United States v. Farah
| Decision Date | 31 October 2022 |
| Docket Number | 22-cr-124(1) (NEB/TNL) |
| Parties | United States of America, Plaintiff, v. Abdiaziz Shafii Farah, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Minnesota |
Chelsea A. Walcker, Craig R. Baune, Harry Jacobs, Joseph Scott Teirab, Joseph H. Thompson, and Matthew S. Ebert Assistant United States Attorneys, United States Attorney's Office, 300 South Fourth Street, Suite 600 Minneapolis, MN 55415 (for the Government); and
Andrew S. Birrell and Ian S. Birrell, Birrell Law Firm PLLC, 333 South Seventh Street, Suite 3020, Minneapolis, MN 55402 (for Defendant).
This matter is before the Court on Defendant Abdiaziz Shafii Farah's “Motion for Reconsideration of Detention Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3142(f)(2)(B) and Demand for Speedy Trial,” ECF No. 132. The Court finds that the matter is suitable for determination without a hearing and is submitted on the papers. See ECF No. 137 (). For the reasons set forth below, Defendant's motion is denied.
In May 2022, Defendant was charged by Complaint with making a false statement in a passport application in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1542. See generally ECF No. 2. At Defendant's initial appearance, the Government moved for pretrial detention. See generally ECF Nos. 6, 8.
United States Probation and Pretrial Services (“Pretrial Services”) “recommended that [Defendant] be detained pending trial.” Det. Order at 4, ECF No. 14. Pretrial Services “determined that, based in part on [Defendant's] ties to Kenya and the nature and circumstances of the offense, there [wa]s no condition or combination of conditions that w[ould] reasonably assure [Defendant's] appearance at future court proceedings.” Det. Order at 4; see also Def.'s Obj. at 4-6 (), ECF No. 17.
At the preliminary and detention hearing, a magistrate judge concluded that there was probable cause to believe Defendant committed the charged offense. Det. Order at 1; see generally ECF No. 10. The magistrate judge also found “that there [we]re no conditions or combination of conditions that w[ould] reasonably ensure [Defendant's] appearance at future court proceedings” and granted the Government's motion for detention. Det. Order at 1-2.
Among other findings, the magistrate judge relied on testimony at the hearing that Defendant “applied for a new U.S. passport following the seizure of his U.S. passport card and book by federal agents,” a seizure which was “part of an investigation of [Defendant's] involvement in an alleged massive scheme to fraudulently obtain and misappropriate millions of dollars in [f]ederal [c]hild [n]utrition [p]rogram funds.” Det. Order at 2. The magistrate judge found that Defendant “obtained a new passport on the same day he applied for one” and, “[a]t the time [he] allegedly fraudulently obtained [the] passport, he was aware that he was the target of a federal investigation regarding his involvement in the alleged scheme to fraudulently obtain and launder [f]ederal [c]hild [n]utrition [p]rogram funds.” Det. Order at 2.
The magistrate judge further found that, in March 2022, Defendant booked at least one[1] one-way flight to Nairobi, Kenya, but did not board the flight. Det. Order at 3. The magistrate judge found that Defendant “has significant personal and financial ties to Kenya.” Det. Order at 3. Defendant “was raised in Kenya and has family residing there,” and “also sent a text message to an associate claiming to have $6 million worth of investments in Kenya.” Det. Order at 3.
The magistrate judge additionally found that Defendant “has significant financial resources.” Det. Order at 3. Based on exhibits received and testimony at the hearing, the magistrate judge found that Defendant “has received millions of dollars in recent years alone” and “made numerous large wire transfers to foreign bank accounts.” Det. Order at 3.
The magistrate judge concluded that Defendant “has a motive to flee, a means to flee, and a place to flee, as demonstrated by [his] present and potential criminal exposure, his significant financial resources, and his personal and financial ties to Kenya.” Det. Order at 3.
Defendant objected to the magistrate judge's order detaining him pending trial. See generally Def.'s Objs. Defendant asserted there were “critical factual errors” related to his appearance in connection with the charge and the contention that he purchased “two international plane tickets in a short time.” Def.'s Objs. at 1 (emphasis omitted). Defendant pointed out that he voluntarily surrendered to law enforcement and the “uncontroverted” evidence in the record was that he had only booked a single flight. Def.'s Objs. at 10; see Def.'s Objs. at 5, 6, 10, 11; see also Order Denying Mot. at 3 n.1 ().
Defendant also asserted that his “personal factors . . . strongly support[ed] release,” citing his residence in the United States for nearly all of his life[2] along with his wife and “two very young children” as well as his “personal property, real property, and community ties.” Def.'s Objs. at 1-2. Defendant noted that he had been “under a highly scrutinized, public federal investigation since January, and has remained in the jurisdiction.” Def.'s Objs. at 2. Defendant noted that his pretrial risk assessment score “place[d] him at the lowest risk category, with a 1% chance of failure to appear.” Def.'s Objs. at 2.
The district judge heard oral argument on Defendant's objections, which she construed as a motion to revoke or amend the Detention Order under 18 U.S.C. § 3145(b). Order Denying Mot. at 1, 4; see generally ECF No. 31. The district judge conducted a de novo review of the Detention Order, considering the record before the magistrate judge, including the report and addendum prepared by Pretrial Services and the transcript of the hearing before the magistrate judge. The district judge likewise concluded that Defendant “poses a risk of flight and that no condition or combination of conditions will reasonably ensure his future appearance” and ordered that he be detained. Order Denying Mot. at 2, 4.
The district judge noted that “[t]he [G]overnment appears to have substantial evidence of [Defendant's] guilt of the underlying offense,” citing the affidavit in support of the Complaint. Order Denying Mot. at 3 (citing ECF No. 2-1)). The district judge pointed out that “[i]n January 2022, [Defendant] was notified that he [wa]s the target of a larger federal fraud investigation that ha[d] not yet been charged.” Order Denying Mot. at 3 (footnote omitted). The district judge pointed out that Defendant's “financial resources give him the means to flee,” and, “[i]n March, [Defendant] booked a one-way flight to Nairobi, Kenya, but he did not board it.” Order Denying Mot. at 3 (footnote omitted). The district judge noted that “[t]he record [wa]s unclear on whether [Defendant] booked one or two flights,” but “[t]he discrepancy ma[de] no difference to the [district judge's] decision.” Order Denying Mot. at 3 n.2.
Recognizing that Defendant's “wife and two small children live in Minnesota,” the district judge simultaneously acknowledged that Defendant “also has significant ties to Kenya.” Order Denying Mot. at 3. Defendant “moved to Kenya when he was two years old and lived there for approximately 15 years.” Order Denying Mot. at 3. Defendant's father lives in Kenya and Defendant visited his father in Kenya in December 2021. Order Denying Mot. at 3. Defendant also “claimed to have invested $6 million in Kenya over the past three years.” Order Denying Mot. at 3.
“Compelling to [the district judge wa]s the fact of a much larger fraud investigation, the FBI search, the nature of the underlying charge and its temporal proximity to that search, and the booked flight.” Order Denying Mot. at 3-4. The district judge explained that Defendant was “the target of a well-publicized and large government fraud investigation,” and, “[a]fter the FBI searched his home and car and seized his passport and passport card, [Defendant] booked a flight to Kenya and applied for a new passport.” Order Denying Mot. at 4. “The obvious inference [wa]s that [Defendant] was planning to flee the United States to evade prosecution for the underlying fraud scheme.” Order Denying Mot. at 4. The district judge could “draw no other conclusion than that [Defendant] would engage in a similar plan if released.” Order Denying Mot. at 4. The district judge concluded that “[t]he evidence shows not just a risk of flight, but a demonstrated plan of flight and actions taken to carry out that plan.” Order Denying Mot. at 4.
While Defendant's objections were pending, he was indicted on one count of making a false statement in a passport application in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1542. ECF No. 22.
On September 13, 2022, a federal grand jury returned a series of six indictments charging more than 40 individuals related to the prosecution of an alleged massive fraudulent scheme to obtain and misappropriate more than $250 million in federal child nutrition program funds. The Government has alleged that these individuals fraudulently obtained misappropriated, and laundered millions of dollars in program funds that were intended as reimbursements for the costs of serving meals to children. The charges in these cases...
To continue reading
Request your trial