filed
IN
OPEN
COURT
DEC
1
3
2023
IN
THE
UNI’i'ED
STATES
DISTRICT
COURT
FOR
THE
EASTERN
DISTRICT
OF
VIRGINIA
CLERK,
U.S.
DISTRICT
COURT
NORFOLK.
VA
Norfolk
Division
UNITED
STATES
OF
AMERICA
)
CRIMINAL
NO.
2:23cr89
)
)
V.
Wire
Fraud
18U.S.C.
§
1343
(Counts
1-9,
11)
)
DERICKSON
LAWRENCE,
)
)
Defendant.
)
Mail
Fraud
18
U.S.C.
§
1341
(Count
10)
)
)
)
)
)
18
U.S.C.
§
981(a)(1)(C)
&
28U.S.C.
§
2461
Criminal
Forfeiture
)
)
)
SUPERSEDRIG
INDICTMENT
DECEMBER
2023
TERM
-
at
Norfolk,
Virginia
THE
GRAND
.lURY
CHARGES
THAT:
At
all
times
relevant
to this
Superseding
Indictment,
unless
otherwise
stated:
GENERAL
ALLEGATIONS
Beginning
in
and
around
Februaiy
2016
and continuing
through
in
and
around
1.
December
2019,
in
the
Eastern
District
of
Virginia
and
elsewhere,
defendant,
DERICKSON
LAWRENCE,
devised a
scheme
and
artifice to
defraud,
and
obtain
money
and
property
by
means
of
false
and
fraudulent
pretenses,
representations,
and
promises.
During
the
relevant
time
period,
Victim
Company
operated
several
franchises
of
a
2.
national
restaurant
chain
in
Virginia
and conducted
business
out
of an
office
in
Virginia
Beach,
Virginia.
Case 2:23-cr-00089-JAG-LRL Document 26 Filed 12/13/23 Page 1 of 13 PageID# 89
During
the
relevant
time
period,
defendant
was
the
Chief
Executive
Officer
and
3.
sole
owner
of a
business
called
Marketview,
Inc.
(“Marketview”)
which
conducted
business
out
of a
physical
location
in
Mount
Vernon,
New
York,
where
defendant
also resided.
PURPOSE
OF
THE
SCHEME
4.
The
purpose
of
defendant's
scheme
and
artifice to
defraud
was
for
defendant
to
obtain
money
and
property
to
which
he
was
not
entitled
by
taking
money
that
had
been
entrusted
to
defendant’s
business
to
pay
the
salaries
of
employees
of
Victim
Company
and,
instead,
using
the
funds
for his
personal
use.
WAYS,
MANNER.
AND
MEANS
5.
Marketview
was
paid
by
Victim
Company
to
provide
payroll
services
for
Victim
Company’s
employees,
who
could
elect
to
receive
their
salary
via
direct
deposit
or,
alternatively,
via
an
issued
debit
card.
Defendant
sent
an
employee
of
Victim
Company
located
in
Virginia
Beach,
Virginia,
G.C.,
regular
invoices
for
the
services
provided
by
Marketview.
Those
invoices
were
paid
by
regular
transfers
to a
Wells Fargo
Bank
(“Wells Fargo”) account
controlled
by
defendant
(the
“-9321
Account”).
6.
As
part
of
and
in
furtherance
of
the
scheme,
defendant
had ownership and
control
over,
and
was
the
signatory
for,
various
otlier
business
bank
accounts
for
Marketview
at
Wells
Fargo.
Marketview
employed
only
one
other
individual,
D.A.,
a
part-time
employee
who
assisted
defendant
for
some
period
of time with
the
website
and
a
financial
database.
7.
To
pay
the
salaries
of
its
employees
who
elected
to
receive
their
wages
via
debit
card,
Victim
Company
would
regularly
transfer
funds
from
its
own
accounts
through
an
intermediary
bank
and
into
a
Wells Fargo
business
account
controlled
by
defendant
(the
“Settlement
Account”).
Funds
were
then
withdrawn
by
ACH
debit
from
the
Settlement
2
Case 2:23-cr-00089-JAG-LRL Document 26 Filed 12/13/23 Page 2 of 13 PageID# 90
Account
by
STAR
Processing
(“STAR”),
a
third-party
company
which
handled
the
daily
settlements
for
the
debit
card
transactions
and
facilitated
the
actual
withdrawals
or
purchases
by
employees
using
their
debit
cards.
STAR
charged
Marketview
fees
for
its
services
that
were
paid
from
the
-9321
Account.
As
part
of
and
in
furtherance
of
the
scheme,
defendant
wired
money
which
did not
belong
nor
was
due
to
defendant
from
the
Settlement
Account
into
another
Wells
Fargo
account
controlled
by
defendant
(the
“-7523
Account”),
and
thereafter
transferred
the
funds, via
wire,
to
defendant’s
personal
brokerage
account
with
Scottrade/TD
Ameritrade,
where
defendant
used
the
funds
to
engage
in
speculative
stock
trading,
including
the
purchase
of
call
and
put
options
for
Defendant
never
disclosed
to
Victim
Company
or
companies
like
Amazon,
Tesla,
and
Netflix.
its
employees
that
funds
transferred
into
the
Settlement
Account
were
being
used
for
speculative
stock
trading
or
other
personal
uses.
From
in
and around
March
2017
through
in
and around
October
2019,
approximately
$190,000,000
was
transferred
from
the
Settlement
Account,
through
the
-7523
Account,
and
then
wired
to
defendant’s
personal
brokerage
account
with
Scottrade/TD
Aside
from
a
single transfer
on
February
1,2018,
for
$9,900,
there
were
no
transfers
Ameritrade.
from
defendant’s
brokerage
account
back
into
either
the
Settlement
or
-7523
Accounts.
From
on
or
about
Februaiy^
2018
to
October
2019,
defendant
made
more
than
9.
$25,000
in
wire
transfers
from
the
brokerage
account
to
his
personal
checking
account
at
Capital
One
bank,
which
defendant
used
for
various
personal
expenses
including
restaurants,
a
lawn
care
service,
and
to
pay
tuition.
Defendant
also
withdrew
cash
directly
from
the
Settlement
Account.
10.
As
part
of
and
in
furtherance
of
the
scheme,
defendant
transferred
thousands
of
dollars
from
the
Settlement
Aecount
to
another
account
controlled
by
his
romantic
partner,
M.N.
The
text
associated
with
the
transfers
falsely
puiported
that
they
were
“returns”
to
an
employee
of
3
Case 2:23-cr-00089-JAG-LRL Document 26 Filed 12/13/23 Page 3 of 13 PageID# 91
the
Victim
Company.
For
example,
$600
was
debited
to
the
Settlement
Account
on
January
5,
2018
and
again
on
Februar>'
8,
2018,
pui-portedly
for
a
“return’"
by
the
Victim
Company
to
M.N.
M.N.
was
never
employed
by
Victim
Company.
Defendant
also
used
funds
in
the
Settlement
Account
to
make
loans
to
and/or
pay
invoices
for
M.N.’s
business,
LGN
Materials
and
Solutions,
Inc.
(“LGN”).
On
or
about
November
15,
2017,
$9,600
was
transferred
from
the
Settlement
Account
for
a
“return”
to
M.N.,
and
on
November
17,2017,
M.N.
wrote
a
check
for
$9,600
payable
to
Marketview
for
“REIMBURSEMENT”
that
was
later
deposited
into
the
Settlement
Account.
Later,
on
December
13,2018,
$30,000
was
transferred
from
the
Settlement
Account
into
the
-7523
$27,189.81
of
that
amount
was
then
sent
from
the-7523
Account
via
wire
to
a
company
Account.
in
the
metal
and
polymer
processing
industry
with
the
note
“Payment
for
invoice
PO
NO
1110..
On
December
24,
2018,
$27,500
was
deposited
..
Credit
to
LGN
Materials
and
Solutions
Inc.
into
the
Settlement
Account.
The
transaction description
for
that
deposit
reads:
“[Victim
Company],
CORP
PAY
181224
INV#
LGN
M
ATERIALS
&
SOLUTIONS.
Victim
Company
never
contracted
with
or
had any
business
with
LGN.
In
and around
December
2018,
defendant
began
receiving
notices
from
STAR
that
11.
there
were
insufficient
funds
in
the
Settlement
Account
to
cover
the
use of
the
Marketview
debit
cards
by
the
Victim
Company’s
employees.
On
or
about
September
13,
2019,
STAR
notified
defendant
that
unless
an
outstanding
balance of over
$80,000
was
paid
within
ten
days,
STAR
would
terminate
its
agreement and
cease processing
card
transactions.
On
or
about
September
24,
2019,
STAR
terminated
the
agreement,
ceased
funding
debit
card
transactions,
and
recommended
that
Marketview
“immediately
notify
its
cardholder
clients.
12.
As
part
of
and
in
furtherance
of
the
scheme,
on
or
about
September
25,
2019,
defendant
emailed
G.C.,
an
employee
of
Victim
Company
located
in
the
Eastern
District
of
4
Case 2:23-cr-00089-JAG-LRL Document 26 Filed 12/13/23 Page 4 of 13 PageID# 92
Virginia.
In
that
email,
defendant
did not
disclose
the
more
than
$80,000
debt
to
STAR,
or
the
fact that
STAR
had
terminated
its
agreement
with
Marketview.
Instead,
defendant
wrote:
"fljast
week,
as
you
know,
we
encountered
a
dififcult
service
delivery
problem
with
our
card
vendor.
. .
[i]n
parallel,
we
experienced
some
customer
service
issues
. . .
We
worked
through
the
weekend
and
the
past
two
days
to
fix
and
restore
our
service
levels
to
no
avail.
Yesterday
we
made
the
decision
not
to
submit
the
new
card
request,
until
a
resolution
was
reached,
and
are
informing
you
of
that
decision.
An
alternative
to
the
card
is
or
[sic]
digital
offering,
which
is
part
of what
was
submitted
for
the
hand
book.
I’ll
be
available
to
discuss
further.
”
On
or
about
September
29,
2019,
defendant’s
employee,
D.A.,
sent
defendant
an
13.
email
stating,
among
other
things:
“Running
a
few
queries,
I
see
that
the
majority
of
money
is
held
Amazingly,
no
one
is
by
cardholders
who
haven’t
made
a
single
transaction
in
two
years.
touching
their
money
except
the
people
who
are
still
receiving
paychecks.
For
example,
of
people
who
have
made
at
least
one
transaction
in
2019,
the
account
balance
totals
are
about
137K.
Compare
that
to
the
roughly
450K
TOTAL
[Victim
Company]
cardholder
money
we
have.”
On
September
30,
2019,
the
ending
balance
for the
Settlement
Account—into
which
the
salaries
of
the
Victim
Company’s
employees
had
been
deposited—held
only
$1,745.38.
The
brokerage
account,
on
September
30,
2019,
held
a
closing
balance
of
only
$17.86
and
unrealized
trading
losses
of over
$2,000.00.
As
part
of
and
in
furtherance
of
the
scheme,
on
or
about
October
23,
2019,
14.
defendant
emailed
G.C.,
an
employee
of
Victim
Company
located
in
the
Eastern
District
of
Virginia.
The
email
attached
a
document
entitled
“CONFIDENTIAL
DRAFT
Proposal”
in
which
defendant
wrote,
among
other
things:
"However,
when
you
publish a
defamatory
statement
like
'we
took
their
money and
did
not
pay
them,
’
which
is
a statement
that's
inaccurate
and
not
supported
by
the
facts,
that's
not
operating
in
good
faith.
And
frankly,
it
is
a statement
that
rises
to
the
level
of
libel.
”
"Therefore,
even
with
the
loss
of
STAR
service,
all
remaining
card
holders do
have
a
means
of
access
to
their
funds
through
the
PayPal
service.
”
5
Case 2:23-cr-00089-JAG-LRL Document 26 Filed 12/13/23 Page 5 of 13 PageID# 93
As
part
of
and
in
furtherance
of
the
scheme,
after
sending
the
above
emails,
15.
defendant continued
to
transfer
money
from
the
Settlement
Account
into
the
-7523
Account
and
then
wire funds
to
his
personal
brokerage
account,
including
a
transfer
of
$2,000
on
or
about
October
23,
2019
from
the
Settlement
Account
to
the
-7523
Account
which
defendant
then,
on
or
about
October
24,
2019,
had
sent
via
wire
to
his
personal
brokerage
account.
COUNTSONE
THROUGH
NINE
(Wire
Fraud)
Paragraphs
1
through
15
of
the
General
Allegations
section
of
this
Indictment
are
16.
incorporated
by
reference
as
though
fully
set
forth
herein.
On
or
about
the
dates
listed
below,
in
the
Eastern
District
of
Virginia
and
elsewhere,
17.
DERICKSON
LAWRENCE,
for the
purpose
of executing
the
above-described
scheme
and
artifice
to
defraud
and
to
fraudulently
obtain
money
and
property
by
means
of
materially
false
and
fraudulent
pretenses,
representations,
and
promises,
did
knowingly
transmit
and
cause
to
be
transmitted,
by
means
of a wire
communication
in
interstate
commerce,
certain
writings,
signs,
signals,
pictures,
and
sounds,
each
transmission being
a
separate
count of
this
Indictment
as
indicated:
6
Case 2:23-cr-00089-JAG-LRL Document 26 Filed 12/13/23 Page 6 of 13 PageID# 94
Description
Count
Date
(on or
about)
August
3,
2018
Email
from
defendant
to
Victim
Company
employee
G.C.
in
Virginia
Beach
attaching
invoice
“which
includes
two
processing
periods
-
for
the
month
of
July
2018”
Email
from
defendant
to
Victim
Company
employee
G.C.
in
Virginia
Beach
attaching
invoice
“for
two
processing
periods
for
the
month
of
September
2018”
Email
from
defendant
to
Victim
Company
employee
G.C.
in
Virginia
Beach
attaching
invoice
“for
two
processing
periods
for
the
month
of
February
2019”
Email
from
defendant
to
Victim
Company
employee
G.C.
in
Virginia
Beach
attaching
invoice
“for
two
processing
periods
for the
month
of
May
2019”
Email
from
defendant
to
Victim
Company
employee
G.C.
in
Virginia
Beach
attaching
invoice
“for
two
processing
periods
for
the
month
of
June
2019”
1
October
8,
2018
2
March
8,
2019
3
4
June
7,
2019
July
8,2019
5
Email
from
defendant
to
Victim
Company
employee
G.C.
in
Virginia
Beach
attaching
invoice
“three
processing
periods
for the
month
of
June
2019”
6
August
8,
2019
Email
from
defendant
to
Victim
Company
employee
G.C.
in
Virginia
Beach
attaching
invoice
“which
includes
two
processing
periods
in
the
month
of
August
2019”
Email
from
defendant
to
Victim
Company
employee
G.C.
in
Virginia
Beach
addressing
the
“difficult
service
delivery
problem”
Email
from
defendant
to
Victim
Company
employee
G.C.
in
Virginia
Beach
attaching
“CONFIDENTIAL
DRAFT
Proposal”
September
13,
2019
7
September
25,
2019
October
23,
2019
9
(In
violation
of
Title
18,
United
States
Code,
Section
1343).
7
Case 2:23-cr-00089-JAG-LRL Document 26 Filed 12/13/23 Page 7 of 13 PageID# 95
COUNT
TEN
(Mail Fraud)
Paragraphs
1
through
15
of
the
General
Allegations
section
of
this
Indictment
are
18.
incorporated
by
reference
as
though
fully
set
forth
herein.
The
Marketview
debit
cards
were
regularly
sent
at
defendant’s
direction
via
United
19.
Parcel
Service
(“UPS”),
a
private
and
commercial
interstate
carrier, to
Victim
Company’s
primary
office
in
Virginia
Beach,
Virginia.
Management
would
then
further
distribute
the
debit
cards
to
the
individual
employees
so
they
could
receive
their
salaries.
In
and around
February
2019, A.S.
was
hired
by
Victim
Company
and,
shortly
20.
thereafter,
received a
debit
card
issued
by
Marketview,
which
had
been
mailed
to
Victim
Company
On
or
about
September
26,
2019, A.S. attempted
to
use
the
debit
card
to
withdraw
via
UPS.
$120.00
from
an
ATM
but
was
unable
to
access
his
funds.
In
and around
February
and
March
2019,
in
the
Eastern
District
of
Virginia
and
21.
elsewhere,
DERICKSON
LAWRENCE,
for
the
purpose
of executing
the
above-described
scheme
and
artifice to
defraud
and
to
fraudulently
obtain
money
and
property
by
means
of
materially
false
and
fraudulent
pretenses,
representations,
and
promises,
did
knowingly
cause
to
be
delivered
by
mail
and
by
private
and
commercial
interstate
carrier
according
to
the
direction
thereon
and
at
the
place
at
which
it
was
directed
to
be
delivered
by
the
person
to
whom
it
was
addressed
the
following
matter:
a
debit
card
for
the
benefit
of
Victim
Company
employee
A.S.
(In
violation
of
Title
18,
United
States
Code,
Section
1341).
Case 2:23-cr-00089-JAG-LRL Document 26 Filed 12/13/23 Page 8 of 13 PageID# 96
COUNT
ELEVEN
(Wire
Fraud)
The
United
States
Small
Business
Administration
(SBA)
was
an
executive-branch
22.
agency
of
the
United
States
government
that
provided
support
to
entrepreneurs
and
small
The
mission
of
the
SBA
was
to
maintain
and
strengthen
the
nation’s
economy
by
businesses.
enabling
the
establishment
and
viability
of small
businesses
and
by
assisting
in
the
economic
recovery
of
communities
after disasters.
As
part
of
this
effort,
the
SBA
enabled
and
provided
for
loans
through
banks,
credit
23.
unions
and
other
lenders.
These
loans
have
government-backed
guarantees.
In
addition
to
traditional
SBA
funding
programs,
The
Coronavirus
Aid,
Relief,
and
Economic
Security
(“CARES”)
Act,
which
was
signed
into
law
in
March
2020,
established
several
new
temporary
programs
and
provided
for the
expansion
of
others
to
address
the
COVID-19
pandemic.
One
of
these
new
programs
was
the
SBA
paycheck
Protection
Program
(“PPP”),
24.
which
provided
for
loans
as a
direct
incentive
for
small
businesses
to
keep
their
workers
on
the
payroll.
Under
this
program,
the
SBA
forgave
all
or
part
of
loans
if
the
applying
business
kept
its
employees
on
the
payroll
for
eight
weeks
and
submitted
documentation
confirming
that
the
loan
proceeds
were
used
for
payroll,
rent,
mortgage
interest,
or
utilities.
Interested
applicants
applied
through
an
existing
SBA
lender
or
any
other
participating
federally
insured
financial
institution.
The PPP
application
process
requires
applicants
to
submit
a
Borrower
Application
25.
Form
through
an
SBA-approved
financial
entity,
signed
by
an
authorized
representation
of
the
business.
The
application
contained
information,
among
other
things,
as
to
the
purpose
of
the
loan,
average
monthly
payroll,
number
of
employees
and
background
of
the
business
and
its
These
figures
were
used
by
the
lender
to
calculate
the
amount
of
money
the
small
owner.
business
was
eligible
to
receive
under
the
PPP.
In
addition,
applicants
had
to
provide
9
Case 2:23-cr-00089-JAG-LRL Document 26 Filed 12/13/23 Page 9 of 13 PageID# 97
documentation
showing
their
payroll
expenses.
Applicants
were
also
required
to
make
good
faith
certifications,
including
that
economic
uncertainties
have
necessitated
their
loan requests
for
continued
business
operations
and
that
they
intend
to
use
loan
proeeeds
only
for the
authorized
The
lenders
relied
on
the
aeeuracy
of
the
information
and
not
any
duplicative
purposes.
contained
in
the
PPP
applications
and
supporting
documents.
However,
individual
PPP
loans
were
issued
by
26.
The
SBA
oversaw
the
PPP.
private,
approved
lenders
who
received
and
processed
PPP
applications
and
the
supporting
documentation,
and
then
made
loans
using
the
lenders’
own
funds,
which
were
100%
guaranteed
by
the
SBA.
Data from
the
application,
including
information
about
the
borrower,
the
total
amount
of
the
loan,
and
the
listed
number
of
employees,
was
transmitted
by
the
lender,
or
by a
partner
on
the
lender’s
behalf,
via
wire
to
the
SBA
in
the
course of processing
the
loan.
For
application
submitted
through
August
8,2020,
the
SBA
used
the
E-Tran
server
located
in
Sterling,
Virginia,
within
the
Eastern
District
of
Virginia,
to
process
the
applicant’s
data
electronically
to
determine
if
a
loan
should be
authorized.
Similarly,
after
its
review,
the
SBA
used
the
E-Tran
computer
server
located
in
Sterling,
Virginia,
to
notify
the
lenders, or
a
partner
on
the
lender’s
behalf,
electronically
if
a
loan
should be
funded.
27.
TD
Bank,
N.A.,
is
a
financial
institution
headquartered
in
Cheny^
Flill,
New
Jersey.
TD
Bank
participated
in
the
PPP
as
a
lender,
and,
as
such,
was
authorized
to
lend
funds
to
eligible
borrowers
under
the
terms
of
the
PPP.
28.
During
the
relevant
time
period,
defendant
was
the
Chief
Executive
Officer
and
sole
owner
of a
business
called
Marketview,
Inc.
(“Marketview”)
which
conducted
business
out
of a
physical
location
in
Mount
Vernon,
New
York,
where
defendant
also resided.
10
Case 2:23-cr-00089-JAG-LRL Document 26 Filed 12/13/23 Page 10 of 13 PageID# 98
Between
in
and around
April
6,
2020
to in
and around
May
13,
2020,
in
the
Eastern
29.
District
of
Virginia
and
elsewhere,
DERICKSON
LAWRENCE,
defendant
herein,
knowingly
devised
and
intend
to
devise
a
scheme
and
artifice
to
defraud
and
for
obtaining
money
and
property
by
means
of
materially
false
and
fraudulent
pretenses,
representations,
and
promises
affecting
a
financial
institution,
for
which
the
defendant
transmitted
and
caused
to
be
transmitted
by
means
of
wire
communications
in
interstate
commerce
certain
writings,
signs,
signals,
and
sounds
for the
purpose
of executing
the
scheme
and
artifice to
defraud
and
for
obtaining
money
by
means
of
materially
false
and
fraudulent
pretenses,
representations,
and
promises.
The
primary
purpose
of
the
scheme
and
artifice to
defraud
was
for
defendant
to
30.
fraudulently
obtain
pandemic-related
benefits
in
the
form
of
SBA
Paycheck
Protection
Program
(PPP)
loans
using
Marketview.
It
was
part
of
the
scheme
and
artifice
that
defendant submitted
an
application
for
a
31.
loan
under
the
PPP
programs
that
contained
false
statements,
misrepresentations,
and
omissions
related
to
Marketview’s
payroll
and
employees.
It
was
further
part
of
the
scheme
and
artifice
that
defendant
falsely
attested
on
the
32.
PPP
loan
applications
that
the
information
provided
in
the
application
and
the
information
provided
in
all
supporting
documents
was
true
and
accurate
in
all
material
respects.
It
was
further
part
of
the
scheme
and
artifice
that
defendant
altered
the
supporting
33.
documentation,
to
wit,
bank
statements,
to
falsely
portray
Marketview’s
2020
payroll
by
concealing
that
the
bank
statements
actually
reflected
account
activity
from
February
2016.
It
was
further
part
of
the
scheme
and
artifice
that,
on
or
about
May
13,
2020,
34.
defendant
received
a
PPP
loan
from
TD
Bank
in
the
amount
of $26,250.00.
(In
violation
of
Title
18,
United
States
Code,
Section
1343).
11
Case 2:23-cr-00089-JAG-LRL Document 26 Filed 12/13/23 Page 11 of 13 PageID# 99
FORFEITURE
THE
GRAND
JURY
FURTHER
FINDS
PROBABLE
CAUSE
THAT:
The
defendant,
DERICKSON
LAWRENCE,
if
convicted of
any
of
the
violations
1.
alleged
in
Counts
One
through
Eleven
of
this
Indictment,
shall
forfeit to
the
United
States,
as
part
of
the
sentencing pursuant
to
Federal
Rule
of
Criminal
Procedure
32.2,
any
properly,
real
or
personal,
which
constitutes
or
is
derived
from
proceeds
traceable
to
the
violation.
If
any
property
that
is
subject
to
forfeiture
above
is
not
available,
it
is
the
intention
of
the
United
States
to
seek an
order
forfeiting substitute
assets
pursuant
to
Title
21,
United
States
2.
Code,
Section
853(p)
and
Federal
Rule
of
Criminal
Procedure
32.2(e).
(In
accordance
with
Title
18,
United
States
Code,
Section
981(a)(1)(C)
and
Title
28,
United
States
Code,
Section
2461(c)).
12
Case 2:23-cr-00089-JAG-LRL Document 26 Filed 12/13/23 Page 12 of 13 PageID# 100
United
States
v.
Derickson
Lawrence,
Criminal
No.
2:23-CR-089
A
TRUE
BILL:
Pursunm
to
E-Go\--’mment
Act,
it;c
origiruil
oi'lhi.s
page
has
been
ilicd
under
sea]
in
liie
Clak’i
OiUcc
FOREPERSON
JESSICA
D.
ABER
UNITED
STATES
ATTORNEY
By:
Assistant
U.S.
Attorneys
United
States
Attorney’s
Office
101
WestMain
Street,
Suite
8000
Norfolk,
VA
23510-1671
Phone;
(757)
441-6331
Fax:
(757)441-6689
Email:
13
Case 2:23-cr-00089-JAG-LRL Document 26 Filed 12/13/23 Page 13 of 13 PageID# 101
JS 45
(]
1/2002)
l).S.
District
Court
Redacted
Criminal
Case
Cover
Sheet
Under
Seal:
Yes
□
No
Kl
Judge
Assigned:
Place
of
Offense;
Criminal
Number:23-cr-Q0089-l
Superseding
Indictment:
YES
CitVj
_EDyA
County/Parish:
Same
Defendant:
YES
New
Defendant:
Arraignment
Date:
Magistrate
Judge
Case
Number|_
Search
Warrant
Case
Number:
R
20/R40 from
District
of
Defendant
Information;
Juvenile:
Yes
□
No
S
Defendant:
Derickson
Lawrence
FBI#
Alias
Na_ni^s]|
Address:
Place
of
Birth:
New
York
Sex:
M
|Race;
B
|Nationality:
Eyes:
Brown
Birth Date:
SS#:
Scars/Tattoos
Height:
S’lO
Weight;
180
|
Hair;
Black
Interpreter:
Yes
D
No
List
Language
and/or
dialect;
USMS#
90399-083
Location
Status;
State ID:
Arrest
Date:
□
Already
in
Federal
Custody
as
of:
□
Already
in
State
Custody
in:
X
On
Pretrial
Release
(for
state)
Not
in
Custody
□
Summons
Requested
for
□
Fugitive
□
Arrest
Warrant
Requested
□
Bond
n
Detention
Sought
!
□
Arrest
Warrant
Pending
Defense
Counsel
Information:
Name:
Keith
Kimball
□
Court
Appointed
Address:500
E.
Main
Street,
Suite
500
Norfolk,
VA.
23510
n
Retained
Telephone:
757-457-0800
0
Public
Defender
Email:
D
Office of Federal
Public
Defender
should
not
be
appointed
due
to
conflict
of
interest
□
CJA
attorney:
U.S.
Attorney
Information;
Telephone
No. 757-441-6331
Telephone
N^757-44I-6331
Bar
U:
AUSA:
Anthony
Mozzi
Bar#
83180
AUSA:
Rebecca
Gantt
Complainant
Agency,
Address
&
Phone
Number
orPerson
&
Title:
Special
Agent
Susan
F.
Romash
Federal
Bureau
of
Investigation
509
Resource
Row
Chesapeake,
Va.
23320
(757)-609-2527
U.S.C.
Citations:
Capita
l/Felony/Misd/Petty
Comit(s)
Description
of
Offense
Charged
Code/Section
Wire
Fraud
1-9,11
Felony
Setl
18
U.S.C.
§
1343
Mail
Fraud
Felony
10
Set2
18
U.S.C.
§
1341
18U.S.C.
§981
(a)(1)(C)
&
28 U.S.C.
§2461
Criminal
Forfeiture
Set
3
Case 2:23-cr-00089-JAG-LRL Document 26-1 Filed 12/13/23 Page 1 of 1 PageID# 102
