UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

HAMMOND DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

 )

 ) 2:13-CR-33 PPS

v. )

 )

OLA MOHAMMAD, et al., )

 )

Defendant. )

OPINION AND ORDER

This matter is before me on the Government's Request for Modification of

Post-Indictment Restraining Order, which asks for an order requiring defense counsel to produce

statements for his client trust accounts [DE 63]. Because defense counsel has fully complied

with the terms of the Restraining Order, the government's request is denied. 

Ola Mohammad stands accused of defrauding the United States Department of

Agriculture SNAP benefits program to the tune of over $600,000.00. On September 10, 2013,

the government applied for a post-indictment restraining order to preserve the availability for

forfeiture of certain money they believed to be derived from Mohammad's criminal activity,

specifically money transferred by or on behalf of Mohammad to her defense counsel, Haytham

Faraj [DE 47]. I held a hearing on the application on October 2, 2013 where I heard testimony

from both the government and the Defendant. The government presented evidence that

Mohammad had hidden as much as $50,000.00 of the fraudulently obtained money in a safe

deposit box at an Illinois bank. They then presented evidence that on August 1, 2013, she visited

the bank and closed the safe deposit box. Once the deposit box was closed, Mohammad came up

with the funds to retain Mr. Faraj as her attorney, whereas, before August 1, she had not been

able to afford representation. The government's theory is that criminal proceeds hidden in the
safe deposit box had been transferred to Faraj as a retainer for his services. 

After considering the evidence, I found that the government had met its evidentiary

burden, and, on October 24, 2013, I issued the order restraining any money transferred or paid by

or on behalf of Ola Mohammad to defense counsel [DE 62-1]. As a part of the Restraining

Order, I ordered defense counsel to provide to the United States with an accounting of the date

and amount of the money he received from or on behalf of Defendant Ola Mohammad by

November 7, 2013 [62-1 at 6]. Defense counsel promptly complied with this order, providing

the government with an accounting on October 25, 2013 [DE 63-1]. 

In the accounting, defense counsel stated that Mohammad’s sister, Shariefa Mohammed,

paid his retainer with $20,000.00 cash that she delivered, accompanied by her sister, at an

August 1, 2013 meeting [Id.]. Defense counsel also stated that the $20,000.00 has neither been

spent nor comingled with any other funds belonging to his firm or other clients [Id.]. Defense

counsel gave the same assurance regarding the segregation of Mohammed's funds at the October

2 hearing and in his sealed ex parte affidavit [DE 60-1].

The government is not satisfied with counsel’s accounting. In their request for

modification, the government requests an order directing defense counsel to produce the August

2013 statements for his Illinois and Michigan client trust accounts [DE 63 at 4]. According to

their request, they asked defense counsel for copies of this information in order to confirm that

he had only received $20,000.00 from Mohammad [DE 63 at 2]. Defense counsel refused the

request as going beyond the Restraining Order, and noted that he had not deposited the money

into a trust account anyway, but rather kept it as is because he had anticipated that the

government would attempt to restrain the money [Id.]. 

Although I well understand the government's zeal and diligence in attempting to chase
down the money they believe was fraudulently obtained from the SNAP program, I do not see

the need to go beyond the terms of the Restraining Order in this instance. Defense counsel has

stated in both a sworn affidavit and court-ordered accounting that he received only $20,000.00

from Mohammad. He has also repeatedly attested, in his filings and in person at the hearing, that

the money he received on behalf of Mohammad has been preserved, segregated from other

funds, and is awaiting surrender to the government. Defense counsel has been straightforward

with me throughout this process, and at this point, I do not have reason to suspect he is not being

truthful with the Court. Moreover, as an officer of the court, he is well aware of the severe

criminal, civil, and professional penalties that would result from dishonesty about this matter. 

My order prohibited defense counsel from using the money paid to him on behalf of Ola

Mohammad and ordered him to provide an accounting of the date and amount of money he

received on Mohammad's behalf. Defense counsel has complied with the order, and at this point,

there is no reason to go any further. 

Accordingly, the Government's Request for Modification of Post-Indictment Restraining

Order [DE 65] is DENIED. 

SO ORDERED.

ENTERED: November 12, 2013

s/ Philip P. Simon 

PHILIP P. SIMON, CHIEF JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT