Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

U.S. v. Harris, 2:17-cr-78-FtM-38CM. (2018)

Court: District Court, M.D. Florida Number: infdco20180402a89 Visitors: 2
Filed: Mar. 30, 2018
Latest Update: Mar. 30, 2018
Summary: ORDER OF FORFEITURE SHERI POLSTER CHAPPELL , District Judge . The defendant pleaded guilty to Counts Three and Nine of the Indictment which charges him with a bank and wire fraud scheme, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1344(1) and 1343, and the United States has established that the defendant obtained $11,367.88 in proceeds as a result of the offenses. The United States moves under 18 U.S.C. 981(a)(1)(C), 982(a)(2), 28 U.S.C. 2461(c), and Rule 32.2(b)(2), Federal Rules of Criminal Proced
More

ORDER OF FORFEITURE

The defendant pleaded guilty to Counts Three and Nine of the Indictment which charges him with a bank and wire fraud scheme, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1344(1) and 1343, and the United States has established that the defendant obtained $11,367.88 in proceeds as a result of the offenses. The United States moves under 18 U.S.C. §§ 981(a)(1)(C), 982(a)(2), 28 U.S.C. § 2461(c), and Rule 32.2(b)(2), Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, to forfeit the $11,367.88 in proceeds. Accordingly, it is now

ORDERED:

The motion is GRANTED. The United States is entitled to forfeit the $11,367.88 in proceeds which the defendant obtained as a result of the bank and wire fraud scheme.

Because the $11,367.88 in proceeds was dissipated by the defendant, the United States may seek, as a substitute asset, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 853(p), forfeiture of any of the defendant's property up to the value of $11,367.88. Jurisdiction is retained to enter any order necessary for the forfeiture and disposition of any substitute asset and to address any third-party claim.

DONE and ORDERED.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer