1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

SHERMAN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

OLAMIDE OLATAYO BELLO (1),

Defendant.

§

§

§

§

§ Crim. No. 4:23-cr-136-ALM-KPJ-1

§

§

§

§

§

OPINION AND ORDER

On August 10, 2023, Pretrial Services filed a Petition for Action on Conditions of Pretrial 

Release (Dkt. 122) (the “Petition”). On August 22, 2023, the Court held a hearing on the Petition 

(Dkt. 122). See Dkt. 133. Upon consideration, the Court finds Defendant Olamide Olatayo Bello’s 

(“Defendant”) pretrial release should be revoked and Defendant should be DETAINED pending 

trial.

I. BACKGROUND

On June 15, 2023, Defendant was charged in an indictment (the “Indictment”) (Dkt. 1)

with violating 18 U.S.C. § 1349 (Conspiracy to Commit Wire Fraud). See Dkt. 1. On June 21, 

2023, Defendant was arrested; and on June 22, 2023, Defendant was arraigned and made an initial 

appearance before the undersigned. See Minute Entry for June 21, 2023; Minute Entry for June 

22, 2023. During the June 22, 2023 arraignment, the Government advised the Court it was not 

moving to detain Defendant, and Defendant was released on conditions of pretrial release. See 

Minute Entry for June 22, 2023.

On August 10, 2023, Pretrial Services filed the Petition (Dkt. 122). The Petition (Dkt. 122) 

alleges Defendant violated the following conditions of pretrial release:

Case 4:23-cr-00136-ALM-KPJ Document 139 Filed 08/28/23 Page 1 of 11 PageID #: 589
2

(1) The defendant must not violate federal, state, or local law while on release. 

(7)(g) avoid all contact, directly or indirectly, with any person who is or may be a 

victim or witness in the investigation or prosecution, including: co-defendants.

(7)(t) not open any new bank account, credit account, or line of credit. Not access 

any bank account, credit account, or line of credit held under the name of another 

individual. Not transfer money in any form, or give money in any form to, any other 

defendant in the case, whether electronically or by any other means. Not receive 

money in any form, or give money to, any other defendant in the case, whether 

electronically or by any other means. Not have contact in any form with any 

defendant, whether in person, in writing, by phone, messaging app, email, 

electronically, or by other means.

Id. at 2. 

The Petition (Dkt. 122) alleges Defendant violated these conditions as follows: 

On, or about, June 24, 2023, [Defendant] contacted a co-defendant through a thirdparty and provided a document that contained information directly pertinent to the 

case. [Defendant] encouraged the co-defendant not to speak with the government. 

Additionally, [Defendant] suggested a false narrative for the co-defendant to utilize 

should they speak with the government.

Id. 

On August 16, 2023, Defendant was arrested and made an initial appearance as to the 

Petition (Dkt. 122). See Minute Entry for August 16, 2023. On August 22, 2023, the Court held a 

hearing on the Petition (the “Hearing”) (Dkt. 133). Assistant United States Attorney Sean Taylor

appeared on behalf of the Government, and Mr. Frank Jackson appeared on behalf of Defendant. 

See id. 

Federal Bureau of Investigation Special Agent Jason Rennie (“Agent Rennie”) testified as 

to Defendant’s alleged violations of his pretrial release conditions. Agent Rennie testified that 

Defendant is at the center of a conspiracy with ten co-defendants involving approximately $4 to 

$5 million of fraudulently obtained pandemic loan relief under the Paycheck Protection Program 

(“PPP”), a federal business loan program established by the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and 

Economic Security Act (“CARES Act”). Agent Rennie testified that Defendant recruited 

Case 4:23-cr-00136-ALM-KPJ Document 139 Filed 08/28/23 Page 2 of 11 PageID #: 590
3

individuals known to him in the Nigerian community to request loans through dormant and 

existing companies and aided these individuals in falsifying and altering these companies’ payroll 

and revenues to receive larger PPP loans from the federal government. Agent Rennie testified that 

in exchange for Defendant’s “assistance,” Defendant received approximately twenty-seven to 

thirty-two percent of the PPP loan proceedings. Agent Rennie testified that through law 

enforcement’s investigation, Defendant was connected with his co-defendants’ fraudulent loan 

applications through his existing relationships with these individuals and his tax preparation 

services. Agent Rennie further testified that at least two co-defendants only had to provide a copy 

of their driver’s license to Defendant for his preparation of PPP loan applications and that 

Defendant in turn created false bank statements and altered bank statements to reflect certain 

payroll and revenues for these individuals’ companies to receive outsized PPP loans. Agent Rennie 

further testified that Defendant has at least one degree and extensive experience with computer 

sciences and technology, and Defendant has family connections and bank accounts in Nigeria. 

Agent Rennie testified that while Defendant and five of the co-defendants were held 

overnight in Collin County jail before their initial appearance, Defendant repeatedly told the codefendants that if questioned by law enforcement regarding the PPP loans or the payment of 

approximately thirty percent to Defendant, they should state, “I don’t remember.” Agent Rennie 

testified that Defendant repeatedly told the co-defendants not to cooperate with law enforcement 

and, as a result, Collin County jail personnel ultimately separated Defendant from the codefendants. 

Additionally, Agent Rennie testified that co-defendant Sabur Olawale Yusuff (“CoDefendant Yusuff”) informed law enforcement that he received WhatsApp text messages from 

two phone numbers—+234 706 376 2770 and +234 901 935 1185—both of which were unknown 

Case 4:23-cr-00136-ALM-KPJ Document 139 Filed 08/28/23 Page 3 of 11 PageID #: 591
4

to him.

1 Agent Rennie testified these messages were sent approximately two days following 

Defendant’s release on pretrial conditions. Agent Rennie further testified that +234 is the country

code for Nigeria and provided a PowerPoint presentation with screenshots of the WhatsApp text 

messages from these two numbers. In relevant part, the individual using the number +234 706 376 

2770 (“2770 Messenger”) had the following WhatsApp text message conversation with CoDefendant Yusuff:2

2770 Messenger: Please hold on sir. 

Remember “Mr. Ahmed, Baba ori, Abibat, remember I.T Training, AWS Training” 

These are clues I was asked to give you sir. I asuure you I am not trying to scam 

you sir

I am only being asked to send an information to you sir

Remember “Moji alamala”

Just make sure say you delete all the messages from this number when you 

remember

Co-Defendant Yusuff: Which messages? 

And pls don’t call me again if you can text me ..

You can easily text

Text me..I can’t receive calls at this time.

2770 Messenger: Alright I apologize for calling at this hour sir, but as I said earlier 

I’m in Nigeria. 

I’m told that the files I’m to give is quite sensitive and that’s why it needs to go 

through madam Moji to you, not directly from me sir, if not I would have just sent 

it directly right now.

1 WhatsApp is an internationally available cell phone messaging system that provides for end-to-end encryption of 

messages and calls.

2 All grammatical and spelling errors are within the WhatsApp text messages and Microsoft Word document. 

Case 4:23-cr-00136-ALM-KPJ Document 139 Filed 08/28/23 Page 4 of 11 PageID #: 592
5

The person is trying to stay anonymous and that’s why they are giving you these 

clues sir. 

This is why I need madam Moji’s contact so I can send it to her and she can give 

you sir.

I understand why you don’t trust me, but I am not trying to scam you of anything 

this is all just to be safe

Dkt. 133.

Agent Rennie testified that the “clues” referenced in the WhatsApp text messages are to 

indicate that the messages originate from Defendant, as Defendant previously provided I.T. 

training and Amazon Web Services (“AWS”) training to several co-defendants. Agent Rennie

testified that a forensic review of the WhatsApp text messages revealed Defendant communicated 

with the 2770 Messenger around the time of the WhatsApp text messages, and the 2770 Messenger 

was identified in a group chat with other co-defendants.

Agent Rennie further testified that the individual using the +234 901 935 1185 (“1185 

Messenger”) sent Co-Defendant Yusuff a Microsoft Word document (the “Word Document”), 

which states in relevant part:

Greetings,

I am aware of your case, and I can see the government want to use you all against 

each other and that is why they insist you all can not talk to each other. It is time 

not to be selfish but show loyalty to each other, prove the system wrong that you 

are one Nigerian and you do not bite each other and be strong. 

Here are the facts:

1. You are all Nigerians.

2. You are all gunnie pigs

3. The lawyers will take your money and you still going to be punished.

4. You Nigerians are known not to work with each other. 

Case 4:23-cr-00136-ALM-KPJ Document 139 Filed 08/28/23 Page 5 of 11 PageID #: 593
6

5. You can either beat the system or system beat you

6. You are all stupid not trusting each other.

7. You are all scared.

8. FBI will try to cut deal with each of you to go against [Defendant] who has been 

there for you all.

9. [Defendant] is the target and FBI is using you all as a weapon to prison him.

10. One of you snitched on the rest of you because you cut a deal with FBI

11. You are all picked because one way or the other [Defendant] had money 

transactions with you all and you were all traced by [Defendant’s] bank account 

and his house IP. Also because you all have been found going to [Defendant’s] 

house or have been hanging around him.

One facts you all :

1. A consultant can help you apply for the PPP as [Defendant] has been your tax 

and business consultant . . . 

2. PPP loans can be sent on operating expenses such as invoicing and accounting 

software which can constitute to payroll expenses. So whatever you pay 

[Defendant] can be consider as payroll expenses toward operation expenses and 

software for accounting and payroll . . .

SOY the FBI tracked your bank accounts, they know about your purchases.

Suggestions: The FBI claimed 30% you can claim it as a subscription to the payroll 

services at payroll.dob.company to also include accounting services. Also show the 

attached documents to help with the information you need on your application. You 

can also claim the fact that you have been disallowed to contact your consultant 

[Defendant] to gather more documents as it has been long, and you cannot 

remember it all. Also, the server in [Defendant’s] house you use to store your 

records was hacked 3 months ago and [Defendant] has been working on extracting 

the data before the arrest. The attached record is for your information to guide you 

to prepare for this and not to show anyone

Dkt. 133. 

Agent Rennie testified that “SOY” is a reference to one of the companies involved in the 

Indictment that received PPP loans, and payroll.dob.company is a company owned by Defendant. 

Case 4:23-cr-00136-ALM-KPJ Document 139 Filed 08/28/23 Page 6 of 11 PageID #: 594
7

Agent Rennie testified that the Word Document properties reflect Defendant was the “Author” of 

the Word Document and that Defendant was the last individual to modify the Word Document on 

June 24, 2023. Agent Rennie testified that law enforcement also identified telephone 

communications between Defendant and 1185 Messenger. Agent Rennie testified that at least two 

co-defendants received the Word Document and another very similar word document. Agent 

Rennie testified that he believes the Word Document was created to warn the co-defendants not to 

speak with law enforcement and, in the event they did, create a false narrative the co-defendants

should present to law enforcement. Agent Rennie further testified there was additional evidence 

that Defendant spoke with a co-defendant and informed the co-defendant that individuals 

expecting a share of the PPP loan proceeds were threatening possible violence.

On cross-examination, Agent Rennie clarified that the above communications were sent 

directly to Co-Defendant Yusuff, who then provided the communications to the FBI.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

The Bail Reform Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3142, governs the release and detention of defendants 

awaiting trial. Section 3142(g) provides that courts shall consider the following factors in 

determining whether a person poses a flight risk or a danger to the community: (1) the nature and 

circumstances of the offense charged; (2) the weight of the evidence; (3) the defendant’s history 

and characteristics, including, among other things, his family ties, length of residence in the 

community, past conduct, history relating to drug or alcohol abuse, criminal history, and record 

concerning appearance at court proceedings; and (4) the nature and seriousness of the danger to 

any person or the community that would be posed by the defendant’s release. 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g); 

see also United States v. Acosta-Leyva, 751 F. App’x 594, 595 (5th Cir. 2019) (per curiam).

Case 4:23-cr-00136-ALM-KPJ Document 139 Filed 08/28/23 Page 7 of 11 PageID #: 595
8

“A person who has been released under section 3142 of this title, and who has violated a 

condition of his release, is subject to a revocation of release, an order of detention, and a 

prosecution for contempt of court.” 18 U.S.C. § 3148(a). Section 3148(b) provides:

The Judicial officer shall enter an order of revocation and detention if, after a 

hearing, the judicial officer—

(1) finds that there is—

(A)probable cause to believe that the person has committed a Federal, State, or 

local crime while on release; or 

(B) clear and convincing evidence that the person has violated any other 

condition of release; and

(2) finds that—

(A) based on the factors set forth in section 3142(g) of this title, there is no 

condition or combination of conditions of release that will assure that the 

person will not flee or pose a danger to the safety of any other person or the 

community; or 

(B) the person is unlikely to abide by any condition or combination of 

conditions of release. 

18 U.S.C. § 3148(b). “Under the statute, a finding of probable cause under § 3148(b)(1)(A) carries 

with it a rebuttable presumption that no condition or combination of conditions will assure that the 

person will not pose a danger to the safety of any other person or the community.” United States 

v. Aron, 904 F.2d 221, 224 (5th Cir. 1990); see also United States v. Moreno, 857 F.3d 723, 725–

27 (5th Cir. 2017). Under Section 3148(b)(2)(B), a “district court’s finding that a defendant will 

not abide by any conditions of release may be established by a preponderance of the evidence.”

Aron, 904 F.2d at 224 (citing United States v. Gotti, 794 F.2d 773, 778 (2d Cir. 1986)); see also 

United States v. Minor, 204 F. App’x 453, 455 (5th Cir. 2006).

Case 4:23-cr-00136-ALM-KPJ Document 139 Filed 08/28/23 Page 8 of 11 PageID #: 596
9

III. ANALYSIS

The Court finds there is probable cause to believe Defendant has committed a federal, state, 

or local crime, in violation of Condition 1, by attempting to obstruct justice, and there is clear and 

convincing evidence that Defendant violated Conditions 7(g) and 7(t). The Court further finds 

Defendant has not rebutted the presumption that no condition or combination of conditions will 

assure that he will not flee. Furthermore, the Court finds by a preponderance of the evidence that

Defendant will not abide by any condition or combination of conditions of release. 

On June 22, 2023, Defendant made an initial appearance and was arraigned, the Court read 

the conditions of pretrial release into the record, Defendant reviewed the conditions with his 

attorney and was provided a copy of the pretrial conditions, and Defendant signed the order, which 

states as follows: “I acknowledge that I am the defendant in this case and that I am aware of the 

conditions of release. I promise to obey all conditions of release . . . I am aware of the penalties 

and sanctions set forth above.” Dkt. 46 at 4; Minute Entry for June 22, 2023. The Court confirmed 

with Defendant that he understood each of the conditions set forth in the order and warned 

Defendant of the consequences for failure to abide by the pretrial conditions stating, “If you violate

any condition of your release, a warrant for your arrest may be issued, you may be jailed until trial, 

and you may be prosecuted for contempt of court. Committing a crime while on release may lead 

to more severe punishment than you would otherwise receive if you committed that same crime at 

any other time. And it is a crime to try to influence, threaten, retaliate against, or in any way affect 

any person associated with your case.” Minute Entry for June 22, 2023. After Defendant confirmed 

that he understood his conditions of pretrial release, agreed to abide by them, and confirmed his 

understanding of the consequences for failure to abide by his conditions, Defendant was released 

on conditions of pretrial release. 

Case 4:23-cr-00136-ALM-KPJ Document 139 Filed 08/28/23 Page 9 of 11 PageID #: 597
10

A mere two days later, Defendant, through intermediaries, sought to coerce Co-Defendant 

Yusuff to not speak with the FBI or, in the alternative, for Co-Defendant Yusuff to present a false 

narrative to the FBI to aid Defendant. However, Defendant’s attempt to anonymize his 

communications was defeated by his failure to remove the Word Document properties—i.e., 

metadata reflecting the author of the document and date the document was created or modified—

that denote Defendant’s name and the date he created and modified the Word Document.3

Furthermore, Agent Rennie’s testimony and investigation reveal telephone communications 

between 1185 Messenger and Defendant. Defendant’s intent to use intermediaries to coerce CoDefendant Yusuff is further bolstered by 2770 Messenger’s “clues” to Co-Defendant Yusuff, such 

as the I.T. and AWS training, included to inform Co-Defendant Yusuff that Defendant was the 

source of these messages. And the nefarious nature of these messages is further made clear by the 

instruction to delete them after Co-Defendant Yusuff viewed them.

Defendant’s actions are a clear message that he has attempted and intends to obstruct 

justice. The Court is not blind to such actions. Conspiracy, by its very nature, presents a prisoner’s 

dilemma between co-defendants, and there is a threat that a co-defendant may seek to coerce, 

threaten, or even injure co-defendants. But our criminal justice system depends on witnesses and 

defendants being free from fear or coercion to provide truthful testimony as to the events that 

occurred and their respective involvement or lack thereof. In the present case, Defendant is accused 

of leading a conspiracy to direct others to defraud the COVID-19 pandemic relief program. Once 

arrested, Defendant sought to coerce his fellow co-defendants into providing a false narrative 

against the express direction from the Court not to communicate electronically or through any 

3 Microsoft Word provides a consumer-facing function for users to view the properties of documents, with different 

fields that may be added or deleted by the user, including who authored and altered the document.

Case 4:23-cr-00136-ALM-KPJ Document 139 Filed 08/28/23 Page 10 of 11 PageID #: 598
11

other means with co-defendants. Defendant was afforded an opportunity to continue on conditions 

of pretrial release; however, through his actions, he has now forfeited his pretrial release.

Accordingly, the Court finds there is probable cause to believe Defendant has committed 

a federal, state, or local crime in violation of Condition 1, by attempting to obstruct justice, and 

there is clear and convincing evidence that Defendant violated Conditions 7(g) and 7(t). The Court 

further finds Defendant has not rebutted the presumption that no condition or combination of 

conditions will assure that he will not flee. Finally, the Court finds by a preponderance of the 

evidence that Defendant will not abide by any condition or combination of conditions of release. 

IV. CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, the Court concludes that the record in this case supports 

Defendant’s pretrial detention. Accordingly, Defendant shall remain DETAINED pending trial or 

other disposition of this case.

Case 4:23-cr-00136-ALM-KPJ Document 139 Filed 08/28/23 Page 11 of 11 PageID #: 599