Professional Documents
Culture Documents
______________________________________________________________________
INDICTMENT
18 U.S.C. 1343
18 U.S.C. 1957
18 U.S.C. 2(b)
______________________________________________________________________
The Grand Jury charges that:
Counts 1-8
(Wire Fraud)
1.
2010, Defendant Michael Todd Osborn devised and intended to devise a scheme to
defraud investors and for obtaining money from them by means of materially false and
fraudulent pretenses, representations and promises, hereinafter referred to as the
scheme.
2.
investors as an experienced trader of stocks and other securities and a veteran in the
equity/swing trading business. In some instances, he falsely represented and caused
others to falsely represent that he was a licensed broker.
1
result. In fact, the defendant had not conducted the trades, and no profits had been
realized.
l) Instead of making any of the promised payouts, Defendant Osborn
only gave the investors excuses. These included blaming the banks failure to process
the funds or citing compliance issues, many of which purportedly arose because other
investors had failed to honor their subscriptions. To avoid making a payment, the
defendant sometimes represented that an investors payout had been rolled over,
such that the investors holdings had purportedly been increased as a result of receiving
additional units in the fund.
3.
On or about the date listed below for each count, Defendant Michael Todd
Osborn, did, for the purpose of executing the scheme described in Paragraphs 1 and 2
of this indictment, knowingly cause the following writings, signs, and signals described
for that count to be transmitted by means of wire communication in interstate commerce
to the State and District of Colorado, all in violation of United States Code, Section
1343:
Count
Date
Communication
4/8/10
4/14/10
4/20/10
5/7/10
5/18/10
5/20/10
6/1/10
6/2/10
COUNTS 9 11
(Willfully Causing Another to Engage in Monetary Transactions in Property
Derived from Specificed Unlawful Activity)
4.
On or about the date listed below for each count, Defendant Michael Todd
Osborn did willfully cause another person to engage and attempt to engage in a
monetary transaction in criminally derived property of a value greater than $10,000 as
described for that count, such property having been derived from a specified unlawful
activity, namely wire fraud, as defined in Title 18, United States Code, Section 1343, all
in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1957 and Title 18, United States
Code, Section 2(b):
Count
Date
6/2/10
10
6/2/10
Transaction
The wire transfer of $50,000.00 from the account of Infinite One,
LLC at JP Morgan Chase Bank to the account of Law Offices of
David J. Harter at Bank of the West
The wire transfer of $44,915.76 from the account of Infinite One,
LLC at JP Morgan Chase Bank to the account of Dream Motor
5
11
6/14/10
COUNTS 12-14
(Engaging in Monetary Transactions in Property Derived from Specified Unlawful
Activity)
5. On or about the date listed below for each count, Defendant Corey Earl Engelen
did knowingly engage and attempt to engage in a monetary transaction in criminally
derived property of a value greater than $10,000, as described for that count, such
property having been derived from specified unlawful activity, namely wire fraud, as
defined in Title 18, United States Code, Section 1343, all in violation of Title 18, United
States Code, Section 1957:
Count
Date
12
6/2/10
13
6/2/10
14
6/14/10
Transaction
The wire transfer of $50,000.00 from the
account of Infinite One, LLC at JP Morgan
Chase Bank to the account of Law Offices of
David J. Harter at Bank of the West
The wire transfer of $44,915.76 from the
account of Infinite One, LLC at JP Morgan
Chase Bank to the account of Dream Motor
Cars at Pacific Western National Bank
The wire transfer of $15,000.00 from the
account of Infinite One, LLC at JP Morgan
Chase Bank to the account of Law Office of
Evan Ginsburg at Citibank West.
NOTICE OF FORFEITURE
6. The allegations contained in Counts 1 through 14 of this Indictment hereby are
re-alleged and incorporated by reference for the purpose of alleging forfeiture pursuant
to the provisions of Title 18, United States Code, Section 981(a)(1)(C), Title 18, United
States Code, Section 982(a)(1) and Title 28, United States Code, Section 2461(c).
7. Upon conviction of one or more of the violations alleged in Counts 1 through 8
of this indictment involving the commission of violations of Title 18, United States Code,
Sections 1343 and 2(b), the defendant Michael Todd Osborn shall forfeit to the United
States, pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 981(a)(1)(C), and Title 28,
United States Code, Section 2461(c), any and all rights, title, and interest in all property
constituting and derived from any proceeds he obtained directly and indirectly as a
result of such offense or offenses or shall be liable for a money judgment in the amount
of the proceeds that he obtained as a result of the schemed charged in Counts 1
through 8 of this indictment.
8.
through 11 of this indictment involving the commission of violations of Title 18, United
States Code, Sections 1957 and 2(b), the defendant Michael Todd Osborn shall forfeit
to the United States, pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 982(a)(1) any
and all of the defendants right, title and interest in all property, real or personal,
involved in such offense, or all property traceable to such property, including, but not
limited to a money judgment in the amount of the proceeds that he obtained as a result
of the schemed charged in Counts 1 through 8 of this indictment, or as a result in the
offenses charged in Counts 9-11 of this indictment.
Code, Section 853(p), to seek forfeiture of any other property of Corey Earl Engelen up
to the value of the forfeitable property described above in Paragraph 10.
A TRUE BILL
JOHN F. WALSH
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
2/11/15
DEFENDANT:
YOB:
1970
ADDRESS:
COMPLAINT FILED?
YES
NO
YES
NO
other
THE GOVERNMENT
Yes
No
DEFENDANT:
YOB:
1969
ADDRESS:
Colorado
COMPLAINT FILED?
YES
NO
YES
NO
other
THE GOVERNMENT
will seek detention in this case
Yes
No