eastern District of Michigan, the government sought and
obtained pre-trial seizure of a wide range of assets - bank accounts, properties, vehicles – which
it claimed could be traced directly or indirectly to the allegedly illicit proceeds of the health care
fraud. These included: seven automobiles, one airplane, three Morgan Stanley accounts, six JP
Morgan Chase accounts, five Truist bank accounts, one SunTrust account, two Social Financial
(SoFi) accounts, one JP Morgan Chase brokerage account and a Robinhood brokerage account.
A summary outline of the government’s tracing is attached. See Exhibit A. The assets
specifically held by Mr. Biricik include: a Cirrus airplane, a Lamborghini, a Bentley, two Ford
vehicles, a BMW, a Rivian, and an Audi, the three Morgan Stanley accounts, one Truist bank
2
Case 5:25-cr-20543-JEL-KGA ECF No. 44, PageID.346 Filed 11/20/25 Page 3 of 13
account, two SoFi accounts and the Robinhood brokerage account. The government has also
filed a lis pendens against Mr. Biricik’s Boca Raton, FL residence.1
C. Biricik Financial Status
As confirmed in the submitted affidavit, Mr. Biricik currently has no unrestrained assets. See
Exhibit B. The government’s seizure has left him wholly without funds to support his dependents or
finance his legal defense.
III. LEGAL STANDARDS
Health care fraud carries with it specific authority for forfeiture. Convictions for health care
fraud subject him to a forfeiture penalty of the "gross proceeds traceable to the commission of
the offense," whether "directly or indirectly." 18 U.S.C. § 982(a)(7). See United States v
Jankowski, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 26960, at *19 (6th Cir Oct. 23, 2024, No. 23-1404). If a
defendant would not have derived certain funds or property but for committing the criminal
offense, then these assets are "tainted" for purposes of the statute and are subject to forfeiture.
See, e.g., United States v. Warshak, 631 F.3d 266, 332-333 (6th Cir. 2010).
Further, courts may order pretrial seizure of property subject to forfeiture upon a health care
fraud conviction. See 21 U.S.C. § 853. The Supreme Court has upheld the pretrial seizure of a
criminal defendant’s assets if such seizure is based on a finding of probable cause to believe the
assets are forfeitable. United States v. Monsanto, 491 U.S. 600, 615 (1989). This court has held:
“The government bears the burden in the first instance to show both probable cause prongs,
including that the seized funds are traceable to the charged crimes.... Only upon meeting those
two probable cause prerequisites is the government entitled to pretrial seizure "to preserve the
1
The government has also filed an Administrative Seizure against some of Mr. Biricik’s assets (Department of
Justice Notice Letter ID 663707, dated September 24, 2025). Mr. Biricik has filed a claim in that matter.
3
Case 5:25-cr-20543-JEL-KGA ECF No. 44, PageID.347 Filed 11/20/25 Page 4 of 13
availability of property" subject to forfeiture. United States v Kazkaz, 2023 US Dist LEXIS
111532, at *16-17 (ED Mich June 28, 2023, No. 23-20022).
An indictment and warrant affidavit may be evidence of probable cause of the underlying
offense. United States v. Kaley, 579 F.3d 1246, 1259 (11th Cir. 2009), cited in Kazkaz, supra. See
also United States v Rashid, 2017 US Dist LEXIS 165945, at *5 (ED Mich Oct. 6, 2017, No. 17-
20465). However, in the Sixth Circuit, a defendant is entitled to a hearing to determine whether
probable cause for forfeiture exists. In United States v Jamieson, 427 F3d 394, 405-406 [6th Cir
2005, the Sixth Circuit held:
[A] hearing is necessary...when the defendant can (1) "demonstrate to the court's
satisfaction that she has no assets" and (2) "make a prima facie showing of a bona fide
reason to believe [it is error to conclude] the restrained assets 'constitute or are derived,
directly or indirectly, from gross proceeds traceable to the commission of the offense.'"
Id. at 646, 647. “Forfeiture . . . is limited to property the defendant himself actually acquired as
the result of the crime." Honeycutt v. United States, 581 US 443, 448 (2017). Forfeiture is limited
to property that the defendant actually acquired from the offense. Id. See United States v Sexton,
894 F3d 787, 798 (6th Cir 2018). On this basis, pretrial seizure may be narrower in scope than
that afforded by a forfeiture order following a final conviction. Evidence of an alternative source
of the seized assets (alternative income, etc.) may undercut such a conclusion. See United States
v $59,920 United States Currency, 2025 US Dist LEXIS 169699, at *37 (WD Mich Mar. 25,
2025, No. 1:23-cv-269), citing United States v. Funds in Amount of One Hundred Thousand One
Hundred & Twenty Dollars ($100,120.00), 730 F.3d 711, 718 (7th Cir. 2013).
IV. THE GOVERNMENT TRACING
The government affidavits submitted to support its pre-trial seizure warrants outlines an
elaborate network of accounts by which health care payments traveled since FastLab registered
4
Case 5:25-cr-20543-JEL-KGA ECF No. 44, PageID.348 Filed 11/20/25 Page 5 of 13
to accept government payments on February 8, 2022 and June 30, 2022. (The government
acknowledges Fast Lab received no payments prior to those dates.) It charts a history of
accounts, opening and closing at various dates, some of which directly received the payments
(Tier One accounts), others which received transfers from Tier One accounts (Tier two accounts)
and yet another layer that received transfers from Tier Two accounts (Tier three accounts). See
Exhibit A. Based on this tracing, the government sought and obtained a list of assets it believes
represents proceeds of the alleged fraud.
In his September 30, 2025 motion, Mr. Biricik asserted family need and hardship as a basis,
in part, for modification of the pre-trial seizure of assets. He also raised issues as to the strength
of the government’s affirmative case on the merits. He maintains all those arguments here. But
based on the specific assertions in the government warrants supporting the pre-trial seizures, Mr.
Biricik also objects to seizure of the following assets as lacking sufficient nexus to alleged
offense proceeds:
➢ Morgan Stanley Account x1145 $4,497,385.71
➢ Morgan Stanley Account x1585 $ 10,000.00
➢ Morgan Stanley Account x1785 $ 79,965.72
➢ Truist Bank Account x1798 $ 17,177.48
➢ Sun Trust Bank Account x2295 $ 29,638.88
➢ Robinhood Account x0938 $1,105,228.22 (portfolio value)
➢ Social Financial Bank Account x7728 $ 2,680.13
➢ 2023 Audi Q3
V. DEFENSE TRACING OBJECTIONS
Mr. Biricik claims the government has failed to establish traceability as to certain assets.
However, by raising these claims, Mr. Biricik does not concede the remaining assets are subject
to seizure and specifically does not concede any probable cause exists that he engaged in any
health care fraud whatsoever. But traceability is patently absent regarding certain of these assets.
5
Case 5:25-cr-20543-JEL-KGA ECF No. 44, PageID.349 Filed 11/20/25 Page 6 of 13
In its complicated tracing pattern, the government includes several Biricik accounts that were
established prior to the beginning of the alleged offense conduct here. Specifically, JPMorgan
Chase Bank Account 672082663, in the name of Mavric Marketing Associates LLC (Mavric
x2663), was opened on December 11, 2020. Mavric Marketing Associates LLC was established
in May of 2020. Notwithstanding whether it received deposits from so-called “Tier One”
accounts receiving direct payments, Mavric Marketing had an independent customer base and
generated its own income for two years prior to this alleged offense conduct. Truist bank account
x1798 was first opened on July 5, 2019. The Robinhood brokerage account was opened on July
29, 2019. The SunTrust bank account x2295 was opened on December 12, 2020. Fast Lab did
not start receiving any direct reimbursements until, at the earliest, February 2022 when it was
first registered with the government to receive reimbursements.
The government provides no information as to the opening of the three Biricik Morgan
Stanley accounts it seized. It states: “Evidence gained from grand jury subpoena service”
indicate these accounts were funded with fraud proceeds from the Chase and Robinhood
brokerage accounts. It apparently reaches this conclusion because, it claims, Mr. Biricik emailed
his Chase and Robinhood statements to Morgan Stanley when he opened those accounts. But it
provides no details whatsoever to support any of these factual assertions, or why they compel a
conclusion all proceeds in the Morgan Stanley accounts were tainted proceeds.
The government deems the Robinhood brokerage account tainted because it received
$958,000 from the Mavric x2663 account from January to August 2023, without addressing the
fact the Robinhood account predated the onset of the alleged offense by almost three years (it
was opened on July 29, 2019) or that the Mavric account itself held untainted funds. The
6
Case 5:25-cr-20543-JEL-KGA ECF No. 44, PageID.350 Filed 11/20/25 Page 7 of 13
government does not present any information as to the deposits to Robinhood brokerage
preceding January 2023.
Truist bank account x1798 predated the offense conduct by three years; the government
contend it received 5.5 million from Tier One accounts x8615 and x3722 but acknowledged it
only had records for this account from January 2023 to November 2024. SunTrust Biricik
account x2295 opened in December 2020. The government contends it received 100K from a
Tier One account (Truist x1808) which itself only opened in October 2024. That means for four
years Truist x2295 operated on wholly independent funds, surely undercutting probable
traceability.
Biricik Social Financial Bank Account x7728 received $75,000 from the Robinhood account.
The government does not mention when the account was opened, or when the deposit was made.
In any event, Robinhood already had significantly mixed funds, including deposits from accounts
(e.g., Mavric x2663) themselves carrying mixed funds. Biricik Social Financial Bank Account
x4602, whose start date is also unknown, received $62,000 from Mr. Biricik’s personal Chase
checking account (x5125). No information is provided as to the sources of its other funds.
Simply put, for a substantial number of these seized assets, the government relies merely on
“comingling” to support seizure. In essence, it contends if any portion of tainted funds entered an
account, all other funds in it are tainted, notwithstanding their source. Such might be the case if
the defendant was charged with money laundering, as the comingling serves the very purpose of
the money laundering offense – to hide tainted funds. But no money laundering is charged in this
case. There were no procedures taken to disguise the transfer of funds. Compare United States v.
Coffman, 574 F. App'x 541, 561 (6th Cir. 2014 ("Commingling is enough to expose the
legitimate funds to forfeiture, if the commingling was done for the purpose of concealing the
7
Case 5:25-cr-20543-JEL-KGA ECF No. 44, PageID.351 Filed 11/20/25 Page 8 of 13
nature or source of the tainted funds"), Here, with these assets, funds were transferred to existing
older accounts for access, for investment or other purposes. And even in straightforward money
laundering charges, tracing may still be required. See United States v. Jamieson, 427 F.3d at 404-
05 (noting that the “Sixth Circuit has never ruled on what the tracing requirements are for § 1957
money laundering” and declining to rule on the issue).
VI. DEFENSE MERIT OBJECTIONS.
The government also falls short in its probable cause showing on the substantive offense.
See United States v Kazkaz, 2023 US Dist LEXIS 111532, at *16-17 (both probable cause prongs
must be met to support seizure).
The government alleged FastLab deliberately billed Medicare, Medicaid and other insurance
entities for Covid testing reimbursements using higher reimbursement codes than those it was
entitled to use. The government alleged FastLab mailed out and billed for rapid Covid tests billed
at rates that apply only when rapid tests were administered and read by the Lab (87811), when
they were not. It alleges FastLab billed for PCR tests claiming they had collected and analyzed
samples at the Lab which had been reviewed and recommended by an M.D. when they had not
(using rates U0003, U0005, G2023, 87635 and 87811). The government claims FastLab received
over $50 million in wrongful reimbursements.
But many of the government’s allegations are in error. The government’s theory of offense
conduct contains substantial factual inaccuracies and omits critical information. These include:
A. Rapid Test Billing (87811)
FastLab initially coded certain unreturned test kits as 87635 based on automated
assumptions of timely receipt. Upon reconciliation, FastLab voided those claims to comply with
CMS Program Integrity Manual § 3.3.2.1, which requires that services be performed before
8
Case 5:25-cr-20543-JEL-KGA ECF No. 44, PageID.352 Filed 11/20/25 Page 9 of 13
billing. The government does not account for these voided claims.
B. PCR Test Billing
FastLab frequently billed PCR services under 87635—a lower rate—despite being entitled
to Evaluation and Management codes 99213–99215. FastLab in fact underbilled in certain cases.
This undermines the theory of willful inflation or fraudulent billing.
C. Delayed Returns
Patients routinely returned test kits weeks or months after initial distribution, at which point
FastLab had already voided the associated claims. FastLab incurred losses from uncompensated
PCR tests, for which the government does not account.
D. Complexity of Health Care Billing
Billing errors—even systemic ones—do not constitute willful fraud. FastLab can
demonstrate legitimate losses and substantial compliance efforts inconsistent with the
government’s theory of intentional wrongdoing. The government itself notes that Covid test
insurance coverage rules changed dramatically over the course of the pandemic. There were
periods of time a provider order was required; then period of times when it was not, or at least
not required for an initial Covid test. There were periods of time test coverage required showing
the test was necessary for management of a specific medical problem. Coverage then expanded
to include over-the-counter antigen tests. After the Covid public health emergency ended in May
2023, over-the-counter tests were no longer covered. Only tests ordered by a doctor and
conducted in an office or pharmacy were covered.
VII. SIXTH AMENDMENT AND DUE PROCESS PROTECTION.
Due process and the Sixth Amendment require a hearing when a defendant makes a
threshold showing that government restraint of assets has impaired the ability to retain counsel or
9
Case 5:25-cr-20543-JEL-KGA ECF No. 44, PageID.353 Filed 11/20/25 Page 10 of 13
secure essential defense resources. See United States v. Monsanto, 491 U.S. at 615–17 (“[I]f the
Government may, prior to trial, freeze assets needed to retain counsel of choice, then the
defendant must be afforded a hearing to challenge the restraint.”); Kaley v. United States, 571
U.S. 320, 335 (2014) (recognizing the “constitutional line” between tainted and untainted assets
and noting that defendants must be provided procedures that “adequately protect their Sixth
Amendment right to counsel” (emphasis added)); Luis v. United States, 578 U.S. 5, 12–13 (2016)
(“The pretrial restraint of legitimate, untainted assets needed to retain counsel of choice violates
the Sixth Amendment”; defendants must have a “meaningful opportunity” to contest the
restraint); United States v. Jamieson, 427 F.3d at 404–05 (“Where a defendant makes a colorable
claim that frozen assets are untainted and necessary to fund his defense, the district court must
hold a hearing to determine the validity of the restraint.”); United States v. Kahn, 2014 WL
12791966, at *3 (E.D.N.Y. 2014) (“Defendants are entitled to an evidentiary hearing to
demonstrate that the restrained assets are untainted and necessary for counsel, and the Court
must permit such a showing before continuing the restraint.”); United States v. Petters, 2009 WL
2051881, at *3 (D. Minn. 2009) (“A Monsanto hearing is required if the defendant shows that the
asset freeze impairs his ability to retain counsel or mount a defense.”). Accord: United States v.
Bajakajian, 524 U.S. 321, 334 (1998) (forfeitures and related restraints may not be “grossly
disproportionate” to legitimate government objectives).
Mr. Biricik has averred he is without assets and that his ability to continue to mount a legal
defense in this case is undercut by the massive government seizure. He cannot fund ongoing
legal representation, retain experts, conduct independent forensic analysis, or pay for other
necessary litigation expenses. A hearing is warranted here because of the constitutional issues
clearly raised by the government’s overly broad asset seizure. Financial restraints may not be
10
Case 5:25-cr-20543-JEL-KGA ECF No. 44, PageID.354 Filed 11/20/25 Page 11 of 13
“grossly disproportionate” to the government’s legitimate interest. United States v. Bajakajian,
524 U.S. 321, 334 (1998).
VIII. ACUTE FAMILY NEED.
As presented in his initial Motion, Mr. Biricik is deeply committed to caring for his family
members. His three children are completing college and starting their adult lives but still depend
on him for support. Mr. Biricik’s mother worked as a high school teacher, department chair, and
curriculum writer in the world languages. She spoke four languages and worked for the United
Nations. She was employed by the Jersey City Board of Education and is now retired. Mr.
Biricik provides her assistance. Mr. Biricik’s mother-in law was diagnosed with Parkinson’s
Disease last year and he also provides her with financial support. Mr. Biricik has one aunt who is
hospitalized with a terminal illness. Mr. Biricik provides her with support as well. Mr. Biricik
estimates average monthly family expenses of $31,566. With all his assets seized, Mr. Biricik has
absolutely no funds available to support his wife and family members, nor to provide for his
legal defense.
Courts have allowed payments from seized funds to cover a defendant’s living expenses,
including family member educational costs. See, e.g., United States v Petters, supra, 2011 US
Dist LEXIS 13357, at *6. Financial need is relevant to the issue of whether a hearing is required.
United States v Prejean, 2005 US Dist LEXIS 36511, at *7 (ED La Oct. 19, 2005). The issue is
whether the unseized assets are adequate to provide "for reasonable legal and living expenses."
United States v. Jones, supra, 160 F.3d. at 649. Here, they clearly are not.
A defendant "may be entitled to a hearing concerning the restraint of the subject properties
to avoid an erroneous deprivation at a meaningful time." United States v Jamieson, 427 F3d at
11
Case 5:25-cr-20543-JEL-KGA ECF No. 44, PageID.355 Filed 11/20/25 Page 12 of 13
405-406, citing 641 (10th Cir. 1998). Such a hearing may be necessary to satisfy due process.
United States v Kahn, 890 F3d 937, 940 (10th Cir 2018).
CONCLUSION
The government has not met its burden to demonstrate probable cause that the full scope of
the seized assets is traceable to the charged offenses. Substantial evidence shows many of the
restrained accounts pre-date the alleged conduct, contain mixed or independently derived funds,
or lack any substantiated nexus to purported fraud proceeds. The breadth of the government’s
seizure—executed without meaningful tracing, without regard to alternative legitimate income
streams, and without distinguishing between tainted and untainted assets—has resulted in a
sweeping and constitutionally impermissible deprivation of every resource Mr. Biricik requires
to support his family and to defend himself. The continued restraint of untainted or insufficiently
traced assets, without affording Mr. Biricik a meaningful opportunity to contest the government’s
assertions, violates Mr. Biricik’s due process and the Sixth Amendment rights.
The continued restraint prevents Mr. Biricik from securing counsel, funding expert
assistance, or supporting his dependents—all consequences the Supreme Court has identified as
constitutionally intolerable absent rigorous procedural safeguards. Accordingly, Mr. Biricik
respectfully requests the Court to lift the pretrial restraints on the identified assets, or, at
minimum, to grant a full evidentiary Monsanto hearing to determine whether probable cause
exists to continue the seizure as to any disputed assets.
Dated: November 18, 2025 Respectfully submitted,
New York, NY
JEFFREY CHABROWE, ESQ.
LAW OFFICES OF JEFFREY CHABROWE
521 Fifth Avenue, 17th Floor
New York, NY 10175
(917) 529-3921
12
Case 5:25-cr-20543-JEL-KGA ECF No. 44, PageID.356 Filed 11/20/25 Page 13 of 13
jeff@chabrowe.com
cc: Regina R. McCullough, Esq.
regina.mccullough@usdoj.gov
Kenton Craig Welkener, Jr.
kenton.welkener@usdoj.gov
13
File and source
- File
- gov.uscourts.mied.387124.44.0.pdf
- Size
- 374,444 bytes
- SHA-256
- 2a634354cc098a43059672a49e5987b4370f741d2222b3553fcf27e5ed6d8062
- Original
- archive.org