Exhibit A

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 377-1 Filed 11/15/18 Page 1 of 5
1

From: Rapp, Kevin (USAAZ) <Kevin.Rapp@usdoj.gov>

Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2018 2:08 PM

To: Tom Bienert

Cc: Ken Miller; Whitney Bernstein; Kozinets, Peter (USAAZ); Perlmeter, Margaret (USAAZ); Stone, Andrew 

(USAAZ)

Subject: RE: Larkin Travel Restriction Allowing Northern District of CA

Tom, 

My apologizes for the  delay in responding, I have been tied in court the last couple of days. For a couple of reasons we 

are unwilling to stipulate to any change in Jim Larkin’s release conditions. Usually we agree to ratcheting  down 

conditions where there is evidence of compliance.  But here, we still have some serious concerns that Larkin poses a 

flight risk due to the movement of tainted funds. Recently we opened an investigation on  Molly Larkin because we were 

alerted that she has been engaging in transactions that are clearly money laundering and structuring. Relevant to your 

request, we believe she was doing this at the direction of Jim Larkin. We do not believe she engaged in these 

transactions on her own.  

To date, the evidence demonstrates  that on April 9, 2018,‐‐just three days after the arrest of Jim Larkin—Molly 

Larkin  drove to three different bank branches (2 JPMC, 1 NBAZ) to withdraw $9,500 in cash at each bank. In the case of 

JPMC she withdrew the money from the same account on the same day but at different branches. This is clearly 

structuring to avoid alerting  law enforcement to the withdrawals and knowing that we were pursuing seizures.    We 

have sourced both JPMC and NBAZ accounts to criminally derived funds.  Even more concerning, GARR‐LARKIN’s NBAZ’s 

account received millions in checks made to James Larkin and signed over to her.  The largest of the debits out of the 

account are the purchase of two cashier's checks made out to GARR‐LARKIN, with an aggregate total of $1,648,500.00, 

where one of the checks was deposited into an unknown community first credit union account, and the other to an 

unknown bank of marin account.  It appears that these checks originated from a cereus properties account that the 

government seized the same day (July 19, 2018) this $1.6M was disbursed to the unknown account. As a result we are 

considering charges for Molly Larkin for violations of 18USC1956(a)(1)(B)(concealment money laundering)  18USC2232( 

destruction or removal or property to prevent seizure) and Title 31, United States Code, Section 5324(structuring).  She 

should have an  attorney  contact me no later than the end of next week to discuss these potential charges. Because we 

cannot trace cash and we do not know the accounts these funds were deposited in. If Larkin wants  to flee he would 

have considerable untraceable assets available to him.  

Second, although we are not inclined to agree to any change of his conditions in light of the  above‐‐ why does the ankle 

bracelet prevent Larkin  from spending time with his daughter? Unless I’m missing something he is able to travel to San 

Francisco he just needs to obtain permission prior to travel. Also, the daughter is able to travel to Arizona as 

well.  Setting aside Molly Larkin’s financial transactions what are Larkin’s changed circumstances that would convince a 

judge to remove this condition?  

Best, 

Kevin M. Rapp| Assistant U.S. Attorney 

Senior Litigation Counsel 

Financial Crimes and Public Integrity Section 

U.S. Department of Justice | Office of the United States Attorney 

40 N. Central Ave., Ste. 1800, Phoenix, AZ 85004 

602.514.7609, kevin.rapp@usdoj.gov

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 377-1 Filed 11/15/18 Page 2 of 5
2

From: Tom Bienert <tbienert@bmkattorneys.com>  

Sent: Monday, October 29, 2018 10:31 AM 

To: Rapp, Kevin (USAAZ) <KRapp@usa.doj.gov> 

Cc: Ken Miller <kmiller@bmkattorneys.com>; Whitney Bernstein <wbernstein@bmkattorneys.com>; Kozinets, Peter 

(USAAZ) <PKozinets@usa.doj.gov>; Perlmeter, Margaret (USAAZ) <MPerlmeter@usa.doj.gov>; Stone, Andrew (USAAZ) 

<AStone1@usa.doj.gov> 

Subject: RE: Larkin Travel Restriction Allowing Northern District of CA

Kevin,  

I’m following up on seeking a bail modification of Mr. Larkin’s release conditions, seeking to remove the anklet 

and change his restriction to allow travel within the District of Arizona and the Northern District of 

California.  As we previously noted, under the current situation with him limited to Arizona he is separate from 

his wife and daughter, who are in San Francisco where the daughter is a senior in high school.  As of next 

summer, his daughter will be moving out of the house to go to college; so the time between now and then is 

his only time to be with her before she moves out. Mr. Larkin has ongoing medical appointments and court 

related obligations in Arizona, so it would be difficult to simply move full time to N.D. CA.  

You had previously opposed this request but indicated you would reconsider after 6 months had passed with 

him on bond.  He has now been on bond for almost 7 months, and has demonstrated that he is not a flight 

risk.  I’m hoping we can stipulate to an adjustment of his bond conditions to meet his reasonable desire to 

spend time with his daughter in San Francisco.  I’d appreciate your letting me know your views at your earliest 

convenience.  In addition to email, I’m available on my cell phone (949) 350‐9419 if you’d like to discuss. 

Thanks. 

Thomas H. Bienert, Jr.

BIENERT, MILLER & KATZMAN, PLC

From: Tom Bienert  

Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2018 12:23 PM 

To: Rapp, Kevin (USAAZ) <Kevin.Rapp@usdoj.gov> 

Cc: Lanza, Dominic (USAAZ) <Dominic.Lanza@usdoj.gov>; Ken Miller <kmiller@bmkattorneys.com> 

Subject: Re: Larkin Travel Restriction Allowing Northern District of CA

Thanks a lot for getting back to me. 

My understanding is that it becomes a significant scheduling issue.  There has to be scheduling well in advance of travel 

to arrange for the transition of the anklet either on and off of him physically, or on and off from a monitoring 

standpoint. And that they are unable, for example, to monitor him with his anklet from Phoenix. while he’s in San 

Francisco.  Additionally, it becomes a problem at security check at the airport, as the security inspectors at airports often 

don’t know what to do or how to react to someone within an anklet  going through security. All of this makes the ability 

to freely go back  and forth between the bay area and Phoenix difficult, if not impossible from a practical standpoint.  I 

believe that the security in place through bond and the travel restrictions to the two areas (along with the additional 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 377-1 Filed 11/15/18 Page 3 of 5
3

requirement that he has to notify his pretrial officer each time he leaves Phoenix to go to the Bay area and when he is 

returning) provide sufficient basis to adequately ensure his appearance without the anklet. 

Thomas H. Bienert, Jr. 

Bienert Miller & Katzman 

On May 15, 2018, at 12:05 PM, Rapp, Kevin (USAAZ) <Kevin.Rapp@usdoj.gov> wrote: 

Tom:

I understood that he could travel with the ankle bracelet. 

Kevin M. Rapp| Assistant U.S. Attorney

Senior Litigation Counsel

Financial Crimes and Public Integrity Section

U.S. Department of Justice | Office of the United States Attorney 

40 N. Central Ave., Ste. 1800, Phoenix, AZ 85004

602.514.7609, kevin.rapp@usdoj.gov

From: Tom Bienert <tbienert@bmkattorneys.com>  

Sent: Monday, May 14, 2018 11:20 AM 

To: Lanza, Dominic (USAAZ) <DLanza@usa.doj.gov>; Rapp, Kevin (USAAZ) <KRapp@usa.doj.gov> 

Cc: Ken Miller <kmiller@bmkattorneys.com>; Toni Lindemann <tlindemann@bmkattorneys.com> 

Subject: Larkin Travel Restriction Allowing Northern District of CA 

  

Dom and Kevin,

I write to ask that you agree to alter the bail conditions of my client, Jim Larkin, to include the 

Northern District of California in his travel restrictions, and to remove his electronic 

monitoring.  He currently is restricted to the Phoenix area and has an ankle bracelet.  My 

client’s youngest child, Rose, is 17 and a junior in high school in San Francisco.  Since my client is 

currently restricted to Phoenix, his daughter and wife are living without him in San 

Francisco.   Under normal circumstances, he would go back and forth between Phoenix and the 

Bay Area frequently.  I’m asking that he be allowed to travel freely between Phoenix and San 

Francisco/Napa Valley, where the Larkin’s typically spend their time.  

In addition to the obvious difficulty caused by a father being separated from his wife and 

daughter, the circumstances of the case have been tough on Rose, and she is having a difficult 

time emotionally without spending her usual time with her father.  Given her age and year in 

high school, the next 15 months or so is the last time that my client will be able to spend with 

Rose before she moves out of their house and goes away for college.  Given our trial date, 

under the current bail conditions Mr. Larkin’s ability to live with his daughter will have passed 

before we even have trial in this case.  

I believe that my client’s ties to the community, appearances at various court matters in the 

Sacramento case, and remaining in the community knowing of your investigation demonstrate 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 377-1 Filed 11/15/18 Page 4 of 5
4

that his appearance at court can properly be assured with the significant property and surety 

conditions currently in place.  The ankle bracelet is not necessary to assure his appearance and 

will preclude ready travel back and forth between Phoenix and Northern 

California.  Accordingly, I ask that you accommodate this reasonable request for bail 

modification.  

I’m available to discuss whenever is convenient to you.  Since I’m in and out of the office a lot, 

best to reach me on my cell phone.  949 350‐9419.

Thanks a lot.    

Thomas H. Bienert, Jr.

BIENERT, MILLER & KATZMAN, PLC

903 Calle Amanecer, Suite 350

San Clemente, CA. 92673

Tel. (949) 369-3700

Fax (949) 369-3701

Toll free (888) 897-8794

Email: tbienert@bmkattorneys.com

Website: www.bmkattorneys.com

The foregoing message is confidential and intended for the designated recipient only.  The foregoing information may

be protected by attorney/client and/or work product privileges.  Accordingly, if you have received this message in error,

please contact BIENERT, MILLER & KATZMAN, PLC at (949) 369‐3700 immediately, and delete the message without

reviewing, copying, or making further use of the information contained herein.

  

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 377-1 Filed 11/15/18 Page 5 of 5