Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

United States v. Wolas

United States District Court, D. Massachusetts

November 6, 2018

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
SCOTT J. WOLAS, Defendant.

          PRELIMINARY ORDER OF FORFEITURE FOR SUBSTITUTE ASSETS

          F. Dennis Saylor, IV, United States District Judge

         WHEREAS, on June 28, 2018, the United States Attorney for the District of Massachusetts filed a ten-count Superseding Information, charging defendant Scott J. Wolas, a/k/a E.J.G., D.P., F.A., E.A. and C.S., (the “Defendant”), with Wire Fraud and Aiding and Abetting, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1343 and 2 (Counts One through Seven), Aggravated Identity Theft, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1028A(a)(1) and (c)(5) (Count Eight), Misuse of Social Security Number, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 408(a)(7)(B) (Count Nine), and Tax Evasion, in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7201 (Count Ten);

         WHEREAS, the Superseding Information also included a Wire Fraud Forfeiture Allegation, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(C) and 28 U.S.C. § 2461(c) which provided notice that the United States intended to seek the forfeiture, upon conviction of the Defendant of one or more of the offenses alleged in Counts One through Seven of the Superseding Information, of any property, real or personal, which constitutes or is derived from proceeds traceable to the commission of such offenses;

         WHEREAS, the Superseding Information further provided that, if any of the above-described forfeitable property, as a result of any act or omission by 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, the United States is entitled to seek forfeiture of any other property of the Defendant, up to the value of such assets, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 853(p), as incorporated by 28 U.S.C. § 2461(c);

         WHEREAS, on June 29, 2018, at a hearing pursuant to Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, the Defendant pled guilty to Counts One through Ten of the Superseding Information, pursuant to a written plea agreement that he signed on June 12, 2018;

         WHEREAS, in Section Nine of the plea agreement, the Defendant agreed to forfeit to the United States $1, 787, 813 in United States currency on the grounds that such amount constitutes, or is derived from, proceeds the Defendant obtained (directly or indirectly) from the commission of the offenses as a result of his guilty plea;

         WHEREAS, in Section Nine of the plea agreement, the Defendant further agreed that $1, 787, 813 in proceeds obtained from the crimes to which he pled guilty has been transferred to, or deposited with, a third party, spent, cannot be located upon exercise of due diligence, placed beyond the jurisdiction of the Court, substantially diminished in value, or commingled with other property which cannot be divided without difficulty;

         WHEREAS, in Section Nine of the plea agreement, the Defendant agreed that the United States is entitled to forfeit as substitute assets any other assets of the Defendant;

         WHEREAS, the United States seeks to forfeit the following property to partially satisfy the forfeiture money judgment:

a. Up to $1, 787, 813 in United States currency in the Defendant's retirement account, held by Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP Retirement Savings Plan A, and currently restrained by virtue of a Temporary Restraining Order entered by the Honorable Senior United States District Judge Rya W. Zobel, in Civil Action 17-11032 (the “Property”);

         WHEREAS, pursuant to the Order of Forfeiture (Money Judgment), to which the Defendant agreed to in his Plea Agreement, and Rule 32.2(e) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, the United States is now entitled to a Preliminary Order of Forfeiture for Substitute Assets against the Property; and

         WHEREAS, pursuant to Rule 32.2(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, such Preliminary Order of Forfeiture for Substitute Assets of Money Judgment should authorize the United States Marshals Service to seize and to maintain the Property in its secure custody and control.

         ACCORDINGLY, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that:

         1. The Court finds, pursuant to Rule 32.2(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, that the United States has established the requisite nexus between the Property ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.