spng crim 600 indictment show multidocs

8/6/2019 Spng Crim 600 Indictment Show Multidocs

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/spng-crim-600-indictment-show-multidocs 1/20

JFM:WES/JAG/BDM

F.#2010R00609

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

- - - - - - - - - - - - - X

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

- aga ins t -

MICHAEL METTER andSTEVEN MOSKOWITZ,

Defendants.

THE GRAND JURY CHARGES:

- X

FILED *N CLERl('S OFFICEU.S. OlSTRICfCOURT E.O.N* AUG 0 2010 *BROOKLYN O F F ' C ~

I N D I C T M E N T

~ ~ C l t ~ t ~ , "';§ 78 j (bJ ) : ~ ij78f f ; T. 18, U.S.C. , § § 371,981 (a ) (1) (C) , 982, 1505,

1621(1) , 1956(h) , 2 and 3551

e t £ § g . ; T. 21, U.S.C. ,§ 853(p) i T. 28, U.S.C. ,

§ 2461 ( c ) )

ROSS,J.

C ~ R 1 E R , M.J.INTRODUCTION

At a l l t imes r e levan t to t h i s Indictment , unless

otherwise ind ica ted :

I . Background

A. Relevant Ent i t i es and the Defendants

1 . Spongetech Del ivery Systems, Inc . ("Spongetech")

was a Delaware corporat ion t h a t maintained i t s pr inc ipa l of f ices

in New York, New York. Spongetech designed, produced, marketed

and sold var ious c leaning care produc ts , inc luding pre - loaded

soap sponges.

2. RM Enterp r i s es In te rna t iona l Ltd . ("RM

Enterpr ises" ) was a Delaware corporat ion t h a t maintained i t s

pr inc ipa l of f ices in New York, New York. RM Enterp r i s es had

Case 1:10-cr-00600-DLI Document 24 Filed 08/06/10 of 19



th ree shareholders and owned a s ign i f i c a n t percen tage of

Spongetech 's vot ing s tock.

3. The defendant MICHAEL METTER was one of the th ree

shareholders of RM Enterp r i s es and was a shareholder of

Spongetech. From June 2001 through September 2007, METTER served

as Pres ident of RM Enterp r i s es , and he was a l so Spongetech 's

Chief Executive Off ice r and Pres iden t .

4. The defendant STEVEN MOSKOWITZ was one of the

th ree shareholders of RM Enterp r i s es and was a shareholder of

Spongetech. MOSKOWITZ served as Chief Financia l Off ice r of

RM Enterp r i s es , and he was a l so Spongetech 's Chief Operat ing

Off ice r , Chief Financia l Of f ice r , Chief Accounting Off ice r ,

Treasurer and Secretary .

5. Together, the defendants MICHAEL METTER and STEVEN

MOSKOWITZ and a t h i rd ind iv idua l owned - e i the r d i rec t l y or

ind i rec t ly - a con t ro l l ing percen tage of Spongetech 's vot ing

s tock.

B. Res t r i c t ed Stock, Unres t r i c ted Stock, and Legal OpinionLet t e rs

6. Res t r i c t ed s tock was s tock t h a t could not be sold

in th e publ ic market place . Res t r i c t ed s tock was genera l ly l e s s

valuable than unres t r ic ted s tock . Cer t i f i ca t e s fo r r e s t r i c t ed

stock were t yp i c a l ly stamped with a legend i nd ica t ing t ha t the

s tock was r e s t r i c t e d .

2




7. I f the r e s t r i c t i o n on the sa le of the s tock in the

pub l i c market place no longer appl ied , th e corpora t ion ' s t r a ns f e r

agent would remove th e r e s t r i c t i v e legend from th e s tock

c e r t i f i c a t e . Trans fe r agents were used by corpora t ions to , among

o ther th ings , mainta in records of inves to r s , process i nves to r

mai l ings , and cance l and i s sue s tock c e r t i f i c a t e s . Removal of

the r e s t r i c t i v e legend from a r e s t r i c t ed s tock c e r t i f i c a t e caused

the s tock to become unres t r ic ted and enab led it to be f ree ly

so ld .

8. Before removing a r e s t r i c t i v e legend from a stock

c e r t i f i c a t e , a t r a ns f e r agent t yp i c a l ly requi red the holder of

the s tock to provide a l e t t e r from an a t to rney opining t ha t th e

r e s t r i c t i o n no longer appl ied . Such documents were known as

l ega l opinion l e t t e r s .

I I . The Fraudulent Scheme

9. From approximately January 2007 to May 2010, the

defendants MICHAEL METTER and STEVEN MOSKOWITZ, toge ther with

o ther s , executed a f raudu len t scheme to : (A) pub l i c ly r ep o r t

fa l se and mater i a l ly overs ta ted sa les f igures t o c rea te

a r t i f i c i a l demand fo r , and inc rease the share p r i c e o f ,

Spongetech common s tock; (B) i s sue r e s t r i c t ed Spongetech common

s tock to e n t i t i e s cont ro l led by Spongetech; (C) use f raudu len t

means to u n r e s t r i c t the s tock; (D) s e l l the unres t r ic ted s tock in

3




the publ ic market place i and (E) persona l ly p r o f i t from the

i n f l a t e d s tock sa les .

A. The Publ ic Report ing of False and Mater ia l ly Overs ta ted

Sales Figures

10. As p a r t of the f raudulent scheme, the defendant s

MICHAEL METTER and STEVEN MOSKOWITZ pub l i c ly repor ted fa l se and

mater i a l ly overs ta ted Spongetech sa les f igu res . S p e c i f i c a l l y ,

METTER and MOSKOWITZ repor t ed t ha t Sponge t ech had secured

purchase orde rs from, o r had made sa les to , the fo l lowing f ive

customers: SA Trading Company, US Asia Trading, Dubai Export

Import Company, New Century Media and Fesco Sales Corp. The f ive

customers , however, d id no t in f a c t ex i s t , no such purchase

orders were secured , and no such sa les were made.

11. To pub l ic ize the phony Spongetech sa l e s f igures ,

the defendant s MICHAEL METTER and STEVEN MOSKOWITZ f i l ed and

caused to be f i l ed mult ip le repor t s with the United Sta tes

Secur i t i e s and Exchange Commission ("SEC") t ha t d isc losed to

exis t ing and po te n t i a l inves to r s fa l se and mater i a l ly overs ta ted

sa l e s f igures . During t ha t same per iod of t ime, METTER and

MOSKOWITZ i s sued and caused to be i s sued numerous pres s re l eases

- typ ica l ly v ia the In t e rn e t - t ha t announced to exis t ing and

po te n t i a l inves to r s fa l se and mater i a l ly overs ta ted sa les

f igures , as wel l as phony purchase orders and o ther fa l se

in fo rmat ion . The purpose o f i s su ing such pres s re l eases was to

4




crea te a r t i f i c i a l demand fo r Spongetech common s tock and the reby

increase i t s share p r i c e .

B. The Issuance of Res t r i c t ed Spongetech Common Stock to

Ent i t i e s Control led by Spongetech

12. Having f r audu len t ly c rea ted a r t i f i c i a l demand fo r

Spongetech common s tock, th e defendants MICHAEL METTER and STEVEN

MOSKOWITZ i s sued and caused to be i s sued large amounts of

r e s t r i c t e d Spongetech common s tock to RM Enterp r i s es and o t h e r

e n t i t i e s cont ro l led by Spongetech.

C. The Use o f Fraudulent Means t o Unres t r i c t the Stock

13. Afte r th e r e s t r i c t ed Spongetech common s tock was

i s sued to RM Enterp r i s es and o th e r e n t i t i e s con t ro l l ed by

Spongetech, the defendants MICHAEL METTER and STEVEN MOSKOWITZ

employed f raudu len t means to have t r a ns f e r agen t s u n r e s t r i c t th e

s tock. Spec i f i ca l ly , the defendant s furnished and caused to be

furnished f raudu len t l ega l opinion l e t t e r s t ha t f a l s e ly claimed

exemptions from SEC r eg i s t r a t i on . METTER and MOSKOWITZ, however,

knew t ha t no exemption appl ied . Relying on the f raudulent l e g a l

opinion l e t t e r s , th e t r a ns f e r agen t s removed th e r e s t r i c t i v e

legends from the Spongetech common s tock c e r t i f i c a t e s , the reby

caus ing th e s tock to become unre s t r i c t e d .

5




D. The Sale of the Unres t r i c ted Stock in the Publ ic Market

Place

14. Once the Spongetech common s tock became

unres t r ic ted , the defendants MICHAEL METTER and STEVEN MOSKOWITZ

sold and caused to be sold l a rge amounts o f Sponge tech common

s tock , most o f which was u l t ima te ly sold in the publ ic market

place .

E. The Defendants ' Personal Prof i t from th e In f l a t e d Stock

Sales

15. The defendants MICHAEL METTER and STEVEN MOSKOWITZ

c o l l e c t i ve ly rece ived mil l ions of dol la r s during the course of

t he i r f raudu len t scheme.

I I I . The Obst ruc t ion of Jus t ice

16. In o r about May 2009, the SEC commenced an

i nves t iga t ion in to Spongetech 's pub l i c ly repor ted sa l e s f igures

and f inanc ia l s ta tements . The SEC i s sued subpoenas to Spongetech

and the defendants MICHAEL METTER and STEVEN MOSKOWITZ as p a r t of

t ha t i nves t iga t ion . In response to those subpoenas, METTER and

MOSKOWITZ furnished fab r i ca ted documents to the SEC. METTER and

MOSKOWITZ a l so t e s t i f i e d before the SEC and repeatedly l i ed about

Spongetech 's sa les f igures and about the f ive customers

iden t i f i ed in paragraph 10.

6

- ~




COUNT ONE

(Conspiracy to Commit S e c u r i t i e s Fraudand Obst ruc t ion of Jus t i ce )

17. The a l l ega t ions con ta ined in paragraphs 1

through 16 are rea l l eged and incorpora ted as though fu l l y se t

fo r th in t h i s paragraph.

18. In o r about and between January 2007 and May 2010 1

both da te s being approximate and inc lus ive within the Eas te rn

D i s t r i c t of New York and elsewhere l the defendant s MICHAEL METTER

and STEVEN MOSKOWITZ I toge ther with o ther s l d id knowingly and

wi l l fu l l y conspi re to :

a . use and employ manipula t ive and decept ive

devices and cont r ivances con t ra ry to Rule

10b-s of the Rules and Regula t ions of the SEC(Ti t le 171 Code of Federa l Regula t ionsSect ion 240.10b-s) I by (a) employing dev ices l

schemes and a r t i f i c e s to def raud; (b) making

unt rue s ta tements of mater ia l fac t and

omit t ing to s t a t e mater ia l f a c t s necessary in

orde r to make th e s ta tements made in l i g h t

of th e ci rcumstances in which they were made

not mis leading; and (c) engaging i n a c t s l

p ra c t i c e s l and courses of bus iness which

would and did opera te as a f raud and dece i t

upon members of the inves t ing publ ic I in

connec t ion wi th purchases and sa l e s o f

Spongetech common s tock l d i rec t l y and

indi rec t lYI by use of the means andi n s t ru m e n t a l i t i e s o f i n t e r s t a t e commerce the

mai l s l and th e f ac i l i t i e s of na t iona l

secu r i t i e s exchanges contrary to Ti t l e 151

un i ted Sta tes Code Sect ions 78j (b) and 78ff ;

and

b. cor rup t ly inf luence obs t ruc t and impede the

due and proper admin is t r a t ion of the lawunder which a pending proceeding l

spec i f i ca l l y an i nves t iga t ion by the

Enforcement Divis ion of the SECI was be ing

7




had before th e SEC, contrary to Ti t l e 18,United Sta tes Code, Sect ion 1505.

19. In fur therance of th e consp i racy and to e f f e c t its

ob jec t ives , within the Eas te rn D i s t r i c t of New York and

elsewhere , th e defendants MICHAEL METTER and STEVEN MOSKOWITZ,

toge ther with o ther s , committed and caused to be commit ted, among

o ther s , the fol lowing:

seg. )

OVERT ACTS

a . On o r about Apr i l 30, 2007, in a Spongetechpres s re l ease , MOSKOWITZ s t a t ed as fo l lows:"This i s an exc i t ing t ime fo r [Spongetech] .

We look forward to f i na l i z ing our agreementwith SA Trading Group Corp and beginning oursa les and d i s t r i bu t i on in to South America."

b. On o r about January 31, 2008, in a Spongetechpress re l ease , MOSKOWITZ s t a t e d as fo l lows:"With support from companies l ike SA Trading,we should add s ign i f i c a n t new incrementa lrevenues fo r [Spongetech] in 2008 andbeyond."

c. On o r about January 9, 2009, METTER touted

Spongetech 's sa les during an appearance on"MoneyTV," s t a t i ng , among o ther th ings , t ha t

"we th ink t ha t fo r th e year t ha t endsMay 31s t , 2009, t ha t we a re going to make

around $7 mil l ion on $40 mil l ion in sa les "

and t ha t Spongetech i s "sh ipp ing a l l o v e r th e

world."

d. On o r about September 28, 2009, METTER sen t

an emai l to another person, whose iden t i ty i sknown to the Grand Jury , reques t ing phonySpongetech customer te lephone numbers t ha t

were to be provided to "the regu la to rs . "

(Ti t l e 18, United Sta tes Code, Sect ions 371 and 3551 e t

8




COUNT TWO

(Secur i t i e s Fraud)


through 16 are r ea l l eged and incorpora ted as though fu l l y s e t


21. In o r about and between January 2007 and May 2010,

both da te s being approximate and inc lus ive , within the Eas te rn

D i s t r i c t of New York and e l sewhere , the defendants MICHAEL METTER

and STEVEN MOSKOWITZ did knowingly and wi l l fu l l y use and employ

manipulat ive and decep t ive dev ices and cont r ivances , con t ra ry to

Rule 10b-5 of the Rules and Regula t ions of the SEC (Ti t le 17,

Code of Federal Regu lat ions, S ect ion 240.10b-5) , in t ha t METTER

and MOSKOWITZ d id knowingly and wi l l fu l l y (a) employ dev ices ,

schemes and a r t i f i c e s to def raud; (b) make unt rue s t a tements o f

mater ia l f a c t and omit to s t a t e mater ia l f a c t s necessary in orde r

to make the s t a tements made, in th e l i g h t of the circumstances in

which they were made, not misleading; and (c) engage in a c t s ,

p ra c t i c e s and courses of business which would and did ope ra t e as

a f raud and d ece i t upon members o f th e inves t ing pub l ic , in

connect ion with purchases and sa l e s of Spongetech common s tock ,

d i rec t l y and i nd i r e c t ly , by use of the means and

i n s t rumen ta l i t i e s of i n t e r s t a t e commerce, the mails and the

f a c i l i t i e s of n a t io n a l s e c ur i t i e s exchanges .

(Ti t le 15, United Sta tes Code, Sect ions 78j (b) and

78f f ; Ti t l e 18, United Sta tes Code, Sect ions 2 and 3551 e t seq . )

9




COUNT THREE

(Obs t ruc t ion of Jus t i ce )

22. The a l l e g a t i o n s con ta ined in paragraphs 1

through 16 are rea l l eged and incorpora ted as though fu l l y se t

fo r th in t h i s paragraph .

23. In o r about and between September and

October 2009, both da tes be ing approximate and inc lus ive , within

th e Easte rn D i s t r i c t of New York and elsewhere , the defendants

MICHAEL METTER and STEVEN MOSKOWITZ d id knowingly and wi l l fu l l y

cor rup t ly inf luence , obs t ruc t and impede, and endeavor to

i n f luence , obs t ruc t and impede, th e due and proper admin is t r a t ion

of the law under which a pending proceeding, spec i f i ca l l y an

i nves t iga t ion by th e Enforcement Divis ion of the SEC, was be ing

had before the SEC.

(Ti t le 18, United Sta tes Code, Sect ions 1505, 2 and

3551 e t seq . )

COUNT FOUR

(Conspiracy to Commit Money Laundering)


through 16 are rea l l eged and incorpora ted as though fu l l y s e t

fo r t h i n t h i s paragraph.

25. In o r about and between January 2007 and May 2010,

both da te s be ing approximate and inc lus ive , within th e Easte rn

D i s t r i c t o f New York and elsewhere , the defendants MICHAEL METTER

and STEVEN MOSKOWITZ, toge ther with o ther s , did knowingly and

10




i n t e n t iona l ly conspi re to engage in monetary t ransac t ions , i n and

a f f e c t i n g i n t e r s t a t e commerce, in cr imina l ly der ived proper ty

t ha t wa s o f a value g re a t e r than $10,000 and t ha t was der ived

from spec i f i ed unlawful ac t i v i t y , s pe c i f i c a l l y , f raud in th e sa le

of secu r i t i e s , contrary to Ti t l e 18, United Sta tes Code, Sect ion

1957.

(T i t l e 18, United Sta tes Code, Sect ions 1956(h) and

3551 e t ~ . ) COUNT FIVE

(Perjury - MOSKOWITZ SEC Testimony)


through 16 are r ea l l eged and incorpora ted as though fu l l y se t


27. On o r about October 8, 2009, in the D i s t r i c t of

Columbia, the defendant STEVEN MOSKOWITZ, having taken an oath

before a competent t r i b u n a l , o f f i c e r and person, in a case in

which the law of th e United Sta tes au thor izes an oath to be

admin i s te red , s pe c i f i c a l l y , in tes t imony before an o f f i c e r of the

SEC, t ha t he would t e s t i f y dec la re , depose and ce r t i fy t r u ly , did

wi l l fu l l y and contrary to such oath s t a t e the fo l lowing mater ia l

mat te r which he did n ot be l ieve to be t rue :

11




SPECIFICATION ONE

(Page 168, Line 19 - Page 170, Line 19)

Q. What i s the bus iness o f S.A. Trading?

* * *A. The b e s t way to unders tand what was t o ld to me when I

f i r s t met them back a t th e au to show y ea r s ago, andt h e y ' r e probab ly one - you know - s i n ce t h e b u s i n ess

g ot re -ene rg ized ag a in , t hey 've been one o f o u r l a rg e r

account s and one o f our f i r s t t r a d i n g accounts t h a t

s t a r t e d up about - I d o n ' t know - maybe t h ree y ea r s

ago

* * *Q. And l e t me j u s t c l a r i f y a few t h i n g s t h a t you s a id on

your l a s t response . You sa id t h a t you i n i t i a l l y met

fo lks from S.A. Trading a t an au to show?

A. Right .

Q. An d when was t ha t ?

A. 2007.Q. 2007?

A. Right .

SPECIFICATION TWO


Q. When you sa id you met them in 2007, wh o i s them?

A. S.A. Trad ing . It's Car los Vega.

* * *Q. I s he still with S.A. Trading?

A. He i s .

SPECIFICATION THREE

(Page 219, Lines 1-9)

Q. [W]hat i s [Ahmad Elsayed ' s ] p o s i t i o n a t Dubai [Expor tImport Company]?

A. He 's th e purchas ing agen t and t r a f f i c manager .

Q. Have you ev e r met him?

A. Actua l ly Michael Metter in t roduced me to him.

* * *Q. And have you had any con tac t with him s i n ce [2007]?

A. Yeah. Recen t ly a lo t more.

12




SPECIFICATION FOUR


Q. I want to ask you to tell me whether these p a r t i c u l a r

customers a re still customers o f Spongetech. I'll j u s t

read th e name and you tell me yes o r no. Dubai Expor t

Impor t Company?A. They ' re still cu r r en t l y a customer .Q. Fesco Sales Corp.?

A. They a re still a customer .

Q. New Century Media?

A. Yes.

*

Q. S.A. Trading Company?

A. Yes.

* *

SPECIFICATION FIVE


Q. [L ]e t ' s i d e n t i fy th e s ix fo r the record .

A. S.A. Trading. A ll r i g h t . So a c t u a l l y S.A. Trading, I

be l i eve I g o t a hold o f [them] on Friday , a l l r i g h t ,

and l e t them know t h a t somebody was going to be c a l l i n g

them.

Q. Who d id you t a lk to a t S.A. Trading?

A. I t a lked to Carlos Varga?

Q. Varga?

* * *A. Vega, Varga. They c a l l him Varga.

* * *Q. So you t a lked to him on t h a t Friday?A. Right . And then I a l so spoke to Mr. Chin on Fr iday .

Q. And he i s with U.S. -

A. Yeah, h e ' s i n Asia Trading .Q. - o r United Asia Trading?A. Right .

SPECIFICATION SIX


Q. Fesco, d id you t a lk to anyone a t Fesco on Tuesday?A. Mr. Rogers .

Q. Mr. Rogers . Can you d esc r i b e t h a t conversa t ion?A. That conversa t ion was p r e t t y s t r a i g h t fo rw a rd . It's

he b a s i c a l l y , you know, d i d n ' t want us giv ing o u t h is

number to anyone. But I t o ld [him] he has to becoopera t ive .

13




Q. And what d id he say?A. He sa id he would take it under advisement .

(Ti t le 18 1 uni t ed Sta tes Code Sect ions 1621(1)1 2 and

3551 e t seq . )

COUNT SIX

(Per jury - METTER SEC Testimony)


through 16 a re r ea l l eged and incorpora ted as though fu l l y s e t


29. On o r about October 13 1 2009 1 in the D i s t r i c t of

Columbia the defendan t MICHAEL METTER I having taken an oath

before a competent t r ibuna l I o f f i c e r and person l in a case in

which the law of the un i t ed Sta tes au thor i ze s an oath to be

admin i s te red l spec i f i ca l lYI in tes t imony before an o f f i c e r of the

SEC I t ha t he would t e s t i f y dec la re l depose and ce r t i fy t ru lY I d id

wi l l fu l l y and con t ra ry to such oath s t a t e th e fo l lowing mater ia l

mat te r which he d id not be l ieve to be t rue :

SPECIFICATION ONE

(Page 2111 Lines 11-14)

Q. Who are your th ree l a rge s t customers today?A. Right now we have SA Trading l New Century Medial

t h e y / r e the l a rge s t l and what e l se do we have I and

Fesco l Fesco Sales . Fesco Sales l I be l i e v e l i s th e

l a rge s t .

SPECIFICATION TWO

(Page 254 1 Line 25 - Page 255 1 Line 11)

Q. Who i s the con tac t person fo r SA Trading?A. Mr. Vega.Q. What/s h is f i r s t name?

A. Car los .

14




Q. Have you eve r met him?

A. Yes.

Q. When?

A. At the auto show in 2007, ca l enda r yea r 2007.

Q. How d id SA Trading become a cus tomer?

A. Came to th e booth . We showed [Car los vega] th e

produc t s , and I in t roduced him to Steven [Moskowitz],because I wasn ' t handl ing t h a t end of the bus iness .

SPECIFICATION THREE

(Page 273, Lines 1-8)

Q. And d id you know Ahmed Elsayed -

A. Ahmed was Dubai [Expor t Impor t Company]

Q. With Dubai , and you knew t h a t name was as soc ia ted with

Dubai?

A. I had met him . . I had met him.

Q. A ll r i gh t .

A. I had met him a t th e show one of the yea rs .

(T i t l e 18, un i t ed S ta t e s Code, Sect ions 1621(1) , 2 and

3551 e t seq . )

CRIMINAL FORFEITURE ALLEGATION AS TO COUNTS ONE AND TWO

30. The United S ta t e s hereby gi ves no t i ce to th e

defendan ts MICHAEL METTER and STEVEN MOSKOWITZ t ha t , upon t h e i r

conv i c t i on of any of the of f enses a l l eged in Count One o r Count

Two, th e United S ta t e s w i l l seek fo r f e i t u r e in accordance with

T i t l e 18, United S ta t e s Code, Sect ion 981(a) (1) (C), and T i t l e 28,

United S ta t e s Code, Sect ion 2461(c) , of any and a l l prope r ty ,

r e a l and pe rsona l , t h a t c o n s t i t u t e s o r i s de r i ved from proceeds

t r aceab le to the commission of the of fenses , and a l l prope r ty

t r aceab le to such prope r t y , i nc l ud i ng bu t no t l imi ted to a sum of

money rep re sen t ing th e amount of gross proceeds obta ined as a

r e s u l t of the of fenses .

15




31. I f any of the above-described fo r fe i t ab l e

proper ty , as a r e s u l t of any ac t o r omission of the defendants :

a . cannot be located upon the exerc i se of due

d i l igence ;

b. has been t r ans fe r red o r sold to , or depos i ted

with , a t h i rd par ty ;

c . has been placed beyond the j u r i sd i c t i on of

the cour t ;

d. has been s ubs t a n t i a l l y diminished in value ;

o r

e. has been commingled with o ther proper ty which

cannot be divided without d i f f i cu l ty ;

it i s the i n t e n t of the United Sta tes , pursuan t to Ti t l e 21,

United Sta tes Code, Sect ion 853(p) , as incorpora ted by Ti t l e 28,

United Sta tes Code, Sect ion 2461(c) , to seek fo r fe i t u re of any

o ther proper ty of the defendants up to the value of the

fo r f e i t a b l e proper ty descr ibed in t h i s fo r fe i t u re a l lega t ion .

(Ti t le 28, United Sta tes Code, Sect ion 2461(c) ;

Ti t l e 18, United Sta tes Code, Sect ion 981(a) (1) (C); Ti t l e 21,

United Sta tes Code, Sect ion 853(p))

CRIMINAL FORFEITURE ALLEGATION AS TO COUNT FOUR

32. The United Sta tes hereby gives no t ice to the

defendants MICHAEL METTER and STEVEN MOSKOWITZ tha t , upon t h e i r

convic t ion of the offense a l leged in Count Four, the government

16




wi l l seek for fe i tu re in accordance with Ti t l e 18, United Sta tes

Code, Sect ion 982, of a l l proper ty involved in such offense , and

a l l proper ty t raceable to such proper ty , including but no t

l imi ted to a sum of money represent ing the amount involved in the

offense .

33 . I f any of the above-described fo r fe i t ab l e

proper ty , as a r e su l t of any a c t or omission of the defendants :

a . cannot be located upon the exerc ise of due

d i l igence i

b. has been t r ans fe r red o r sold to , o r depos i ted

with , a t h i rd partYi

c. has been placed beyond the j u r i sd i c t i on of

the cour t i

d. has been subs tan t i a l ly diminished in va lue i

or

e . has been commingled with o ther proper ty which

cannot be divided without di f f icu l tYi

it i s the in ten t of the United Sta tes , pursuant to Ti t l e 18,

17




-United Sta tes Code, Sect ion 982, to seek fo r f e i t u r e of any o th e r

proper ty of the defendant s up to the value of th e fo r f e i t a b l e

proper ty descr ibed in t h i s fo r f e i t u r e a l l e g a t i o n .

(Ti t le 18, United Sta tes Code, Sect ion 982)

A TRUE BILL

F REPERSON

18




fOf{M DlJIJ.-ll

JUN. 85

No. _______ Action: __ ~ _ ~ __ __

UNITED STATES DISTRICT C O U l ~ T EASTERN District of NEW YORK

CRIMINAL Division

THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

vs

J).l1CllAEL METTER and STEVEN A-I0SKOWITZ,

Defendants.

INDICTMENT

cr. 15, U.S.C., §§ 78j(b) and 78ff; T. 18, U.S.c., §§ 37],

981 (a)(1)(C), 982,1505,1621(1), 1956(h), 2 and 3551

et ~ . ; T. 21, U.S.c., § 853(P); T. 28, U.S.C., § 2461(c»

A'm,'HI. 1"'-."0"-

Fired il l opel/ COl in this _________ __ __ ._______ day_

of _____ _______ A.D_ 20 __ _

Clerk

Bail, S _______ _

Jeffrey A. Goldberg, Assistal1t U.S. Attomey (718-254-7579)




-- -INFORMATION SHEET

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

FILEDIN CLERK'S OFFICE

U.S. DISTRICT Courzr EO.N.Y

* AUG 0 20iO Ii

eROOllYN O F F I C ~ 1. Title of Case: United States v. Michael Metter , et al.

2. Related Magistrate Docket NUmber(S)I'I.. f t 5 & J . . ? ' ~ \ Vn A l I -None ( )

3. Arrest Date: 5/5/10

ROSS, J.4. Nature of offense(s): Felony

D Misdemeanor

5.. CARTER, M.J.

Related Cases - Title and Docket No(s). (Pursuant to Rule 50.3 of the

Local E.D.N.Y. Division of Business Rules):

6. Projected Length of Trial: Less than 6 weeks (X)

More than 6 weeks ()

7. County in which crime was allegedly committed: . . : . : Q : . . . . . : u o . . : : e ~ e n ~ s ~ ________

8.

9.

(Pursuant to Rule 50.1 (d) of the Local E.D.N.Y. Division of Business Rules)

Has, this indictment/information been ordered sealed? () Yes (X) No

Have arrest warrants been ordered?

By:

() Yes (X) No

BENTON J. CAMPBELL

Jeffrey A. Goldberg

Assistant U.S. Attorney

(718) 254-7579

Rev. 3/22/01

Case 1:10-cr-00600-DLI Document 24-1 Filed 08/06/10 Page 1 of 1

spng crim 600 indictment show multidocs

Documents