Source: https://fallgatterlaw.com/legal-pleadings/motion-to-dismiss-pre-indictment-delay-absence-of-allegation/
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 08:29:59+00:00

Document:
Motion to Dismiss – Pre-Indictment Delay & Absence of Allegation | Fallgatter Catlin & Varon, P.A.
1. On December 14, one year prior to the V. trial, the Client was interviewed by FBI Special Agent (“SA”) V. K. S., at his home, regarding an alleged mortgage fraud investigation.
2. On January 5, one year prior to the V. trial, the Client received a grand jury subpoena requesting records, for which he promptly and timely provided the records.
5. During that large lapse of time, witnesses have clearly suffered memory loss, as graphically evidenced by the government’s case agent herself not even being able to recall whether she took notes of the interview of the Defendant. See United States’ Amendment to Response to Defendant’s Motion to Produce Handwritten Notes (Doc. 34), and the Client’s Response to United States’ Amendment to Response to Defendant’s Motion to Produce Handwritten Notes (Doc. 35).
12. As noted in our Motion to Strike and/or Motion in Limine (“Motion to Strike”), filed contemporaneously herewith (Doc. 43), the Indictment in this case is a standard form indictment, repeatedly utilized by the government in mortgage fraud cases – and specifically used in the related cases of (1) United States v. M. R., MDF Case, (2) United States v. D. V., MDF Case, and (3) United States v. M. D., MDF Case.
The defendant [V.], who usually acted through a corporation he formed called Homes, Inc., partnered with the Client, who usually acted through a corporation he formed called Investors, Inc., to buy and sell residential real estate in lower to middle income neighborhoods on the north side of Jacksonville. The Client found financing for and bought the properties. The defendant [V.] coordinated either the building of a new home or the renovation of an existing home on the property, and this construction was financed through the Client.
In addition to being in charge of the construction, the defendant [V.] also sought potential buyers, showed them homes that he had for sale, negotiated the terms of the Purchase and Sale Agreement, and, in most cases, signed the agreement as the seller. After the agreement was signed, the defendant [V.] helped the buyer obtain a mortgage loan. For most of the transactions alleged in the indictment, the defendant [V.] worked though [sic] a licensed mortgage broker, M. R., who owned and operated a mortgage brokerage called Mortgage Solutions. However, for a few of the later transactions, the defendant [V.] arranged the buyer’s financing himself through a loan officer at a Banking Company, a federally insured financial institution. The closings for most of the transactions alleged in the indictment took place at a Jacksonville title company named Title Corporation. After the transactions closed, the defendant and the Client split the proceeds of the sale – net of acquisition, construction, and other expenses – according to their agreement with each other.
28. As further evidence of this prejudicial delay, as the Court knows, having presided over the case of M. D. as well, Ms. D. – who is alleged to be a coconspirator with the Client – had her indictment filed on June 15 (Doc. 1), and her cooperation plea agreement filed on March 19 (Doc. 35) – roughly two years and one year, respectfully, prior to the Client’s indictment. Thus, the government waited an additional year, after her cooperation agreement, to file charges on the Clienet. As we just observed in ¶27, n. 7 regarding Ms. R., and for all the reasons set forth herein, and in our contemporaneously filed Motion to Strike, the government knows V. is the only witness to have any direct conversations with the Client – and was the only witness who could have established the existence of an unlawful agreement to defraud lenders as to down payment assistance. However, Mr. V., in conjunction with Ms. R., believed the assistance by sellers with the buyer’s down payment was perfectly lawful, and could thus not have been part of an unlawful agreement to defraud lenders as to down payment assistance. In other words, adding Ms. D. as a named “coconspirator” is disingenuous, in that the government well knows she cannot establish the existence of any such conspiracy with the Client – thus making their delay in indictment, long after the passing of Mr. V., all the more prejudicial.
b. Q: … you really didn’t think you had been doing anything wrong and there wasn’t anything in your mind telling you had done something wrong until you ran into the FBI; is that right?
37. Respectfully, this conduct is not part of the alleged Client conspiracy. Rather, this was solely the conduct of V., done in conjunction with mortgage broker M. R. (and/or her employees). They were the persons qualifying the prospective buyers, communicating with the lenders, and transmitting what the government alleges to be false information.
48. Thus, allowing introduction of well-recognized badges of fraud with what may be viewed by many others (including the government’s own star witness) as badges of innocence, would create huge prejudice to the Client. Rule 403, FRE.
49. In summary, the government cannot properly assert the existence of a conspiratorial “agreement” – as to the down payment assistance – when the only two persons with whom the Client dealt believed what they were doing was lawful. He could not possibly have any willful intent to defraud when there was no intent by the two persons who the government characterizes as his primary coconspirators. Nor could any of the three harbor the requisite intent and knowledge of an “unlawful plan” – since they all thought the plan was lawful. Nor could there exist the requisite unlawful agreement between two or more persons – since the only two with whom he dealt believed their conduct to be lawful.
Moreover, as noted, this loss occurred long after the government was well-aware of the importance of that testimony to the Client, and that it was the antithesis of their prosecution theory. As also noted, the government had earlier acknowledge they could not prosecute the Client without the testimony of Mr. V. However, it is clear their strategy is to take advantage of the death of Mr. V., in their belated zeal to prosecute the Client.
WHEREFORE, the Defendant respectfully requests the Court to grant the relief requested herein.

References: V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 V. 
 V.