IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA MISSOULA DIVISION

Transcription

1 Case 9:13-cr DWM Document 24 Filed 02/23/14 Page 1 of 6 TIMOTHY J. RACICOT Assistant U.S. Attorney U.S. Attorney s Office P.O. Box 8329 Missoula, MT E. Pine, 2d Floor Missoula, MT Phone: (406) FAX: (406) Tim.Racicot2@usdoj.gov ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF UNITED STATES OF AMERICA IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA MISSOULA DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, CR M-DWM vs. Plaintiff, OFFER OF PROOF IN SUPPORT OF GUILTY PLEA JONATHAN LEE OLIVER, Defendant. Defendant Jonathan Lee Oliver has signed a plea agreement that contemplates his pleas of guilty to Counts 1, 97, and 105 of the Indictment in this case. Count 1 charges wire fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1343, Count 97 charges money laundering in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1957, and Count 105 charges

2 Case 9:13-cr DWM Document 24 Filed 02/23/14 Page 2 of 6 structuring in violation of 31 U.S.C. 5324(a)(1). Oliver will also admit all three forfeiture allegations in the Indictment. Oliver s pleas of guilty will be unconditional. The United States presented all formal plea offers to Oliver in writing. The plea agreement entered into by the parties and filed with the Court represents, in the government s view, the most favorable offer extended to the defendant. See Missouri v. Frye U.S., 132 S.Ct (decided March 21, 2012). Elements. In order to prove the case against Oliver at trial, the United States would have to prove the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt. Count 1 Wire Fraud First, he knowingly devised a scheme or plan to defraud, or a scheme or plan for obtaining money by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises; Second, the statements made or facts omitted as part of the scheme were material; that is, they had a natural tendency to influence, or were capable of influencing, a person to part with money; Third, he acted with the intent to defraud; that is, the intent to deceive or cheat; and Fourth, he used, or caused to be used, interstate wire communications to carry out or attempt to carry out an essential part of the scheme. 2

3 Case 9:13-cr DWM Document 24 Filed 02/23/14 Page 3 of 6 Count 97 Money Laundering First, he knowingly engaged or attempted to engage in a monetary transaction; Second, he knew the transaction involved criminally derived property; Third, the property had a value of greater than $10,000; Fourth, the property was, in fact, derived from wire fraud; and Fifth, the transaction occurred in the United States. Count 105 Structuring First, he structured or attempted to structure a transaction for the purpose of evading the currency transaction reporting requirements; and Second, the transaction involved one or more domestic financial institutions. Structuring occurs when a person conducts or attempts to conduct one or more currency transactions at one or more financial institutions, on one or more days, with the purpose of evading currency transaction reporting requirements in any manner. Structuring includes breaking down a single sum of currency over $10,000 into smaller sums, or conducting a series of cash transactions all at or below $10,000, with the purpose of evading currency transaction reporting requirements. Forfeiture Allegations In order to prevail in the forfeiture allegations against Oliver at trial, the 3

4 Case 9:13-cr DWM Document 24 Filed 02/23/14 Page 4 of 6 United States would have to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the property sought to be forfeited, real or personal, constitutes or is derived from proceeds traceable to the offense charged in Count 1, was involved in the offense charged in Count 97, and was involved in or traceable to the offense charged in Count 105. If the actual property sought to be forfeited cannot be located, the government is also entitled to forfeit substitute assets, including by seeking entry of a money judgment. 21 U.S.C. 853(p). Proof. If called upon to prove this case at trial, and to provide a factual basis for Oliver s pleas, the United States would present the following evidence. During the fall of 2010, Oliver, primarily using the name Jon Walker, began soliciting payments from several victims for the construction of steel buildings, primarily in eastern Montana and North Dakota. He rented office and warehouse space in Missoula in October He entered into contracts with the victims, received millions of dollars in advance payments, and completed only one steel building. Rather than build the structures, Oliver used a substantial amount of the victims money to buy personal assets, including a house, a truck, an RV, snowmobiles, a jet-ski, an ATV, and a diamond ring for his fiancé. On more than occasion, Oliver directed his employees to tell victims that a certain phase of the construction of their building was completed in order to induce the victim to send Oliver another installment payment, when in fact the phase had not been completed 4

5 Case 9:13-cr DWM Document 24 Filed 02/23/14 Page 5 of 6 and Oliver s business lacked the materials necessary to complete the project because so many of the funds had been spent by Oliver on personal items, including those referenced above. Count 1 represents the wire transfer of $69,498 from one victim to Oliver on August 26, That victim later wrote Oliver a check for $40,000 and wired an additional $23,350, but never received a completed building. Count 97 represents Oliver s purchase of a brand-new car on April 12, 2011, for $33,950 a 2011 Subaru Tribeca Limited using money obtained from victims as a result of the wire fraud scheme. And Count 105 represents Oliver s withdrawal of $9,950 in cash from his Wells Fargo Bank account on May 20, 2011, which was designed to avoid the Bank s currency transaction reporting requirements. The government submits that the aforementioned evidence would prove beyond a reasonable doubt all the elements of the crimes charged in Counts 1, 97, and 105 of the Indictment, as well as establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the monies received by Oliver and the assets he purchased are subject to forfeiture as proceeds of the wire fraud, money laundering, and structuring. Respectfully submitted this 23rd day of February, MICHAEL W. COTTER United States Attorney /s/ Timothy J. Racicot Assistant U.S. Attorney Attorney for Plaintiff 5

6 Case 9:13-cr DWM Document 24 Filed 02/23/14 Page 6 of 6 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on February 23, 2014, a copy of the foregoing document was served on the following persons by the following means: (1,2) CM/ECF ( ) Hand Delivery ( ) U.S. Mail ( ) Overnight Delivery Service ( ) Fax ( ) 1. Clerk, U.S. District Court 2. Milton Datsopoulos Peter F. Lacny Datsopoulos, MacDonald and Lind, P.C. 201 West Main Street, Suite 201 Central Square Bldg. Missoula, MT /s/ Timothy J. Racicot Assistant U.S. Attorney Attorney for Plaintiff 6