United States v. Jafari

• Decision Date: 25 February 2020
• Docket Number: CRIMINAL CASE NO. 1:19-CR-0078-SCJ-LTW
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Georgia
• Parties: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. LOHRASB "JEFF" JAFARI, Defendant.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. LOHRASB "JEFF" JAFARI, Defendant.

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 1:19-CR-0078-SCJ-LTW

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION

February 25, 2020

FINAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND ORDER CERTIFYING THIS CASE READY FOR TRIAL

This matter is presently before the Court on Defendant Lohrasb "Jeff" Jafari's ("Defendant") Motion for Bill of Particulars (Doc. 40), Motion to Disclose Specific Brady Information (Doc. 41), Preliminary Motion to Suppress (Doc. 43), and Particularized Motion to Suppress (Doc. 46). The Government has filed a Response in Opposition to Defendant's motions. (Docs. 47, 48, and 51). Thereafter, Defendant filed a Reply to the Government's response to his motion to suppress. (Doc. 52). For the reasons outlined below, Defendant's Motion for a Bill of Particulars and his Motion for Early Disclosure of Specific Brady Information are DENIED. (Docs. 40, 41). This Court also RECOMMENDS that Defendant's Motions to Suppress be DENIED. (Docs. 43, 46).

BACKGROUND

On February 26, 2019, a grand jury in the Northern District of Georgia returned a fifty-one count Indictment ("Indictment") charging Defendant with one count of conspiracy to commit bribery in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371 (Count One); six counts of bribery¹ in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 666(a)(2) (Counts Two through Seven); one count of tampering with a witness in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1512(b)(3) (Count Eight); three counts of tax evasion in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7201 (Counts Nine through Eleven); twenty-four counts of money laundering in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(1)(A)(ii) (Counts Twelve through Thirty-six); and fourteen counts of structuring in violation of 31 U.S.C. §§ 5324(a)(1) and 5324(d) (Counts Thirty-seven through Fifty-one). The Indictment also includes a forfeiture provision, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(C), and 28 U.S.C. § 2461(c). Notably, the Indictment is very detailed, it has forty-five paragraphs, and it is twenty-one pages. (Doc. 1).

DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR BILL OF PARTICULARS

A. Defendant's Requests

Defendant has filed a Motion for Bill of Particulars, requesting that the Court direct the Government to provide additional information regarding the Conspiracy to Commit Bribery and the Bribery Counts--Counts One through Seven--of the Indictment. (Doc. 48). Specifically, Defendant requests the following:

1. The total amount of money the government contends Defendant corruptly paid to influence or reward Adam Smith;

2. The total amount of money Adam Smith corruptly received in his position as an agent of the City of Atlanta, i.e., Atlanta's Chief Procurement Officer;

3. The name(s) of any other individual(s) who the Government contends corruptly paid Adam Smith in his position as an agent of the City of Atlanta, i.e., Atlanta's Chief Procurement Officer;

4. Identify specifically what Adam Smith agreed to do (to use his influence in return for the money the government contends the defendant corruptly paid him;

5. Identify specifically what Adam Smith actually did (used his influence or was rewarded for) in return for the corrupt payments the government contends the defendant made to him;

6. The name(s) of any other individual(s) who the government contends corruptly paid the "official and agent of Dekalb County" (believed to be Morris Williams);7. Identify specifically what the "official and agent of Dekalb County" (believed to be Morris Williams) agreed to do (to use his influence) in return for the money the government contends the defendant corruptly paid him in counts 6 and 7;

8. Identify specifically what the "official and agent of Dekalb County" (believed to be Morris Williams) actually did (used his influence or was rewarded for) in return for the corrupt payments the government contends the defendant made to him in counts 6 and 7;

9. Identify specifically the "transaction and series of transactions" referenced in count 2, ¶12; count 3, ¶14; count 4, ¶16; and count 5, ¶18;

10. Identify specifically the "transaction and series of transactions" referenced in count 6, ¶20 and count 7, ¶22; and

11. Identify specifically what transaction or series of transactions are the source of "the proceeds" of "bribery" referenced in counts 12-15, ¶32; count 16, ¶34; and counts 17-36, ¶36.

(Doc. 40, at 1-2).

Despite the Defendant's explicit requests, he did not include any argument in support of his motion. Instead, during a pretrial conference on July 24, 2019, Defendant provided a number of arguments in support of his Motion. First, Defendant focused his argument on the word "corruptly" in 18 U.S.C § 666(a)(2)²which is key for a violation of that statute. (Tr. 8). Defendant explained that "it is not illegal to get a gift, goodwill, friendship, a thing of value unless it is essentially for a dishonest purpose, which is to influence or reward the actions of what I will call here the alleged bribee, Adam Smith." (Transcript of June 24, 2019 Hearing ("Tr. "), 8, Doc. 45). According to Defendant, this case is based on the idea that he gave cash to Smith for the purposes of influencing or rewarding Smith for Smith's acts. (Id.). Defendant contends that after going through "tens of thousands of pages of discovery, probably in excess of 100,00 pages" and on review of the Indictment, he is unable to tell what "Smith actually was able to do to influence or be influenced or to be rewarded" (Requests 4-5). (Tr. 8-9).

Based on his understanding of Smith's role as the Director of Procurement for the City of Atlanta, Defendant asserts that Smith was only able to issue purchaseorders after a notice to proceed from another independent City of Atlanta body had been authorized and issued; and Smith did not have the ability to refuse to do so. (Tr. 9). The purchase order, Defendant explained, "simply is the means by which one bills, like the invoice, it's like when you send a bill in, you simply say, hey, this is the purchase order in which I'm billing against." (Tr. 11). It is Defendant's position that "that's not going to be the approval. But, if that is what the Government is relying on, [Defendant] should know that, or if they are relying on something else, the Government should be able to tell [him]. (Tr. 12).

In anticipation of the Government's argument in response, Defendant argued the Government may say "well, there were multitude of contracts for which there were purchase orders, but that does not answer the question about what it is that [Smith] had in the approval process." (Tr. 10). In sum, Defendant seeks the contract number(s) that Smith approved, or if the Government's position is that the purchase order constitutes approval, Defendant wants the purchase order number(s). (Tr. 11).

Additionally, Defendant seeks information regarding how much money the Government alleges he paid Smith; the total amount Smith received by virtue of his position with the City of Atlanta; the identity of others who allegedly paid Smith in his position with the City of Atlanta; and whether Smith received money from othersthat is characterized as something other than corrupt (Requests 1-3). (Tr. 12). Defendant asserts that this information is part of his defense that he was receiving gifts, monies, goodwill, friendships because Smith did not have the ability to approve [contracts], and that others were doing the same thing, which would suggest that his conduct was not illegal conduct. (Id.). If there is no corrupt intent, Defendant explained that goes to show that gifts for goodwill or friendship were taking place. (Tr. 13).

Further, Defendant requests the amount of money the Government alleges he and others paid to the DeKalb County official, believed to be Morris Williams, and what the DeKalb County official would have been influenced to do or rewarded for doing in 2014 (Requests 6-8). (Tr. 17). Defendant asserts that there is nothing in the discovery that is suggestive of what Williams could to do to influence, agree to influence, or did to influence or agree to undertake for Defendant's alleged bribe. (Tr. 17).

Lastly, Defendant seeks the identity of a specific transaction or series of transactions in the Indictment (Requests 9-11). By way of example, Defendant pointed to Counts Two through Five of the Indictment referencing "corruptly" and "transaction or series of transactions." Count 2 provides the following:Count 2

Bribery

(18 U.S.C. § 666)

12. From on or about January 1, 2014 to on or about December 31, 2014, in the Northern District of Georgia, the defendant, LOHRASB "JEFF" JAFARI, corruptly gave, offered, and agreed to give a thing of value to Adam Smith, an agent of the City of Atlanta, Georgia, a local government that received benefits in excess of $10,000 under a Federal program involving a grant, contract, subsidy, loan, guarantee, insurance, and other form of Federal assistance, with the intent to influence and reward Smith in connection with a transaction and series of transactions of the City of Atlanta involving at least $5,000, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 666(a)(2).

(Doc. 1, at 5) (emphasis added). Defendant contends that the discovery provided does not indicate what the transaction is or the series of transactions are. (Tr. 10). In order to prepare his defense, Defendant argues the Government should be required to tell him "what it is that Adam Smith had the authority to approve in real terms." (Tr. 10).

B. The Government's Response

The Government argues in response that Defendant's Motion should be denied because it seeks an explanation of the Government's evidence, not the charged offenses, and because the information sought has already been provided to Defendant by means of the Indictment and in the extensive discovery materials.(Doc. 40, at 9). According to the Government, although the Defendant creatively attempts to justify his requests in light of the governing law, the reality is that he is asking the Government to explain its theory of the case and identify...