1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case No.: 22-mj-8336-REINHART

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff, 

v. 

JOFF STENN WROY PHILOSSAINT, 

Defendant.

__________________________________/ 

PRETRIAL DETENTION ORDER

The Court, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3142, commonly known as the Bail Reform Act of 

1984, hereby ORDERS the Defendant, JOFF STENN WROY PHILOSSAINT, detained pursuant 

to the provisions of Sections (b), (e) and (f). 

Defendant appeared before the Court on August 12, 2022, for a detention hearing. The 

Government moved for pretrial detention of Defendant on the basis that he presents a serious risk 

of flight under 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f)(2)(A). The Court finds that the Government does have the

statutory right to move for detention under § 3142(f)(2)(A) in light of the facts of this case. 

After conducting a detention hearing in this case on August 12, 2022, and carefully 

considering all of the factors under § 3142(g), the Court specifically finds that the Government has 

established by a preponderance of the evidence that the Defendant presents a serious risk of flight 

if released pretrial and that there are no conditions or combination of conditions which will 

reasonably assure the appearance of Defendant as required. The Court takes judicial notice of the 

Case 9:22-cr-80144-RS Document 11 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/15/2022 Page 1 of 7
2

Criminal Complaint [DE 3] filed against Defendant and the Pretrial Services Report. Further, the 

Court makes the following findings of fact with respect to this order for detention:

Factors:

a) The nature and circumstances of the offense charged, including whether the 

offense is a crime of violence or involves a narcotic drug.

Defendant is charged by Criminal Complaint with one count of conspiracy to commit wire 

fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1349 (Count 1); one count of conspiracy to commit money 

laundering, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h) (Count 2); one count of aggravated identity theft, 

in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1028A (Count 3); and one count of procurement of citizenship or 

naturalization unlawfully, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1425 (Count 4). [DE 44]. If convicted of 

Count 1, Defendant faces up to twenty years in prison, up to three years of supervised release, and 

up to a $250,000 fine or a fine that is twice the gross gain or loss resulting from the offense, 

whichever is greater. If convicted of Count 2, Defendant faces up to twenty years in prison, up to 

three years of supervised release, and up to a $500,000 fine or a fine that is twice the value of the 

property involved in the transaction, whichever is greater. If convicted of Count 3, Defendant faces 

up to two years in prison (consecutive to any sentence imposed on Defendant’s other charges), up 

to one year of supervised release, and up to a $250,000 fine. Finally, if convicted of Count 4, 

Defendant faces up to ten years in prison, up to three years of supervised release, up to a $250,000 

fine, and a mandatory revocation of citizenship. Thus, while the offense with which Defendant is 

charged is not a crime of violence, violation of section 1951, or a federal crime of terrorism, and 

does not involve a minor victim or a controlled substance, firearm, explosive or destructive device, 

Defendant’s charges are very serious.

Case 9:22-cr-80144-RS Document 11 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/15/2022 Page 2 of 7
3

b) The weight of the evidence against the Defendant.

The weight of the evidence against Defendant is substantial. The following evidence was 

established by the Criminal Complaint, the Government’s proffer, and the testimony of Special 

Agent Michelle McDaniel of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

Defendant and co-conspirators participated in a Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) and 

Economic Injury Disaster Loan (EIDL) loan fraud scheme, whereby false and fraudulent PPP and 

EIDL loan applications were utilized to divert proceeds for the personal use and benefit of 

Defendant and other conspirators. Specifically, it is alleged that Defendant and co-conspirators 

submitted PPP and EIDL loan applications on behalf of 152 companies, including 26 companies 

in which Defendant acted as the payroll administrator.

1 Based on these PPP and EIDL loan 

applications—which purportedly contained false statements as to the companies’ number of 

employees and monthly expenses2

—the conspirators received $26,000,000 total in PPP and EIDL 

fraudulent loan proceeds. And, of the $26,000,000 loan proceeds received, it is alleged: (1) that 

approximately $4.8 million of these proceeds were obtained on behalf of the 26 companies for 

which the Defendant was the payroll administrator; and (2) that Defendant received kickbacks of 

approximately “10% of the value of the loan received for his assistance” in carrying out the 

fraudulent scheme in connection therewith. [DE 3 at 9]. Defendant allegedly laundered and utilized 

these kickbacks and certain loan proceeds for his own personal use and benefit thereafter.

1 This included a company which Defendant owned, and for which Defendant received approximately $350,000. 2 It is also alleged that many of these companies did not qualify for loan proceeds and only became “active” for the 

purpose of receiving loan proceeds. Additionally, Government agents interviewed several purported “employees” of 

these companies, with many of the “employees” reporting that they had never worked there and that their names and 

social security numbers were used without their permission. 

Case 9:22-cr-80144-RS Document 11 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/15/2022 Page 3 of 7
4

Notably, as part of the Government’s trace of the PPP and EIDL loan funds at issue, the 

Government traced certain proceeds to accounts controlled by Defendant in both the United States 

and the Dominican Republic. To this end, the Government proffered that a substantial sum of 

money was transferred into Defendant’s fiancée’s law firm’s trust account and later sent to the 

Dominican Republic. 3 However, at the time of the August 12, 2022 detention hearing, the 

Government stated that it was still in the process of investigating and tracing loan funds.

c) The history and characteristics of the Defendant.

The following evidence was also established by the Criminal Complaint, the Pretrial 

Services Report, the Government’s proffer, the Defendant’s proffer, and the testimony of Special 

Agent Michelle McDaniel of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

Defendant was born in Haiti and has lived in the United States since 2017. Defendant 

obtained United States citizenship in February of 2021. However, as stated earlier, if convicted of 

his current charge of procurement of citizenship or naturalization unlawfully, in violation of 18 

U.S.C. § 1425, Defendant faces mandatory denaturalization and loss of citizenship. 

With respect to Defendant’s family, Defendant is divorced and is now engaged to coconspirator Mariel Tollinchi—a member of the Florida Bar. Defendant has two children with his 

ex-wife; specifically, a two-year old and a five-year old. While it was reported in the Pretrial 

Services Report that Defendant has a split custody agreement with his ex-wife, the Government 

took issue with such assertion during the detention hearing and maintained that the children were 

not living with Defendant and that Defendant had not seen the children in quite some time.

3 Defendant’s fiancée and alleged co-conspirator, Mariel Tollinchi, is a member of The Florida Bar. It is alleged that,

as part of the fraudulent scheme, Ms. Tollinchi laundered fraudulent proceeds through her attorney trust account for 

Defendant.

Case 9:22-cr-80144-RS Document 11 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/15/2022 Page 4 of 7
5

Defendant’s ex-wife, two minor children, father, mother, 4 brother, and aunt all live in South 

Florida. In fact, Defendant’s aunt appeared at the August 12, 2022 detention hearing and was 

willing to sign a bond to secure Defendant’s pre-trial release.

As to other notable characteristics, Defendant travels to the Dominican Republic 

frequently, and has both business and properties in that country. Indeed, in the last 22 months, 

Defendant has taken 21 international trips to the Dominican Republic and was scheduled to take 

yet another trip to the Dominican Republic prior to his recent arrest.

d) The criminal history of the Defendant.

Defendant has no prior criminal history in the United States. Similarly, the Court is 

unaware of any criminal activity of Defendant elsewhere.

e) The likelihood of Defendant’s appearance in court if released.

The policy underlying the Bail Reform Act “is to permit release under the least restrictive 

condition compatible with assuring the future appearance of the defendant.” United States v. Price, 

773 F.2d 1526, 1527 (11th Cir. 1985) (per curiam). When the United States seeks to detain a 

criminal defendant pending trial based on his or her status as a serious flight risk, it must prove by 

a preponderance of the evidence that no condition or set of conditions will reasonably assure his

or her presence at trial. United States v. Medina, 775 F.2d 1398, 1402 (11th Cir. 1985); United 

States v. Qazi, No. 12-60298-CR, 2012 WL 7050588, at *3 (S.D. Fla. Dec. 19, 2012).

Based upon all of the evidence and information presented, and for the reasons stated in 

open court, this Court finds that the Government has established by a preponderance of the 

evidence that the Defendant presents a serious risk of flight if released. Further, the Court finds by 

4 Defendant proffered that his father and mother were sick and that he takes care of them, although not full-time.

Case 9:22-cr-80144-RS Document 11 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/15/2022 Page 5 of 7
6

a preponderance of the evidence that there is no condition or combination of conditions of release 

which will reasonably assure Defendant’s appearance in court if Defendant is released pretrial.

Specifically, the Court finds that the following facts, among others, weigh in favor of detention:

(1) Defendant’s significant role in this large, sophisticated, complex PPP and EIDL loan fraud 

scheme; (2) the substantial amount of money transferred to the Dominican Republic, which funds 

are available to Defendant to flee and evade capture; (3) Defendant’s significant international 

travel, including frequent travel to the Dominican Republic; (4) the presence of substantial 

amounts of laundered proceeds in this case, including substantial funds which are still unaccounted 

for; (5) Defendant’s recent arrival to the United States in 2017; (6) Defendant’s tenuous United 

States citizenship, which would be revoked if Defendant were to be convicted of procurement of 

citizenship or naturalization unlawfully, as the Government alleged that Defendant became a 

naturalized U.S. citizen during the course of this conspiracy by making false statements to INS; 

and (7) the nature of this sophisticated scheme, which allegedly utilized a Florida-barred attorney’s 

trust account to launder money.

On balance, and by a preponderance of the evidence, the Court finds that there is a serious 

risk that Defendant will flee if released pre-trial. Defendant faces a substantial prison term if 

convicted, along with revocation of his U.S. citizenship and deportation. Based on all the factors 

presented, including but not limited to, the serious nature of the charges, the strong weight of the 

evidence, the sentence that Defendant is facing if convicted, the unaccounted-for PPP and EIDL 

loan funds, the transfer of fraudulent loan funds to the Dominican Republic, and Defendant’s 

charge of procurement of citizenship or naturalization unlawfully—which would subject 

Case 9:22-cr-80144-RS Document 11 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/15/2022 Page 6 of 7
7 

Defendant to mandatory loss of citizenship— this Court finds that Defendant presents a substantial 

or serious risk of flight or nonappearance and must be detained. 

Directions Regarding Detention

For the foregoing reasons, it is hereby ORDERED that Defendant is committed to the 

custody of the Attorney General or a designated representative for confinement in a corrections 

facility separate, to the extent practicable, from persons awaiting or serving sentences or held in 

custody pending appeal. Defendant must be afforded a reasonable opportunity to consult privately 

with defense counsel. On order of a court of the United States or on request of an attorney for the 

Government, the person in charge of the corrections facility must deliver Defendant to the United 

States Marshal for the purpose of a court appearance.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at West Palm Beach in the Southern District of 

Florida, this 15th day of August, 2022. 

WILLIAM MATTHEWMAN 

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 9:22-cr-80144-RS Document 11 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/15/2022 Page 7 of 7