UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

CASE NO. 20-CV-23279-RNS 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff, 

vs. FILED EX PARTE 

ALL RIGHT TO AND INTEREST IN PNC 

CORPORATE PLAZA HOLDINGS LLC HELD, 

CONTROLLED, OR ACQUIRED, DIRECTLY 

OR INDIRECTLY, BY OPTIMA CBD 

INVESTMENTS LLC AND/OR CBD 500 LLC, 

INCLUDING ANY INTEREST HELD IN OR 

SECURED BY THE REAL PROPERTY AND 

APPURTENANCES LOCATED AT 500 WEST 

JEFFERSON STREET, LOUISVILLE, KY 40202; 

ANY RIGHT TO COLLECT AND RECEIVE ANY 

PROFIT, RENT, INCOME, AND PROCEEDS 

THEREFROM; AND ANY INTEREST DERIVED 

FROM THE PROCEEDS INVESTED IN PNC 

CORPORATE PLAZA HOLDINGS LLC BY OPTIMA 

CBD INVESTMENTS LLC AND/OR CBD 500 LLC, 

 Defendant. 

 / 

EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR POST-COMPLAINT 

RESTRAINING ORDER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. § 983(j)(1)(A) 

AND MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT THEREOF 

The United States of America, by its undersigned attorneys, (“United States” or the 

“Government”) hereby applies to this Court ex parte, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 983(j)(1)(A), for a 

restraining order to preserve the availability of all right to and interest in PNC Corporate Plaza 

Holdings LLC (“PNC Holdings”) held, controlled, or acquired, directly or indirectly, by Optima 

CBD Investments LLC (“Optima CBD”) and CBD 500 LLC (“CBD 500”), which includes any 

interest held in or secured by PNC Holdings’ assets, such as real property and appurtenances 

Case 1:20-cv-23279-MGC Document 4 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/10/2020 Page 1 of 10
2 

located at 500 West Jefferson Street, Louisville, KY 40202 (“PNC Plaza”), any profit, rent, 

income, and proceeds therefrom, and any interest derived from the proceeds invested in PNC 

Holdings by Optima CBD and CBD 500 (the “Defendant Asset”), until further Order of the Court. 

I. Introduction 

On August 6, 2020, the United States filed a Verified Complaint for Forfeiture In Rem in 

accordance with Rule G of the Supplemental Rules for Admiralty or Maritime Claims and Asset 

Forfeiture Actions (“Rule G”), Dkt. No. 1 (“the Complaint”), alleging that the Defendant Asset is 

forfeitable to the United States. The Complaint alleges facts sufficient to support a finding of 

probable cause that the Defendant Asset is traceable to violations of U.S. law and specified 

unlawful activity, including violations of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1956, 1957, 2314, and 2315, and that it was 

involved in one or more money laundering offenses in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1956 and 1957. 

The specified unlawful activity serving as the basis for those claims includes fraud by or against a 

foreign bank (18 U.S.C. § 1956(c)(7)(B)(iii)); the transportation, receipt, concealment, possession, 

sale, and disposal of misappropriated money in international commerce (18 U.S.C. §§ 2314 and 

2315); and conspiracy to commit those offenses. 

In the Complaint, the Government alleges that the acquisition of 95% of the rights in PNC 

Holdings, which indirectly owns PNC Plaza through 500 West Jefferson Street LLC (“500 West 

Jefferson”), was financed with money obtained by fraud and embezzled from PrivatBank (“the 

bank”). 

The majority owners of the bank, Ihor Kolomoisky and Gennadiy Boholiubov, caused 

hundreds of millions of dollars of loans to be issued to entities they owned through fraudulent 

misrepresentations. They then laundered the proceeds of that misappropriation through a network 

of companies, transferring the funds into US accounts in the names of shell companies created by 

Case 1:20-cv-23279-MGC Document 4 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/10/2020 Page 2 of 10
3 

their US associates, Mordechai Korf, and Uriel Laber. PNC Holdings is a joint venture entity 

created by Korf and Laber and a third-party investment firm, of which Korf and Laber own 95%. 

The remaining five percent is owned by MTP – PNC Plaza, LLC (“MTP”), which is not implicated 

by the allegations in the Complaint. 

In a Purchase and Sale Agreement dated July 17, 2020, Korf and Laber agreed to sell the 

Defendant Asset for $25 million, and on July 23, 2020, the sale price was reduced to $22.25 million 

through a signed amendment (as amended, the Sale Agreement”). 

The Government seeks a restraining order to preserve the Defendant Asset without 

disturbing the 5% interest held by MTP, while enabling PNC Plaza to be sold pursuant to the terms 

of the Sale Agreement. 

II. The Basis for Forfeiture 

 The Complaint sets out in detail the basis for finding probable cause that the Defendant 

Asset is subject to forfeiture; this section is a brief summary of those allegations. 

Kolomoisky and Boholiubov owned and controlled PrivatBank in Ukraine. Dkt. 1 at ¶¶ 

25-35. They used their position to cause the bank to issue hundreds of millions of dollars in loans 

to entities they owned, under false pretenses, beginning in 2008 and continuing until 2016, when 

the bank was nationalized after it lost billions as part of their scheme. See, e.g., Dkt. 1 at ¶¶ 37-

43. Their actions constituted embezzlement and fraud; the loan applications contained numerous 

material misstatements. See, e.g., Dkt. 1 at ¶¶ 45-53. After their disbursement, the loan funds 

were transferred through dozens of entities that had accounts at PrivatBank’s Cyprus branch. Dkt. 

1 at ¶¶ 77-81. The transfers were designed to disguise the source, nature, ownership, and control 

of the misappropriated funds. Dkt. 1 at ¶ 84. 

Case 1:20-cv-23279-MGC Document 4 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/10/2020 Page 3 of 10
4 

Some of the money was transferred to the United States, where it was invested by 

Kolomoisky and Boholiubov’s associates, Korf and Laber, using a network of companies they had 

created for the purpose, generally using a variation of the name Optima. Dkt. 1 at ¶¶ 87-89. 

In this action, the Government alleges that the Defendant Asset is involved in and 

represents the proceeds of that scheme. In particular, in 2010 and 2011, Kolomoisky and 

Boholiubov caused two loans to be issued by PrivatBank. Both loan applications were replete 

with misrepresentations. See, e.g., Dkt. 1 at ¶¶ 107-108, 116-117. 

Money from those loans was sent through accounts at PrivatBank’s Cyprus branch held by 

entities ultimately owned by Boholiubov and Kolomoisky. Dkt. 1 at ¶¶ 125-30. They then were 

transferred to the United States, to an account in the name of Optima Ventures LLC (“Optima 

Ventures”). Dkt. 1 at ¶¶ 131. 

Korf and Laber created the entity Optima 500 in the United States, and used the 

misappropriated loan funds to purchase PNC Plaza. They also took out a mortgage for the 

purchase. Dkt. 1 at ¶¶ 102-06. 

In 2018, having defaulted on the mortgage, Korf and Laber entered an agreement with third 

party investor Firm A to restructure the property’s ownership using a joint venture. Dkt. 1 at ¶¶ 

136-39. Korf and Laber used a new parent entity, Optima CBD, and a wholly owned subsidiary, 

CBD 500, for the purpose. Dkt. 1 at ¶ 140-41. 

Firm A created two entities, MTP – PNC Plaza Manager LLC (“MTP Manager”), which 

served as a non-member manager, and MTP, which would own a portion of the joint venture. Dkt. 

1 at ¶ 143. 

Together, CBD 500 and MTP created PNC Corporate Plaza Holdings. CBD 500 had a 

95% stake in the joint venture, and MTP had a 5% stake. Dkt. 1 at ¶ 144. PNC Corporate Plaza 

Case 1:20-cv-23279-MGC Document 4 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/10/2020 Page 4 of 10
5 

Holdings created 500 West Jefferson, which was used to purchase the note for the defaulted 

mortgage. CBD 500 contributed approximately $9.5 million for the purchase, which came from 

several other members of Korf and Laber’s collection of “Optima” companies. Dkt. 1 at ¶ 150. 

Korf and Laber were thus able to retain ownership of the property they had purchased with 

misappropriated funds—they transferred the deed from Optima 500 to the new entity, 500 West 

Jefferson, of which they indirectly owned 95%. Dkt. 1 at ¶ 149. 

Those allegations, detailed in the Complaint, set forth probable cause to believe the interest 

owned by Optima CBD and CBD 500 in Defendant Asset, PNC Corporate Plaza Holdings, is 

subject to forfeiture. 

III. Restraint of the Property is Proper and Necessary 

Section 983(j)(1)(A) of Title 18, United States Code authorizes the United States to seek, 

and the Court to issue, a restraining order or protective order over the Defendant Asset. The statute 

provides: 

Upon application of the United States, the court may enter a restraining 

order or injunction, require the execution of satisfactory performance 

bonds, create receiverships, appoint conservators, custodians, appraisers, 

accountants, or trustees, or take any other action to seize, secure, maintain, 

or preserve the availability of property subject to civil forfeiture [. . .] upon 

the filing of a civil forfeiture complaint alleging that the property with 

respect to which the order is sought is subject to civil forfeiture[.] 

18 U.S.C. § 983(j)(1)(A). 

The Court also has wide latitude to enter an order appropriate to the facts and circumstances 

of the case, pursuant to Rule G(7)(a), which provides that, when defendant property is not in the 

government’s possession, the court “may enter any order necessary to preserve the property, to 

prevent its removal or encumbrance, or to prevent its use in a criminal offense.” Likewise, the 

Court is authorized pursuant to Rule G(7)(b) to approve the sale of a defendant asset to, among 

Case 1:20-cv-23279-MGC Document 4 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/10/2020 Page 5 of 10
6 

other things, preserve or maximize its value and place the proceeds of such sale in an account 

maintained by the United States pending the conclusion of the forfeiture action. Supp. R. 

G(7)(b)(iv). 

Such a restraining order may be issued ex parte. See United States v. Bissell, 866 F.2d 

1343, 1349 (11th Cir. 1989) (a restraining order pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 853(e) can be issued ex 

parte once an indictment has issued).1 Section 983(j)(1)(A) includes no requirement of prerestraint notice or hearing.2

Here, a restraining order should issue because the allegations in the Complaint make out 

sufficient cause to believe that the Defendant Asset is forfeitable to the United States, and no 

further hearing or showing is necessary. Failure to restrain, preserve, and properly account for 

the Defendant Asset (particularly rents and incomes owing) will likely result in its irrevocable loss 

and will render it unavailable for forfeiture. Without a restraining order, Optima CBD, CBD 500, 

or other related persons or entities could sell or otherwise transfer the Defendant Asset. Given the 

incredibly complex network of transactions undertaken to acquire the Defendant Asset, it is highly 

1

 Though Bissell dealt with restraining orders pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 853(f), because 

of the similarity in the statutes, the case law applicable to criminal forfeiture restraining orders is 

equally applicable to restraining orders issued under Section 983(j). See United States v. Melrose 

East Subdivision, 357 F.3d 493, 499 (5th Cir. 2004) (applying section 853(e) case law to 

section 983(j) restraining order). 

2

 That is distinct from the statutory provision governing a request for a pre-complaint

restraining order, 18 U.S.C. § 983(j)(1)(B), which provides for “notice to persons appearing to 

have an interest in the property and opportunity for a hearing” before a restraining order can issue. 

Section (j)(1)(A), which governs applications made post-complaint, contains no such language. 

See United States v. Melrose E. Subdivision, 357 F.3d 493, 499 (5th Cir. 2004) (noting relevance 

of absence of any mention of a pre-restraint hearing before issuance of post-complaint restraining 

order under 18 U.S.C. § 983(j)(1)(A)). In this way, Sections (j)(1)(A) and (j)(1)(B) mirror the 

provisions governing restraining orders in criminal cases, which require notice and a hearing when 

the Government seeks a restraining order before, but not after, obtaining an indictment. See 21 

U.S.C. §§ 853(e)(1)(A) (post-indictment) and 853(e)(1)(B) (pre-indictment). 

Case 1:20-cv-23279-MGC Document 4 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/10/2020 Page 6 of 10
7 

likely that individuals with that expertise would try to further secrete and launder the asset to avoid 

forfeiture. Such actions could make it impossible to seize—and ultimately forfeit—the proceeds 

of embezzlement and fraud and property involved in the money laundering conspiracy used to 

facilitate and launder the proceeds of that criminal scheme. 

The Government therefore seeks a restraining order that will permit PNC Corporate Plaza 

Holdings and MTP Manager to continue to operate in the normal course of business, including 

executing valid contracts for the sale of assets, while ensuring that the value of the Defendant Asset 

is preserved and not diminished, transferred, or dissipated. If PNC Plaza is not sold, the proposed 

order authorizes the Government to receive and maintain the Defendant Asset’s distributions, and 

to participate in its management during the pendency of this action. 

IV. The Requested Order

For the foregoing reasons, the Government requests that this Court enter a restraining order 

allowing for the continued operation of PNC Plaza, including the sale of the property, while 

preventing waste, dissipation, or disappearance of the Defendant Asset, with the following terms: 

a. Optima CBD, CBD 500, Mordechai Korf, Uriel Laber, and their attorneys, agents, 

and anyone acting on their behalf, and all persons or entities acting in concert or participation with 

any of the above, and all persons and entities having actual knowledge of the order shall not 

directly or indirectly, transfer, sell, assign, pledge, distribute, encumber, attach or dispose of in any 

manner; cause to be transferred, sold, assigned, pledged, distributed, encumbered, attached or 

disposed of in any manner; or take, or cause to be taken, any action that would have the effect of 

depreciating, damaging, or in any way diminishing the value of the Defendant Asset, including 

any action that would increase costs or reduce revenues unless approved in writing by the 

Government. 

Case 1:20-cv-23279-MGC Document 4 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/10/2020 Page 7 of 10
8 

b. The owners of the Defendant Asset, including Optima CBD, CBD 500, Mordechai 

Korf, and Uriel Laber, are required to maintain the present contracts and agreements related to the 

Defendant Asset, and adhere to all provisions of any applicable contract or agreement until further 

order of this Court, and shall allow the United States to join in the Defendant Asset’s management, 

including by directing key business decisions about day to day operations and to monitor 

compliance with the Order by all lawful means available. 

c. Optima CBD, CBD 500, Mordechai Korf, and Uriel Laber shall not make any effort 

to interfere with the operation or preservation of the Defendant Asset. 

d. Except as otherwise provided in the Order, all persons, financial institutions, and 

other entities who have or assert any access to, interest in, control over, or legal claim to the 

Defendant Asset, and all such persons’ or entities’ agents, employees, attorneys, family members, 

and those persons in active concert or participation with them, including but not limited to Optima 

CBD, CBD 500, Mordechai Korf, and Uriel Laber, shall be restrained, prohibited, and enjoined 

from attempting or taking any action that could affect the availability, marketability, or value of 

the Defendant Asset, including but not limited to, selling, conveying, transferring, bailing, 

assigning, pledging, collateralizing, encumbering, wasting, secreting, damaging, diminishing the 

value of, disposing of, or removing from the jurisdiction of this Court, all or any part of their 

interest, direct or indirect, in the Defendant Asset, unless approved in writing by the Government. 

e. 500 West Jefferson Street LLC is authorized to consummate the sale as agreed to in the 

Purchase and Sale Agreement dated July 17, 2020 and amended on July 23, 2020. Ninety-five percent of 

the net proceeds from such sale, as well as any other funds that would otherwise be transferred to Optima 

CBD, CBD 500, Korf, Laber, or their agents, representatives, or assigns, shall be transferred to the custody 

of the United States Marshals Service pending the outcome of this action. Upon consummation of the sale 

and the transfer of 95% the net proceeds from such sale as discussed above, all restraints against PNC Plaza, 

Case 1:20-cv-23279-MGC Document 4 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/10/2020 Page 8 of 10
9 

including any lis pendens, shall be released, and the net sale proceeds shall be treated as a substitute res for 

the property. 

f. Additionally, any other funds related to PNC Holdings, 500 West Jefferson, or PNC 

Plaza, which would otherwise be owed or transferred to Optima CBD, CBD 500, Korf, Laber, or 

their agents, representatives, or assigns shall be transferred to the custody of the United States 

Marshals Service pending the outcome of this action. 

g. All other sales or transfers of the assets or income or rights thereto of the Defendant 

Asset, except with the written permission of the Government, are prohibited. 

h. In the event the sale described in the Sale Agreement is not consummated, the 

United States may file a further application for a restraining order or an order authoring the 

interlocutory sale of the Defendant Asset to prevent loss and waste and to preserve the property as 

an operating business. 

A proposed order is filed herewith. 

Respectfully submitted, 

DATED: August 10, 2020 DEBORAH CONNOR, CHIEF 

 MONEY LAUNDERING & ASSET RECOVERY 

SECTION 

By: /s/ Shai D. Bronshtein 

Shai D. Bronshtein, Trial Attorney (ID No. A5502665) 

 Michael C. Olmsted, Senior Trial Attorney 

Peter Steciuk, Trial Attorney 

Mary Butler, Chief, International Unit 

 Criminal Division 

 United States Department of Justice 

 1400 New York Avenue NW 

 Washington, DC 20005 

 Telephone: (202) 616-5950 

Shai.Bronshtein@usdoj.gov 

Case 1:20-cv-23279-MGC Document 4 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/10/2020 Page 9 of 10
10 

ARIANA FAJARDO ORSHAN 

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY 

/s Adrienne E. Rosen 

Adrienne E. Rosen 

Assistant United States Attorney 

Court ID No. A5502297 

U.S. Attorney’s Office 

99 Northeast Fourth Street, 7th Floor 

Miami, Florida 33132-2111 

Telephone: (305) 961-9338 

Adrienne.Rosen@usdoj.gov

Case 1:20-cv-23279-MGC Document 4 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/10/2020 Page 10 of 10