Source: http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/documents/world/us-filing-on-bond-for-leonard-francis/692/
Timestamp: 2017-01-18 22:11:56
Document Index: 72222128

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 3142', '§ 3145', '§ 3142', '§ 3142', '§ 2', '§ 2', '§ 2', '§ 2', '§ 2', '§ 3', '§ 3', '§ 371', '§ 201', '§ 3142', '§ 3142', '§ 3142', '§ 3142']

U.S. filing on bond for Leonard Francis
U.S. attorneys argue that Leonard Francis, the man known as "Fat Leonard" accused of bribing Navy officers with prostitutes and cash, should be detained as a flight risk. Case 3:13-cr-03782-JLS Document 62-1 Filed 11/22/13 Page 1 of 15
LAURA E. DUFFYUnited States AttorneyMARK W. PLETCHER (CO Bar No. 34615)ROBERT S. HUIE (CA Bar No. 237374)Assistant U.S. Attorneys880 Front Street, Room 6293San Diego, CA 92101Tel: (619) 546-7053
67 JEFFREY KNOXChief, Fraud Section8 CATHERINE VOTAW (PA Bar No. 34823)9 BRIAN YOUNG (OH Bar No. 78395)Trial Attorneys, Fraud Section10 Criminal Division11 Tel: (202) 353-0449Attorneys for the United States12UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT13SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
15 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,16Plaintiff,17v.1819 LEONARD FRANCIS (1), and20 JOHN BELIVEAU (2),21
Case No. 13-CR-3781-JLS, -3782-JLSMEMORANDUM OF POINTS ANDAUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OFUNITED STATESâ€™ MOTION TOREVOKE RELEASE ORDER AND TODETAIN DEFENDANT AS A FLIGHTRISK
Date: November 25, 2013Defendants.22 _______________________________ Time: 2:00 p.m.UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,23Plaintiff,
26LEONARD FRANCIS (1), and27 MICHAEL MISIEWICZ (2),28Defendants.
Case 3:13-cr-03782-JLS Document 62-1 Filed 11/22/13 Page 2 of 15
Defendant Leonard Francis, the CEO and owner of Glenn Defense Marine Asia
4 (â€œGDMAâ€), is accused of corrupting senior Navy officials into serving as double5 agents for him, by bribing them to provide him with classified national defense and6 law enforcement information, in order to protect Francisâ€™s multi-national, multi-year,7 multi-million dollar fraud on the United States Navy.Defendant is a Malaysian national with no meaningful ties to the United States,
9 other than the fact that he has built a business empire based on defrauding the United10 States. He faces a sentence â€“ as recommended by the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines â€“ of11 a minimum term of life in a United States prison.If given the opportunity, Defendant can â€“ and will â€“ flee this country. He
13 literally has no reason to remain in the United States for trial. He has tremendous14 financial resources, estimated in the tens of millions of dollars; owns a fleet of vessels;15 owns a company with offices in a dozen countries; has family and friends across the16 globe; and has every means and motivation to flee to Mexico, and from there, shop for17 a country with no extradition treaty with the United States. If any person in this18 district should be detained as a risk of flight, it is Defendant.The United States respectfully seeks review of an order (the â€œrelease orderâ€)1 by
20 the U.S. Magistrate Judge setting the conditions of release proposed by Defendant.21 The Magistrate Judge held a lengthy and thorough hearing in this case. At the close of22 that hearing, the Magistrate Judge agreed with the United States on several factors that23 favor detention, including the very serious nature of the charges against Defendant;24 the strong weight of the evidence against Defendant; and Defendantâ€™s ties to other25
Technically, as discussed further below, there are two identical release orders,26 one in each of two related cases.22713CR3781-JLS, -3782-JLS28
Case 3:13-cr-03782-JLS Document 62-1 Filed 11/22/13 Page 3 of 15
1 countries and lack of ties to the United States.
However, the Magistrate Judge
2 ultimately agreed with Defendantâ€™s proposed bond conditions, under which Defendant3 would be allowed to live at an upper-level apartment that he will rentwith GPS,4 private video surveillance, and a guard hired by Defendant.5
The fact that the Magistrate Judge concluded that private guards, video
6 surveillance, and an upper-level apartment (to prevent the defendant from escaping7 from a window) were the least restrictive means available to ensure Mr. Francisâ€™s8 appearance speaks volumes about his incentive to flee. The United States respectfully9 submits that these release conditions are inadequate. To the extent that Defendantâ€™s10 release conditions are designed to rely, in any measure, on Defendantâ€™s goodwill and11 voluntary compliance, those conditions are mistaken. To the extent that Defendantâ€™s12 release conditions are instead designed to physically prevent Defendant from reaching13 the Mexico border, those conditions are insufficient. They establish what is in effect a14 â€œhome jailâ€ that is designed to be far less effective than a real jail. Both parties15 essentially agree that nothing short of physical confinement will ensure Mr. Francisâ€™s16 appearance. The issue for the Court to decide is whether that confinement should17 occur at the MCC or in a prison of Mr. Francisâ€™s own choosing and design.18
Consideration of the factors outlined in the Bail Reform Act establish that
19 Defendant is in fact a flight risk. The United States urges, in agreement with Pretrial20 Services, that Defendant be detained.21
Francis is charged in three pending cases with engaging in conspiracies to
25 commit bribery. The three cases, and the next court dates in each, are as follows:262728
United States v. Leonard Francis and John Beliveau3
13CR3781-JLS, -3782-JLS
Case 3:13-cr-03782-JLS Document 62-1 Filed 11/22/13 Page 4 of 15
13-MJ-3456-JMA
13-CR-3781-JLSNext date: Motion hearing/trial setting before U.S. District Judge Janis L.
4 Sammartino, set for February 28, 2014.(2)
United States v. Leonard Francis and Michael Misiewicz
13-MJ-3457-JMA
13-CR-3782-JLSNext date: Motion hearing/trial setting before U.S. District Judge Janis L.
9 Sammartino, set for February 28, 2014.(3)
United States v. Leonard Francis and Jose Sanchez13-MJ-4027-DHB2
Next date: Arraignment on Indictment or Information before U.S. Magistrate
13 Judge David H. Bartick, set for December 5, 2013.Additionally, Francisâ€™s conduct is described in the complaint in a fourth case.
15 That fourth case charges Alex Wisidagama, Francisâ€™s subordinate and cousin, with16 conspiring with Francis (identified in the complaint by initials as â€œLFâ€) and others to17 defraud the United States.18
United States v. Alex Wisidagama
13-MJ-3783-JMA
Next date: Motion hearing/trial setting before U.S. District Judge Janis L.
21 Sammartino, set for December 6, 2013.22
No Information or Indictment has been filed yet in this case, but it is anticipatedthat the case will be related to 13-CR-3781 and -3782 based on a common defendant,26 Leonard Francis.42713CR3781-JLS, -3782-JLS25
Case 3:13-cr-03782-JLS Document 62-1 Filed 11/22/13 Page 5 of 15
Francis was arrested at his hotel suite at the San Diego Marriott Marquis on the
3 evening on September 16, 2013, based on arrest warrants issued in 13-MJ-3456 and 4 3457. [See 13-MJ-3456, Dkt. No. 2.]At his initial appearance the following day before U.S. Magistrate Judge Karen
36 Crawford, the United States moved to detain him as a risk of flight. [Dkt. No. 7.]
7 Pretrial Services likewise recommended that Francis be detained as a flight risk. A8 detention hearing was scheduled for September 20, 2013.On September 20, 2013, Francis waived the detention hearing and stipulated to
10 detention, without prejudice. [Dkt. No. 10.] An order of detention was entered. [Dkt.11 No. 15.]On November 20, 2013, Francis made an initial appearance on his third
13 criminal complaint, 13-MJ-4027, before U.S. Magistrate Judge David H. Bartick.14 [See 13-MJ-4027, Dkt. No. 14.] The United States again moved to detain Francis. A15 detention was hearing was scheduled before Judge Bartick for Monday, November 25,16 2013 at 2:00 p.m. (the same date and time as the hearing scheduled before this Court17 on this Motion).On November 21, 2013, the parties appeared before U.S. Magistrate Judge Jan
19 M. Adler, to hear Defendantâ€™s request for bond in connection with two of Defendantâ€™s20 pending cases: 13-CR-3781, and -3782. [See 13-CR-3781, Dkt. No. 42.]At the bond hearing, Judge Adler heard argument for approximately two hours.
22 Pretrial Services, after hearing Defendantâ€™s bond proposal, again joined in the United23 Statesâ€™ recommendation that Defendant be detained.2425
Cases 13-MJ-3456 and -3457 were initially assigned to Judge Crawford, and26 after he recusal were ultimately reassigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Jan M. Adler.52713CR3781-JLS, -3782-JLS28
Case 3:13-cr-03782-JLS Document 62-1 Filed 11/22/13 Page 6 of 15
At the conclusion of the hearing on Thursday evening, he set conditions of
2 release. [See 13-CR-3781, Dkt. No. 43.] Those conditions included:3
ï‚· A $1 million corporate surety bond
ï‚· A $100,000 person appearance bond signed by Defendant and his aunt
ï‚· GPS monitoring with home detention
ï‚· Defendant will live at a rented apartment in San Diego County, in theupper floor of a multi-story building (to be rented in the future)
ï‚· Defendantâ€™s residence will be monitored by a security company with
ï‚· Defendant will have a 24-hour guard service in his apartment at all times
11 [Id.] At the request of the United States, Judge Adler stayed his release order, pending12 review in this Court. [Dkt. No. 42.] This Motion follows.13
The Bail Reform Act provides for detention where â€œthe judicial officer finds
17 that no condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure the appearance18 of the person as required and the safety of any other person and the community.â€ 1819 U.S.C. Â§ 3142(e). â€œOn a motion for pretrial detention, the United States bears the20 burden of showing by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant poses a21 flight risk, or by clear and convincing evidence, that the defendant poses a danger to22 the community.â€ United States v. Aitken, 898 F.2d 104, 107 (9th Cir. 1990) (citation23 omitted and emphasis added).24
Here, the United States has moved to detain Defendant as a risk of flight only,
25 and the preponderance standard applies.262728
Case 3:13-cr-03782-JLS Document 62-1 Filed 11/22/13 Page 7 of 15
Where a magistrate judge has ordered release, â€œthe Government may file, with
2 the court having original jurisdiction over the offense, a motion for revocation of the3 order or amendment of the conditions of release.â€ 18 U.S.C. Â§ 3145(a)(1). This Court4 should apply a de novo standard in reviewing the release order. See United States v.5 Koenig, 912 F.2d 1190, 1191 (9th Cir. 1990). â€œ[T]he district court is not required to6 start over in every case, and proceed as if the magistrateâ€™s decision and findings did7 not exist,â€ but â€œ[i]t should review the evidence before the magistrate and make its own8 independent determination whether the magistrateâ€™s findings are correct, with no9 deference. If the performance of that function makes it necessary or desirable for the10 district judge to hold additional evidentiary hearings, it may do so.â€ Id. at 1193.11
At the bond hearing, the parties proceeded by way of proffer. The United
12 Statesâ€™ proffer included, among other facts, the facts described in the four criminal13 complaints relating to Defendant. In connection with this Motion, the United States14 will be delivering to chambers a courtesy copy of these complaints. The United States15 has also ordered a transcript of yesterdayâ€™s bond hearing, and will submit this16 transcript to chambers as soon as it is received.17
The Bail Reform Act, at 18 U.S.C. Â§ 3142(g), describes the factors to be
18 considered in determining whether a defendant should be detained. Each of these19 factors is addressed below.20
Nature and Circumstances of the Offense (18 U.S.C. Â§ 3142(g)(1))
As Judge Adler found, the offenses charged in this case are very serious.
22 Defendant is alleged to have bribed and corrupted three senior Navy officials:23 Commander Michael Misiewicz, Commander Jose Sanchez, and NCIS Supervisory24 Special Agent John Beliveau. In exchange for Defendantâ€™s bribes â€“ in the form of25 cash, luxury travel, and the services of prostitutes â€“ the Navy officials gave Defendant26 the information he wanted: classified defense information (including information2728
Case 3:13-cr-03782-JLS Document 62-1 Filed 11/22/13 Page 8 of 15
1 classified as â€œconfidentialâ€ and â€œsecretâ€) about ship schedules; internal and2 proprietary Navy communications, including defense procurement information3 concerning Defendant and his competitors; and sensitive law enforcement information4 about the open investigations into Defendant. Defendant cultivated and maintained5 these bribery relationships with each co-defendant over a period of several years.6
In addition to bribery, Defendant defrauded the United States Navy for years,
7 using a variety of schemes, including submitting false bids from competing sub8 contractors; submitting false, inflated invoices from subcontractors, and the obtaining9 kickbacks from those subcontractors; and creating invoices for phony companies and10 phone foreign port authorities.11
The complaint in United States v. Alex Wisidagama, 13-MJ-3783-JMA,
12 provides some concrete examples of the fraud. Based on those examples, in one13 country alone (Thailand) during an approximate one-year period, Defendant defrauded14 the United States Navy of over $10 million.15
Defendantâ€™s bribery and fraud schemes were interrelated.
16 Commander Misiewicz and Commander Sanchez in order to obtain information that17 would allow him to maximize the profit on his fraud; he bribed Special Agent18 Beliveau to pass him NCIS investigative reports on GDMA, and to coach him on how19 to evade the law enforcement techniques of NCIS.20
At the bond hearing, the United States discussed the sentencing guidelines
21 applicable to Defendant, beginning with USSG Â§ 2C1.1, the bribery guideline:22
ï‚· Base offense level [Â§ 2C1.1(a)(1)]
ï‚· More than one bribe [Â§ 2C1.1(b)(1)]
ï‚· Losses exceeding $20m [Â§ 2C1.1(b)(2)]
ï‚· Public official in sensitive position [Â§ 2C1.1(b)(3)]
ï‚· Leader of 5 or more in criminal activity [Â§ 3B1.1(a)]
Case 3:13-cr-03782-JLS Document 62-1 Filed 11/22/13 Page 9 of 15
ï‚· Obstruction of justice [Â§ 3C1.1]
With no criminal history, the guidelines recommend a sentencing range of
4 â€œlife.â€ That is, the guidelines recommend a minimum (and a maximum) lifetime5 custodial term of imprisonment.Defendantâ€™s counsel likewise addressed the guidelines at the bond hearing.
7 Defendant did take issue with the applicability of any of these guidelines, except to8 argue that, in Defendantâ€™s view, the loss amount should be lower.The United Statesâ€™ estimate of loss exceeding $20 million is its current estimate
410 of the total losses caused by Defendant. However, if this loss amount were limited to
11 the $10 million caused during one year in Thailand (as described in the Wisidagama12 complaint), the applicable enhancement would be +20, for a loss exceeding $7 million13 but no greater than $20 million. The resulting offense level would be 44. At that14 offense level, the guidelines still prescribe a sentence of â€œlife.â€At present, Defendant has only been charged in three one-count complaints,
16 each count alleging a violation of 18 U.S.C. Â§ 371, which carries a five-year statutory17 maximum.
He therefore faces a 15-year statutory maximum sentence under the
18 current charges. However, the three complaints described numerous individual acts of19 bribery â€“ each of which could easily be added as a substantive count under 18 U.S.C.20 Â§ 201. Each such count would increase the total statutory maximum by an additional21 15 years. Practically speaking, therefore, the statutory maximum prescribed sentences22 do not impose a limit on the custodial time Defendant faces in this case. The United2324
Although the United States does intend to charge Defendant with fraud, the25 guidelines calculations set forth above â€“ including the loss amount â€“ apply even underthe bribery guidelines, which specifically direct a court to consider the losses26 occasioned by a defendantâ€™s acts of bribery.92713CR3781-JLS, -3782-JLS28
Case 3:13-cr-03782-JLS Document 62-1 Filed 11/22/13 Page 10 of 15
1 States submits that the Court, in determining whether Defendant is a flight risk, should2 consider (as Defendant himself presumably would) the total penalty he potentially3 faces, rather than limiting that penalty to the maximum prescribed by the pending4 counts.5
Finally, it is worth noting that the guidelines as described above would be
6 applicable if Defendant is convicted in any one of the three criminal cases. Even if7 Defendant were to persuade a sentencing court to apply downward departures or8 variances (none of which were mentioned at the bond hearing, and none of which9 readily come to mind), the United States would have a valid basis for seeking an10 upward variance based on the fact that Defendant engaged in his bribery scheme many11 times over.12
This factor â€“ the nature and circumstances of the offense â€“ strongly favors
13 detention. Facing a life sentence, Defendant literally has nothing to lose by fleeing.14
Weight of the Evidence (18 U.S.C. Â§ 3142(g)(2))
Judge Adler found that the weight of the evidence is strong. Indeed, it is. The
16 four complaints, together, constitute over eighty pages describing details of17 Defendantâ€™s malfeasance â€“ including details described in Defendantâ€™s own words as18 contained in his emails.19
At the bond hearing, Defendant did not dispute that this factor favors detention.
20 Instead, the defense expressly stated that it was declining to discuss the merits of the21 case.22
This factor â€“ the weight of the evidence â€“ strongly favors detention.
The Bail Reform Act directs courts to consider, under the heading â€œhistory and
History and Characteristics (18 U.S.C. Â§ 3142(g)(3))
25 characteristics of the person,â€ a wide range of factors. Among those are many factors26 designed to bear upon whether a defendant is a flight risk, including â€œfamily ties,â€2728
Case 3:13-cr-03782-JLS Document 62-1 Filed 11/22/13 Page 11 of 15
1 â€œemployment,â€ â€œlength of residence in the community,â€ and â€œcommunity ties.â€ See2 18 U.S.C. Â§ 3142(g)(3). These factors could not favor detention more strongly.Defendant is a Malaysian citizen who lives and works in Singapore.
4 mother and children currently live in Malaysia.Defendant is not a U.S. citizen. He does not have resident status. He has never
6 had resident status. Instead, he is present on a B-1/B-2 Visa, which allows him to57 remain in the United States for a maximum stay of 6 months.
As for Defendantâ€™s ties to the community â€“ this community â€“ he has absolutely
9 none whatsoever. He has no family ties here. He has no employment here. He has no10 length of residence here. He has no ties here.Even considering Defendantâ€™s ties to the United States as a whole, rather than
12 simply his ties to the community, he has none, except for an aunt who lives with her13 son in the Baltimore area.Finally, it bears noting that Defendant is not a first-time offender. As explained
15 by his counsel at the bond hearing, Defendant was previously convicted in Malaysia16 for unlawful possession of a firearm, and unlawful possession of ammunition.17 Although committed long ago, this was a serious offense under the Malaysian law.18 He was sentenced to 18 months concurrently on each of two counts, and was also19 sentenced to corporal punishment.20
Defendantâ€™s history and characteristics strongly favor detention.
The next motion hearing in this case is February 28, 2014, at which point he25 will have been in the United States for 5 and one-half months. Absent renewal of hisvisa, he will have no lawful permission to continue to remain in the United States26 before trial, and will be subject to arrest and deportation by immigration authorities.112713CR3781-JLS, -3782-JLS28
Case 3:13-cr-03782-JLS Document 62-1 Filed 11/22/13 Page 12 of 15
Nature and Seriousness of Danger Posed (18 U.S.C. Â§ 3142(g)(4))
The United States has not moved to detain Defendant as a danger to the
3 community. This factor, therefore, does not bear on the United Statesâ€™ Motion.4
Defendantâ€™s Bond Proposal
Based on the statutory factors described above, Defendant should be ordered
6 detained pending trial. Defendantâ€™s bond proposal, as adopted in the release order, is7 inadequate.8
The release conditions, as proposed by Defendant and as adopted in the release
9 order, seem to tacitly acknowledge the obvious: that Defendant has no reason to stay10 here, and has powerful incentives to flee; and that he will do so, if not physically11 prevented from doing so. The release conditions therefore include what amounts to a12 home jail, with what defense counsel described at the bond hearing as having â€œthree13 layersâ€ of protection: (1) GPS, (2) video monitoring and alarms, and (3) a 24-hour14 guard paid for by Defendant.15
These â€œthree layers,â€ taken along or together, are not effective here. By way of
16 illustration, the distance between downtown San Diego and the Tijuana border is17 approximately 16 miles. Travelling the speed limit, Defendant could cross the border18 in about 15 minutes.
Once in Mexico, with Defendantâ€™s tremendous financial
19 resources, he can purchase whatever travel documents he needs to go to a country of20 his choice, including a country that does not have an extradition treaty with the United21 States or a country whose officials can be bribed not to enforce its treaty. Clearly, a22 GPS unit will not physically prevent Defendant from fleeing the country. Neither will23 a video camera, or an alarm. The only thing standing between Defendant and his24 freedom â€“ as opposed to the prospect of life in prison â€“ is therefore a security guard in25 Defendantâ€™s apartment, on Defendantâ€™s payroll. For Defendant, who was able to262728
Case 3:13-cr-03782-JLS Document 62-1 Filed 11/22/13 Page 13 of 15
1 corrupt high-ranking Navy officials into violating their sworn duties, finding a way to2 buy 15 minutes would be childâ€™s play.3
The United States respectfully submits that this Court should reject Defendantâ€™s
4 ineffectual â€œthree layersâ€ in favor of â€œone layerâ€ â€“ a pretrial detention facility run by5 the Bureau of Prisons. Based on the severe risk of flight he presents, the Bail Reform6 Act simply does not entitle Defendant to a private home jail.7
Defendant is differently situated that many foreign nationals who appear before
10 this Court seeking bond. He not only has no ties to this community, but he did not11 come here to build any ties. Instead, he came to the United States for a meeting on12 September 16, 2013 with Navy officials to discuss his contracts, and was arrested after13 the meeting. That meeting was six months in the planning. To coincide with that14 meeting, the investigative team executed a plan that involved near-simultaneous law15 enforcement operations in approximately eight countries in Asia, and eight states16 within the U.S. The operation involved over 100 law enforcement agents. The result17 of that operation is that Defendant is here, and in custody. If given the slightest18 opportunity, Defendant will flee and not return.1920
For the reasons stated herein, the United Statesâ€™ motion should be granted.DATED: November 22, 2013
21LAURA E. DUFFYUnited States Attorney
/s Robert S. HuieMARK W. PLETCHERROBERT S. HUIEAssistant U.S. Attorneys13CR3781-JLS, -3782-JLS
Case 3:13-cr-03782-JLS Document 62-1 Filed 11/22/13 Page 14 of 15
JEFFREY H. KNOXChief, Fraud SectionCriminal Division
/s Brian YoungCATHERINE VOTAWBRIAN YOUNGTrial AttorneysFraud SectionU.S. Department of Justice
Case 3:13-cr-03782-JLS Document 62-1 Filed 11/22/13 Page 15 of 15
7Plaintiff,
Case No. 13-CR-3781-JLS, -3782-JLSCERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
v.LEONARD FRANCIS ET AL.,Defendants.
15I am a citizen of the United States and am at least eighteen years of age. My16 business address is 880 Front Street, Room 6293, San Diego, California 92101-8893.17I am not a party to the above-entitled action. I have caused service of the18 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF19 UNITED STATESâ€™ MOTION TO REVOKE RELEASE ORDER AND TODETAIN DEFENDANT AS A FLIGHT RISK on the parties by electronically filing20 the foregoing with the Clerk of the District Court using its ECF System, whichelectronically notifies their counsel.21I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.2223
Executed on November 22, 2013.
/s Robert S. HuieROBERT S. HUIEAssistant United States Attorney