United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
MATTHEW SCHNEIDER United States Attorney Adriana Dydell
Assistant United States Attorney
B. Elder Attorney for Defendant
STIPULATED PRELIMINARY ORDER OF FORFEITURE
HONORABLE ROBERT H. CLELAND UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
United States of America, by and through its attorneys,
Matthew Schneider, United States Attorney for the Eastern
District of Michigan, and Adriana Dydell, Assistant United
States Attorney, together with Defendant Talal Abbas
("Defendant"), individually and by and through his
attorney, Doraid B. Elder, submit this Stipulated Preliminary
Order of Forfeiture to the Court and stipulate and agree to
United States of America (the "United States")
filed a Felony Information ("Information") on or
around November 15, 2018, which charged Defendant with Count
One, Federal Program Fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. §
641. (ECF No. 1).
Information includes forfeiture allegations providing notice
to Defendant that, upon conviction of the offense charged in
Count One of the Information, the Defendant shall forfeit to
the United States, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(C)
and 28 U.S.C. § 2461(c), any property, real or personal,
constituting, or derived from proceeds obtained, directly or
indirectly, as a result of said violations. The property to
be forfeited includes, but is not limited to, the following:
$9, 380 in U.S. Currency. In addition, the United States
intends to seek a forfeiture money judgment for the total
amount of proceeds obtained by Defendant as a result of his
or about April 24, 2019, Defendant pleaded guilty to Count
One of the Information.
his Rule 11 Plea Agreement ("Rule 11"), Defendant
agreed to forfeit to the United States, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§ 981(a)(1)(C) together with 28 U.S.C. § 2461(c),
any property, real or personal, which constitutes or is
derived from proceeds traceable to his violation of Count One
of the Information.
Defendant's agreement to forfeiture in his Rule 11
includes forfeiture of his interest in the following
(hereinafter "Subject Property"): $9, 380 in U.S.
Currency seized from 5244 Neckel Street, Dearborn, Michigan.
his Rule 11, Defendant agreed to a forfeiture money judgment
in favor of the United States in the amount of Nine Hundred
and Sixty-Six Thousand Four Hundred and Seventy-One Dollars
and Seven Cents ($966, 471.07). The Defendant agreed that
this amount represents the value of criminal proceeds that he
personally obtained as a result of his violation of Count One
of the Information. The parties agreed that the forfeiture
money judgment shall be reduced by the net value of any
property forfeited under a final order of forfeiture in this
case, or any related administrative forfeiture proceeding;,
after adjudicating third-party petitions, and reducing for
costs and maintenance expenses.
his Rule 11, Defendant agreed to stipulate to and not oppose
the entry of a Preliminary Order of Forfeiture regarding the
forfeiture money judgment and property to be forfeited in
this criminal proceeding.
his Rule 11 Defendant agreed that, pursuant to 21 U.S.C.
§ 853(p) if, by any act or omission of the Defendant,
any property subject to forfeiture cannot be located upon the
exercise of due diligence; has been transferred, sold to or
deposited with a third party; has been placed beyond the
jurisdiction of the court; has been substantially diminished
in value; or has been commingled with other property which
cannot be divided without difficulty, the Defendant shall
forfeit any of his other real or personal property, up to the
value of such unavailable assets.
his Rule 11, the Defendant expressly waived his right,
pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.2(b)(5), to
have a jury determine the forfeitability of his interest in
any property identified for forfeiture. The Defendant further
waived the requirements of Federal Rules of Criminal
Procedure 32.2 and 43(a) regarding notice of the forfeiture
in the charging instrument, pronouncement of the forfeiture
at sentencing, and incorporation of the forfeiture in the
his Rule 11, Defendant acknowledged that he understood that
the forfeiture of assets is part of the sentence that may be
imposed in this case and waived any failure by the court to
advise him of this, ...