UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 20-CR-20163-SCOLA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v. 

CARLOS ENRIQUE URBANO FERMIN, 

Defendant.

_____________________________________/

UNITED STATES’ UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR 

PRELIMINARY ORDER OF FORFEITURE 

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(C), and the procedures set forth in 21 U.S.C. § 853 and 

Rule 32.2 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, the United States of America (the “United 

States”), by and through the undersigned Assistant United States Attorney, hereby moves for the 

entry of a Preliminary Order of Forfeiture against Defendant Carlos Enrique Urbano Fermin (the 

“Defendant”) in the above-captioned matter. The United States seeks a forfeiture money judgment 

in the amount of $3 million. In support of this motion, the United States sets forth the following 

factual and legal bases.

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On March 20, 2020, the United States filed an Information charging the Defendant in the 

sole count with conspiracy to commit money laundering in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371. 

Information, ECF No. 1. The Information also contained forfeiture allegations, which alleged that 

upon conviction of a violation of a conspiracy to violate 18 U.S.C. § 1956, the Defendant shall 

forfeit all property, real or personal, which constitutes or is derived from proceeds traceable to 

such offense, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(C). See id. at 5. 

On April 19, 2021, the Court accepted the Defendant’s guilty plea to the sole count of the 

Case 1:20-cr-20163-RNS Document 54 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/29/2022 Page 1 of 5
2

Information. See Minute Entry, ECF No. 14; Plea Agreement ¶ 2, ECF No. 12. As part of the 

guilty plea, the Defendant agreed to “a forfeiture money judgment in an amount equal to the 

amount of proceeds traceable to the violation.” Id. at 11.

In support of the guilty plea, the Defendant executed a Factual Proffer, and the Court found 

that there was a factual basis to support the Defendant’s conviction. See Factual Proffer (redacted), 

ECF No. 13. On July 26, 2022, the Defendant and his counsel executed a Consent to Forfeiture, 

which also provided a basis for the forfeiture of property. See Consent to Forfeiture, ECF No. 53. 

II. MEMORANDUM OF LAW

A. Directly Forfeitable Property

All property, real or personal, which constitutes or is derived from gross proceeds traceable 

to a violation of 18 U.S.C. 1956(a), is subject to forfeiture to the United States. 18 U.S.C. 

§ 981(a)(1)(C).

If a defendant is convicted of such violation, the Court “shall order” the forfeiture of 

property as part of the sentence. See 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(C); 28 U.S.C. § 2461(c)]. Criminal

forfeiture is governed by the preponderance standard. See United States v. Hasson, 333 F.3d 1264, 

1277 (11th Cir. 2003). Upon finding that property is subject to forfeiture by a preponderance, the 

Court:

. . . must promptly enter a preliminary order of forfeiture setting forth the amount 

of any money judgment, directing the forfeiture of specific property, and directing 

the forfeiture of any substitute property if the government has met the statutory 

criteria. The court must enter the order without regard to any third party’s interest 

in the property. Determining whether a third party has such an interest must be 

deferred until any third party files a claim in an ancillary proceeding under Rule 

32.2(c).

Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.2(b)(2)(A).

Case 1:20-cr-20163-RNS Document 54 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/29/2022 Page 2 of 5
3

B. Forfeiture Money Judgments

A forfeiture order may be sought as a money judgment. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.2(b)(1)(A), 

(2)(A); see also United States v. Padron, 527 F.3d 1156, 1162 (11th Cir. 2008) (holding that 

Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure “explicitly contemplate the entry of money judgments in 

criminal forfeiture cases”). The forfeiture money judgment is final as to the defendant “[a]t 

sentencing—or at any time before sentencing if the defendant consents.” See Fed. R. Crim. P. 

32.2(b)(4)(A). No ancillary proceeding is required when forfeiture consists solely of a money 

judgment. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.2(c)(1). As additional property is identified to satisfy the

forfeiture money judgment, the Court must order the forfeiture of such property. See Fed. R. Crim. 

P. 32.2(e)(1) (“[T]he court may at any time enter an order of forfeiture or amend an existing order 

of forfeiture to include property that . . . is subject to forfeiture under an existing order of forfeiture 

but was located and identified after that order was entered; or . . . is substitute property . . . .”); see 

also Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.2(b)(2)(C).

The amount of the money judgment should represent the full sum of directly forfeitable 

property, regardless of the defendant’s ability to satisfy the judgment at the time of sentencing. 

See United States v. McKay, 506 F. Supp. 2d 1206, 1211 (S.D. Fla. 2007) (adopting the majority 

rule); see also United States v. Blackman, 746 F.3d 137, 143-44 (4th Cir. 2014) (“The fact that a 

defendant is indigent or otherwise lacks adequate assets to satisfy a judgment does not operate to 

frustrate entry of a forfeiture order.”). The Court determines the amount of the money judgment 

“based on evidence already in the record, including any written plea agreement, and any additional 

evidence or information submitted by the parties and accepted by the court as relevant and 

reliable.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.2(b)(1)(B). The Court in imposing a forfeiture money judgment 

may rely on an agent’s reliable hearsay. See United States v. Stathakis, 2008 WL 413782, at *14 

Case 1:20-cr-20163-RNS Document 54 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/29/2022 Page 3 of 5
4

n.2 (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 13, 2008). The defendant’s money judgment amount can be based on a 

reasonable estimate on the amount of property subject to forfeiture. See, e.g., United States v. 

Roberts, 660 F.3d 149, 166 (2d Cir. 2011); United States v. Peithman, 917 F.3d 635, 651 (8th Cir. 

2019); United States v. Vico, 2016 WL 233407, at *7 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 20, 2016) (calculation of 

money judgment does not require mathematical exactitude; district court may make a reasonable 

extrapolation supported by a preponderance of the evidence).

C. Property Subject to Forfeiture in Instant Criminal Case

Defendant admitted that he personally received approximately $3 million traceable to his 

participation in the conspiracy to commit money laundering as alleged in the Information. See 

Consent to Forfeiture, ¶ 6, ECF No. 53. An unredacted Factual Proffer detailing the Defendant’s 

illegal activity was filed with the Court under seal. See Factual Proffer (redacted), ECF No. 13. 

Based on the record in this case, the total value of the proceeds traceable to the offense of 

conviction is $3 million, which sum may be sought as a forfeiture money judgment pursuant to 

Rule 32.2 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.

Accordingly, the Court should issue the attached proposed order, which provides for the 

entry of a forfeiture money judgment against the Defendant; the inclusion of the forfeiture as part 

of the Defendant’s sentence and judgment in this case; and permission to conduct discovery to 

locate assets ordered forfeited.

WHEREFORE, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(C), and the procedures set forth in 21 

U.S.C. § 853 and Rule 32.2 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, the United States 

respectfully requests the entry of the attached order. 

LOCAL RULE 88.9 CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Local Rule 88.9, I hereby certify that the undersigned counsel has conferred 

Case 1:20-cr-20163-RNS Document 54 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/29/2022 Page 4 of 5
5

with defense counsel via phone call on July 14, 2022, and via email on July 27, 2022, and there is 

no objection to the relief sought.

Respectfully submitted,

JUAN ANTONIO GONZALEZ

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY

By: s/ Sara M. Klco

Sara M. Klco

Assistant United States Attorney

Fla. Bar No. 60358 

99 N.E. 4th Street, 7th Floor

Miami FL, 33132-2111

Telephone: (305) 961-9036

E-mail: Sara.Klco@usdoj.gov

Case 1:20-cr-20163-RNS Document 54 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/29/2022 Page 5 of 5