United States v. King

Citation231 F.Supp.3d 872
Decision Date06 March 2017
Docket NumberCase No. CR–13–0063–F
Parties UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. (1) Bartice A. "Luke" KING, (8) Kory Elwin Koralewski, (24) Paul Francis Tucker, (27) Leon Mark Moran, (29) Luis Robles, (52) Zapt Electrical Sales, Inc., (58) Rodger Vanpelt Bramley and (59) Kelley Ward Diebner, Defendants.
CourtU.S. District Court — Western District of Oklahoma

Travis D. Smith, John S. Han, Robert Don Evans, Jr., Scott E. Williams, Wilson D. McGarry, US Attorney's Office, Oklahoma City, OK, Robin L. Sommer, US Attorney's Office, Wichita, KS, for Plaintiff.

Nathan J. Mays, The Law Offices of Nathan J. Mays PC, Dan B. Gerson, Houston, TX, John D. Cline, Law Office of John D. Cline, Anthony J. Brass, Law Office of Anthony Brass, San Francisco, CA, Robert M. Goldstein, Law Office of Robert Goldstein, Boston, MA, Daniel Brodersen, Brodersen Law Firm, Orlando, FL, Juan Chardiet, Juan Chardiet Attorney at Law, McLean, VA, Craig D. Corgan, Craig Corgan Attorney at Law, Yukon, OK, James D. Henderson, The Law Office of James D. Henderson, Jr., Santa Monica, CA, Michael W. Noland, Noland Defense Firm, Joseph G. Shannonhouse, IV, Shannonhouse Law Offices PLLC, Derek H. Ross, Robert G. McCampbell, Fellers Snider Blankenship Bailey & Tippens, Michael D. McBride, McBride Law Firm, Seth A. Day, Susanna M. Gattoni, Hall Estill, Ronald L. Wallace, The Wallace Law Firm, Andre B. Caldwell, Anthony J. Hendricks, Crowe & Dunlevy, Matthew C. Kane, Ryan Whaley Coldiron Shandy PC, J. Patrick Quillian, J. Patrick Quillian PC, Robert L. Johnston, Law Office of Robert L. Johnston, Lance B. Phillips, Lance B Phillips PC, Paul A. Lacy, Federal Public Defender, Michael S. Johnson, Law Office of Michael S. Johnson, Troy R. Cowin, Lopez Johnson Armenta, David B. Autry, Robert S. Jackson, Perry W. Hudson, Oklahoma City, OK, Alain J. Ifrah, David S. Yellin, Ifrah PLLC, Washington, DC, Ronald Eugene Jenkins, Jenkins & Kling PC, St. Louis, MO, H. Manuel Hernandez, H. Manuel Hernandez PA, Longwood, FL, Michael W. Nielsen, Nielsen Law Firm, Winter Springs, FL, Gordon D. Jones, Jones & Hawley PC, Birmingham, AL, Jerry W. Biesel, Dallas, TX, Steve T. Jumes, Varghese Summersett & Smith, Fort Worth, TX, for Defendants.



Table of Contents

VI. Tracing, Tainting, Commingling and Extrapolation...910
A. Tracing, Tainting and Commingling...910
IX. Findings of Fact...922
C. Viability of the Government's Proposed Direct Attributions and Extrapolations...951
1. General Nature of the Government's Proposed Direct Attributions and Extrapolations...951
2. Extrapolation Based on Legendz Payouts to Bettors through Global Data Payment Services...954
3. The Government's Proposed Extrapolations and Direct Attributions re: Proceeds Attributable to Individual Agents and Runners...955
a. Terry Campbell...955
b. Ralph Hernandez...957
c. Kelly Diebner...960
d. Christopher Tanner...965
e. Michael Lawhorn...966
f. Joseph Barry...970
g. Paul Tucker...970
h. Bruce Middlebrook...972
i. Rodger Bramley...974
j. Paul Wilson...976
k. Leon Moran...977
l. Joseph McFadden...981
m. David Ross...983
n. Kory Koralewski...983
o. Luis Robles...993
4. Conclusion as to the Government's Proposed Extrapolations and Direct Attributions...994
D. Viability of the Government's Contention that all Forfeiture Defendants, Regardless of their Respective Degrees of Participation in the Legendz Enterprise, Should be Subjected to a Forfeiture Money Judgment in the Same Amount...995
E. Findings Specific to King...996
1. Forfeiture of Specific Assets...996
2. Forfeiture Money Judgment...999
F. Findings Specific to Koralewski...999
1. Forfeiture of Specific Assets...999
2. Forfeiture Money Judgment...1001
G. Findings Specific to Tucker...1001
1. Forfeiture of Specific Assets...1001
2. Forfeiture Money Judgment...1001
H. Findings Specific to Moran...1006
1. Forfeiture of Specific Assets...1006
2. Forfeiture Money Judgment...1006
I. Findings Specific to Robles...1008
1. Forfeiture of Specific Assets...1008
2. Forfeiture Money Judgment...1008
J. Findings Specific to Bramley...1009
1. Forfeiture of Specific Assets...1009
2. Forfeiture Money Judgment...1012
K. Findings Specific to Dieber...1013
1. Forfeiture of Specific Assets...1013
2. Forfeiture Money Judgment...1013
X. Forfeiture–Related Sanctions Against the United States...1015
XI. Conclusion...1022
I. Introduction

The government moves for preliminary orders of forfeiture against the defendants Bartice A. "Luke" King,1 Kory Elwin Koralewski, Paul Francis Tucker, Leon Mark Moran, Luis Robles, Zapt Electrical Sales Inc., Rodger Vanpelt Bramley and Kelley Ward Diebner. This order refers to these parties, other than Zapt,2 as "the forfeiture defendants."3

The government seeks forfeiture of specific assets as well as a forfeiture money judgment. See generally, Rule 32.2(b), Fed.R.Crim.P. (procedures for entering a preliminary order of forfeiture). As for the forfeiture money judgment, the government now seeks a judgment in the amount of $231,432,686.73 against the forfeiture defendants. (In the last of the four jury trials that were held in this case, an FBI witness maintained, repeatedly, that the government actually seeks $1 billion by way of forfeiture. Oct. Tr. 2074, 2077, 2114–14.4 )

These forfeiture proceedings are, to put it mildly, contested.

The findings of fact in this order are based on the evidence presented at the four jury trials which were held in this case, as well as the James hearings and the nonjury trial which was addressed exclusively to forfeiture issues—all of which generated 11,368 pages of trial transcript.

A. The Criminal Charges

The original Indictment in this case was returned on March 20, 2013. It alleged a ten-year conspiracy period for the two conspiracy counts. Doc. no. 1, at 18, 47.5 As of the date of the Indictment, there was about a nine-year overlap between the ten-year duration of the conspiracy and the duration of the government's investigation of that conspiracy.

The original Indictment charged fifty-seven defendants, including six of the eight forfeiture defendants now before the court (King, Koralewski, Moran, Robles, Tucker and Zapt). Doc. no. 1. The Indictment charged: Count 1, a racketeering (RICO) conspiracy in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d) ; Count 2, operation of an illegal gambling business in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1955 ; and Count 3, conspiring in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h) to commit money laundering under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1956 and 1957. The Indictment included forfeiture allegations stating the government's intent to seek criminal forfeiture of at least $1,000,000,000.00 as well as specific items of real and personal property.

On August 16, 2013, the United States filed a Bill of Particulars for Forfeiture of Property, giving notice to defendants King, Tucker and Moran (and other defendants not involved in these forfeiture proceedings), that the United States was seeking forfeiture of additional specific property listed in the Bill of Particulars. Doc. no. 346.

On August 21, 2013, a grand jury sitting in the Western District of Oklahoma returned a Superseding Indictment against fifty-nine defendants, including the eight forfeiture defendants before the court in these proceedings (King, Koralewski, Tucker, Moran, Robles, Zapt, Bramley and Diebner). Doc. no. 354. The Superseding Indictment included modified versions of the same three counts. The Superseding Indictment included forfeiture allegations stating the government's intent to seek criminal forfeiture of at least $1,000,000,000.00 and specific items of real and personal property. Each of the forfeiture defendants was convicted, by a jury, on one or more of the three counts.

On October 15, 2013, a Second Bill of Particulars for Forfeiture of Property was filed providing notice (to the extent material here) to King, Bramley and Diebner of the government's intent to pursue forfeiture of additional items of real and personal property. Doc. no. 465.

B. The Trials and Convictions

The sheer number of defendants necessitated multiple trials. Accordingly, the forfeiture defendants, along with other defendants, were grouped in four sets of defendants to be tried together in four separate trials. All of the defendants who have been tried have agreed to have forfeiture determined by the court rather than by a jury.

The first trial began on February 12, 2015, and a jury verdict was returned on March 3, 2015. Forfeiture defendants Tucker, Robles and Zapt were tried in this first set of defendants. Tucker was found guilty on all three counts. Robles was found guilty on all three counts. Zapt was not a defendant with respect to Count...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • State v. Jouppi
    • United States
    • Alaska Court of Appeals
    • 23 septembre 2022
    ...deprive defendant, who had a ninth-grade education and no meaningful employment history, of livelihood); United States v. King , 231 F. Supp. 3d 872, 1007-14 (W.D. Okla. 2017) (limiting forfeiture amounts for several defendants because of considerations like low net worth, work-related disa......
  • State v. Jouppi
    • United States
    • Alaska Court of Appeals
    • 23 septembre 2022
    ...2005, would be deprived of livelihood given three-million-dollar forfeiture amount). [66] See Muzaffar, 714 Fed.Appx. at 58; King, 231 F.Supp.3d at 1007-14. [67] In Bajakajian, the sought to forfeit $357,144, but at sentencing, the district court ordered $15,000 in forfeiture, concluding th......
  • United States v. Hallinan, CRIMINAL ACTION NO. 16-130-01
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania
    • 27 juin 2018
    ...to warrant forfeiture (quoting United States v. Parcel of Property, 337 F.3d 225, 233 (2d Cir. 2003)); United States v. King, 231 F. Supp. 3d 872, 1010-11 (W.D. Okla. 2017) (finding that defendant's sporadic use of his house to"take care of some [illegal bookkeeping]-related business" was t......
  • United States v. Del Giudice
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois
    • 28 mars 2022
    ...to be forfeited bears more than an incidental or fortuitous connection to the criminal activity. See, e.g., United States v. King , 231 F. Supp. 3d 872, 898 (W.D. Okla. 2017)."The court's determination may be based on evidence already in the record, ... and on any additional evidence or inf......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
    • United States
    • William and Mary Law Review Vol. 63 No. 2, November 2021
    • 1 novembre 2021
    ...show unconstitutionality of a forfeiture); United States v. Cheeseman, 600 F.3d 270,283 (3d Cir. 2010) (same); United States v. King, 231 F. Supp. 3d 872,907-08 (W.D. Okla. 2017) (citing Fogg, 666 F.3d at 18-19) (stating the burden on both financial effect and the ultimate question of exces......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT