_ 4:15-cr-00454-HSG Document 10 Filed 09/17/15 · - - - - -Page -- --- -Case 1 of-13 AO 25'! (R..ev. 6rf8) -- - -~ _____QEFE!'.J_DANT INFO~MATION RELATIVE TO A CRIMINAL ACTION - IN U.S. DISTRICT COURT =1 BY: D COMPLAINT D INFORMATION lZI INDICTMENT D SUPERSEDING .. - - - - OFFENSE CHARGED ------=~--- Count 1: 29 U.S.C. § 186(b)(I )- lll egal Payment to Union Employee; Counts 2- 10: 18 U.S.C. § 1341 , 1343 & 1347Honcst Services Fraud; Counts I 1 & 12: 18 U.S.C. § 134 1 & 1346 - Honest Services Fraud; Count 13 : 18 U.S .C. § 195 1 -Extortion;Coun t 14: 18U.S:C.§ 1951 -Conspiracy; Count I 5: 18 U.S.C. § 1956 - Money Laundering. D Petty D Minor D Misde0 DEFENDANT- U.S. (- SEP 1 7-2015 meanor Felony PENALTY: PENAL TY SHEET ATTACHMENT ~------ ·- DEFENDANT IS NOT IN CUSTODY .... - - -.. · -:--·-- PROCEEDING Has not been arrested, pending outcome this proceeding . Name of Complaintant Agency, or Person (&Title, if any) If not detained give date any prior D was served on above charges 1) summon~ .,. Federal Bureau oflnvestigations, Special Agent Roahn Wynar - - - - - ·- - - -- - - - -- - -- - - - - D person is awaiting trial in another Federal or State Court, give name of court D this person/proceeding is transferred from another district per (circle one) FRCrP 20, 21 or 40. Show District 2) D Is a Fugitive 3) IZJ Is on Bail or Release from (show District) Northern District of Calilfornia - - - - - - - - - - - - - --·-----·- IS IN CUSTODY On this charge D thi s is a reprosecution of charges previously dismissed which were dismissed on motion of: D D 1 ; [ZJ I (_ U.S. Att'y 0 On another conviction Awamng ma1 on omer SHOW DOCKETNO. } _ __ _____ _ ______ Has detainer been filed? MAGISTRATE CASE NO. DATE OF ARREST 4:15-MJ-71008 Name and Office of Person Furnishing Information on BRIAN J STRETCH THIS FORM - · :.- - -- -- [Z1 U.S. Att'y other U.S. Agency D D Yes No t } If "Yes" give date filed Month/DayfYear DATE TRANSFERRED • TO U.S. CUSTODY Name of Asst. U.S. Att'y JOHN H. HEMANN and ADAM WRIGHT (if assigned) 0 Month/DayfYear ___ __ .. _ This report amends AO 257 previously submitted --- · - - -·· ADDITIONAL INFORMATION OR COMMENTS - - - - - - - - - - - ··--- - D NO PROCESS* !Z) WARRANT Bail Amount: NO BAIL If Summons, complete following : D Arraignment 0 Defendant Address: Initial Appearance *Where defendant previously apprehended on complaint, no new summons or warrant needed. since Magistrate has scheduled arraignment Date/Time: Before Judge: Comments: State Or ... if Arresting Agency & Warrant were not D SUMMONS D If answer to (6) is "Yes", show name of institution ,, D Fed'I Defense this prosecution relates to a pending case involving this same defendant prior proceedings or appearance(s) before U.S. Magistrate regarding ._ this defendant were recorded under.,. · ·----- -- - - ··· --·PROCESS: } D rh::irni:>c:: J r·-- Case 4:15-cr-00454-HSG Document 10 Filed 09/17/15 Page 2 of 13 UNITED STATES v. DANIEL RUSH PENALTY SHEET ATTACHMENT COUNT 1: Illegal Payment to Union Employee, 29U.S.C.§186(b)(l) Maximum Term of Imprisonment: Maximum Term of Supervised Release: Maximum Fine: Mandatory Special Assessment: 5 years 3 years $15,000 $100 COUNTS 2 - 12: Honest Services Fraud. 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341, 1343, and 1346 Maximum Term of Imprisonment: Maximum Term of Supervised Release: Maximum Fine: Mandatory Special Assessment: 20 years 3 years $250,000 or twice the amount of gain or loss $100 COUNT 13: Attempted Extortion Under Color of Law, 18 U.S.C. § 1951 Maximum Term of Imprisonment: Maximum Term of Supervised Release Maximum Fine: Mandatory Special Assessment: 20 years 3 years $250,000 $100 COUNT 14: Conspiracy, 18 U.S.C. § 371 Maximum Term of Imprisonment: Maximum Term of Supervised Release: Maximum Fine: Mandatory Special Assessment: 5 years 3 years $250,000 $100 COUNT 15: Money Laundering by Concealment, 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(l)(B)(ii) Maximum Term of Imprisonment: Maximum Term of Supervised Release: Maximum Fine: Mandatory Special Assessment: 20 years 3 years $500,000 or twice the value of property involved $100 Case 4:15-cr-00454-HSG Document 10 Filed 09/17/15 Page 3 of 13 Wntteb ~tates j]Btstrtct QCourt FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA VENUE: OAKLAND GR15 P"C 00454 HSG UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, V. FIL ED SEP 1 7 ZD15 SUSAN Y. SOONG DANIEL RUSH CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA OAKLAND DEFENDANT(S). INDICTMENT Count 1: 29 U.S.C. § 186(b)(1 )- Illegal Payment to Union Employee; Counts 2-10: 18 U.S.C. § 1341 , 1343 & 1347- Honest Services Fraud ; Counts 11 & 12: 18 U.S.C. § 1341 & 1346 - Honest Services Fraud; Count 13: 18 U.S.C. § 1951 - Extortion ; Count 14: 18 U.S.C. § 1951 - Conspiracy ; Count 15: 18 U.S.C. § 1956 - Money Laundering . A true bill. Foreman Filed in open court this q {1-=::t- day of 1--0 {S Clerk Case 4:15-cr-00454-HSG Document 10 Filed 09/17/15 Page 4 of 13 1 BRIAN J. STRETCH (CABN 163973) Acting United States Attorney 2 FILED 3 SEP 17 Z015 4 SUSAN Y. SOONG CLERK u S DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN o'1STRICT OF CALIFORNIA OAKLAND 5 6 7 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 OAKLAND DIVISION 12 13 HSG UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, 14 VIOLATIONS: 29 U.S.C. § 186(b)(l)- Illegal Payment to Labor Union Employee; 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341 , 1343 and 1346 -Honest Services Fraud; 18 U.S.C. § 1951 - AttemptedExtoition; 18U.S.C. § 371-Conspiracy; 18 U.S .C. § 1956(a)(l)(B)(i) Money Laundering by Concealment; 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(l)(C)- Forfeiture V. 15 16 17 DANIEL RUSH, Defendant. 18 OAKLAND VENUE 19 20 INDICTMENT 21 22 The Grand Jury charges: 23 At aU times relevant to this Indictment: 24 A. Background 25 1. The United Food and Commercial Workers (the "UFCW") was a labor organization that 26 represented, sought to represent, and would admit to membership primarily food and retail workers, 27 including employees of medical marijuana dispensaries. Employees who were employed in an industry 28 affecting commerce, that is, food and retail sales, participated in the UFCW through their local unions INDICTMENT Case 4:15-cr-00454-HSG Document 10 Filed 09/17/15 Page 5 of 13 1 and other subordinate bodies ofUFCW. The UFCW existed for the purpose of dealing with employers 2 concerning such employees' hours, wages, and working conditions. As part of the representation of 3 employees, UFCW executed neutrality and collective bargaining agreements with several employers 4 covering the food and retail industries in several states. 5 2. In 2011, the UFCW established a medical cannabis and hemp division (the "Cannabis 6 Division") in order to organize employees in the emerging medical marijuana industry. As part of its 7 strategy to organize those employees, the Cannabis Division lobbied political entities on behalf of 8 marijuana legalization efforts and assisted union-friendly applicants for dispensary licenses. 9 3. The UFCW and its Cannabis Division were "labor organizations" within the meaning of 10 the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act ("LMRDA"), Title 29, United States Code, 11 Sections 402(i) and G), and were "labor organizations" within the meaning of the Labor Management 12 Relations Act ("LMRA"), Title 29, United States Code, Sections 142, 152, and 186. As such, the 13 14 UFCW and the Cannabis Division were subject to the provisions of the LMRDA and LMRA. 4. Defendant DANIEL RUSH was a representative for Local Union 5 ofUFCW in San 15 Jose, California. In 2011, the UFCW appointed RUSH as Organizing Coordinator of the UFCW's 16 Cannabis Division's organizing effort. In these positions, RUSH was an employee of a labor 17 organization. 18 5. The Instituto Laboral de la Raza (the "Instituto") was a 501(c)(3) non-profit resource 19 center that provided labor rights education and advocacy to serve the needs of low income workers and 20 their families. RUSH was the Instituto's treasurer and served on its board of directors. RUSH obtained 21 his position at the Instituto because he was affiliated with the UFCW. 22 6. In June 2011, RUSH was appointed by the city councilman representing District 7 of 23 Berkeley, California, as a member of the Berkeley Medical Cannabis Commission ("The Berkeley 24 Commission"). The Berkeley Commission was organized under the municipal code of the City of 25 Berkeley, California. Its mission was: "To ensure that medical cannabis provision in Berkeley is 26 conducted in a safe and orderly manner to protect the welfare of Qualified Patients and the community." 27 28 7. MT was an ~ttorney whose clients included prospective medical marijuana dispensary operators in California and elsewhere referred to him by RUSH, and worker's compensation claimants INDICTMENT 2 Case 4:15-cr-00454-HSG Document 10 Filed 09/17/15 Page 6 of 13 1 referred to him by the lnstituto as a result ofRUSH's affiliation and influence with the Instituto. MT 2 was the general counsel of the Instituto and a secret business associate of RUSH. 3 8. Company A was a prospective medical marijuana dispensary operator in Berkeley, 4 California. RUSH referred Company A to MT for legal representation and MT was thereafter an 5 attorney for Company A. 6 7 9. MK had an ownership interest and a management role in a medical marijuana dispensary in Oakland, California ("Company B"), which employed retail workers. In: addition, MK was an agent 8 and consultant of a company holding a production license for marijuana products in Clark County, 9 Nevada, and actively pursuing dispensary licenses in several other jurisdictions ("Company C"). 1O Company B and Company C employed employees whom the UFCW sought to represent and would 11 admit to its membership. 12 B. Duties of Defendant RUSH 13 10. Section 501(a) of the LMRDA provided: 14 The officers, agents, shop stewards, and other representatives of a labor organization occupy positions of trust in relation to such organization and its members as a group. It is, therefore, the duty of each such person, taking into account the special problems and functions of a labor organization, to hold its money and property solely for the benefit of the organization and its members and to manage, invest, and expend the same in accordance with its constitution and bylaws and any resolutions of the governing bodies adopted thereunder, to refrain from dealing with such organization as an adverse party or on behalf of an adverse party in any matter connected with his duties and from holding or acquiring any pecuniary or personal interest which conflicts with the interests of such organization, and to account to the organization for any profit received by him in whatever capacity in connection with transactions conducted by him or under his direction on behalf of the organization. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 11. Article 25, subsection (B) of the UFCW Constitution placed duties of fidelity upon the 22 "representatives" of the UFCW International Union and any local union of the UFCW: 23 24 No member may be disciplined, except for violating his or her duties and obligations by committing any one or more of the following offenses: 25 26 27 28 In the case of any officer or representative of the International Union or of any Local Union, failing to faithfully perform the duties of his or her office or position, accepting dual compensation or expenses for the performance of duties related to his or her office or position, or embezzling, misappropriating, fraudulently receiving, wrongfully handling, or failing to account for the funds of the International Union, a Local Union, or any employee benefit fund. INDICTMENT 3 Case 4:15-cr-00454-HSG Document 10 Filed 09/17/15 Page 7 of 13 1 Subsection (D) of the Article 25 of the UFCW Constitution provides: 2 Elected and appointed representatives of the International Union and its Local Unions serve in a position of trust and responsibility and obtain information and confidences and develop abilities which should not be employed in a manner injurious to the best interests of the International Union or its Local Unions. 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 12. California Corporations Code § 5231 (a) applied to nonprofit public benefit corporations such as the Institute and provided: A director shall perform the duties of a director, including duties as a member of any committee of the board upon which the director may serve, in good faith, in a manner that director believes to be in the best interests of the corporation and with such care, including reasonable inquiry, as an ordinarily prudent person in a like position would use under similar circumstances. The Articles of Incorporation of the Institute provided: 10 13. 11 2. This corporation is a nonprofit public benefit corporation and is not organized for the private gain of any person. It is organized under the Nonprofit Public Benefit Corporation Law for charitable purposes. 12 13 14 15 16 5. The property of this corporation is irrevocably dedicated to the charitable purposes, and no part of the net income or assets of this corporation shall ever inure to the benefit of any director, officer or member thereof or to the benefit of any private person. 17 COUNT ONE: (29 U.S.C. § l 86(b)(1) - Illegal Payment to Union Employee) 18 14. The factual allegations in Paragraphs 1 through 11 are re-alleged and incorporated as if 19 fully set forth here. 20 15. On or about November 26, 2014, in the Northern District of California, the defendant, DANIEL RUSH, 21 22 an employee of the UFCW and its Cannabis Division, did unlawfully and willfully request, demand, 23 receive, and accept, and agree to receive and accept the payment, loan, and delivery of a thing of value 24 and money exceeding $1,000 in value from an employer and person acting the interest of an employer 25 whose employees were employed in an industry affecting commerce and whose employees the UFCW 26 and its Cannabis Division sought to represent and would have admitted to membership. 27 28 16. Specifically, on or about November 26, 2014, RUSH, while a UFCW official, requested, demanded, received, and accepted, and agreed to receive and accept the forgiveness of a preexisting debt INDICTMENT 4 Case 4:15-cr-00454-HSG Document 10 Filed 09/17/15 Page 8 of 13 1 of $550,000 RUSH owed to MK. 2 All in violation of Title 29, United States Code, Section 186(b)(l) and (d)(2). 3 4 5 6 7 COUNTS TWO THROUGH TEN: (18 U.S.C. §§ 1341, 1343, and 1346 -Honest Services Fraud) 17. The factual allegations in Paragraphs 1 through 4 and 6 through 11 are re-alleged and incorporated as if fully set forth here. 18. From in or about January 2010 through in or about August 2015, in the Northern District 8 of California and elsewhere, the defendant, DANIEL RUSH, 9 i O and others, devised and intended to devise a scheme and artifice to defraud and deprive the UFCW and 11 the members of the UFCW of the defendant's honest and faithful services owed by RUSH under section 12 501(a) of the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (29 U.S.C. § 501(a)) and subsections 13 (B) and (D) of Article 25 of the UFCW Constitution, through bribery and kickbacks. 14 19. As part of the manner and means of carrying out the scheme and artifice, RUSH, while an 15 officer and employee of the UFCW, secretly demanded, received, and accepted money and things of 16 value from MK and MT in exchange for RUSH's failing to faithfully perform the duties related to his 17 position with the UFCW's Cannabis Division, contrary to the interests of the UFCW and its members, 18 including by offering advice to an employer as to how to defeat a union organizing campaign. 19 20. As further part of the manner and means of carrying out the scheme and artifice, RUSH, 20 while an officer and employee of the UFCW, referred companies seeking entry into the emerging 21 medical marijuana industry to MT to act as their attorney to assist them in applying for medical 22 marijuana dispensary licenses, negotiating neutrality and collective bargaining agreements with the 23 UFCW and its local unions, and other tasks, while RUSH secretly demanded, received, and accepted 24 money and things of value from MT, contrary to the interests of the UFCW and its members. 25 21. On or about the dates listed below, in the Northern District of California, the defendant 26 and others involved in the scheme and artifice, for the purpose of executing the scheme and artifice to 27 defraud, as defined by 18 U.S.C. § 1346, transmitted and caused to be transmitted by means of U.S. mail 28 and wire communications in interstate commerce, the following mailings, writings, signals, and sounds: INDICTMENT 5 Case 4:15-cr-00454-HSG Document 10 Filed 09/17/15 Page 9 of 13 1 Count Violation Date Mail or Wire Transmission 2 TWO 18 u.s.c. § 1341 12/17/2010 $3,000 check mailed by RUSH to MK 3 THREE 18 u.s.c. § 1341 3/25/2011 Mailing of Form 1099 4 FOUR 18 u.s.c. § 1341 10/24/2011 Mailed $2,000 payment on credit card 5 FIVE 18 u.s.c. § 1341 1/23/2013 $3,000 check mailed by RUSH to MK 6 SIX 18 u.s.c. § 1341 12/5/2013 Mailed $3,632 payment on credit card 7 SEVEN 18 u.s.c. § 1341 4/20/2015 $2,500 check mailed by MT to RUSH 8 EIGHT 18 U.C.S. § 1341 5/19/2015 $2,500 check mailed by MT to RUSH 9 NINE 18 u.s.c. § 1343 4/3/2014 Text message from RUSH to MT 10 TEN 18 u.s.c. § 1343 8/6/2014 Email from RUSH to MT, MK, and others 11 12 COUNTS ELEVEN AND TWELVE: (18 U.S.C. §§ 1341and1346-Honest Services Fraud) 22. 13 The factual allegations in Paragraphs 5, 7, 12, and 13 are re-alleged and incorporated as if 14 fully set forth here. 23. 15 From in or about January 2010 through in or about April 2015, in the Northern District of 16 California, the defendant, 17 DANIEL RUSH, 18 and others, devised and intended to devise a scheme and artifice to defraud and deprive the lnstituto and 19 its clients of the defendant's honest and faithful services owed by RUSH under California Corporations 20 Code§ 523 l(a) and the Instituto Articles of Incorporation, through bribery and kickbacks. 21 24. As part of the manner and means of carrying out the scheme and artifice, RUSH, while an 22 officer and director of the Instituto, secretly demanded, received, and accepted money and things of 23 value from MT in exchange for RUSH' s failing to faithfully perform the duties related to his position as 24 an officer and director of the Instituto, contrary to the interests of the Instituto and its clients. 25. 25 On or about the dates listed below, in the Northern District of California, the defendant 26 and others involved in the scheme and artifice, for the purpose of executing the scheme and artifice to 27 defraud, as defined by 18 U.S.C. § 1346, transmitted and caused to be transmitted by means of U.S. 28 mail: INDICTMENT 6 Case 4:15-cr-00454-HSG Document 10 Filed 09/17/15 Page 10 of 13 Mailing 1 2 ELEVEN December 5, 2013 $3,632 payment on credit card 3 TWELVE October 24, 2011 $2,000 payment on credit card 4 All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1341 and 1346. 5 6 COUNT THIRTEEN: (18 U.S.C. § 1951-Attempted Extortion) The factual allegations in Paragraphs 4, 6, and 8 are re-alleged and incorporated as if 7 26. 8 fully set forth here. 9 27. 10 On or about and between March 7, 2015, and June 4, 2015, in the Northern District of California, 1the defendant, 11 DANIEL RUSH, 12 did knowingly attempt to obstruct, delay, and affect in any way and degree commerce and the movement 13 of articles and commodities in commerce by extortion. Specifically, RUSH attempted to obtain property 14 not due to him from Company A, to wit employment and attendant remuneration and employment 15 benefits, with Company A's consent, under color of official right as a member of the Berkeley 16 Commission. 17 All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1951. 18 19 20 21 22 23 COUNT FOURTEEN: (18 U.S.C. § 371-Conspiracy) 28. The factual allegations in Paragraphs 1 through 4 and 7 through 9 are re-alleged and incorporated as if fully set forth here. 29. On or about and between January 2010, and August 2015, in the Northern District of California, the defendant, 24 25 DANIEL RUSH, knowingly conspired with others known and unknown to the Grand Jury: a. 26 27 to knowingly, for the purpose of evading reporting and recordkeeping requirements, structure and assist in structuring, and attempt to structure or assist in structuring, 28 INDICTMENT 7 Case 4:15-cr-00454-HSG Document 10 Filed 09/17/15 Page 11 of 13 1 transactions with domestic financial institutions, in violation of Title 31, United States Code, 2 Section 5324(a)(3); 3 b. to knowingly engage and attempt to engage in monetary transactions by, through 4 or to a financial institution, affecting interstate commerce, in criminally derived property of a value 5 greater than $10,000, such property having been derived from a specified unlawful activity, in violation 6 of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1957; c. 7 to knowingly conduct and attempt to conduct financial transactions affecting 8 interstate commerce, which involved the proceeds of specified unlawful activities, knowing that the 9 transactions were designed in whole and in part to conceal and disguise, the nature, source, ownership, 10 and control of the proceeds of said specified unlawful activities and knowing that the property involved 11 in the financial transaction represented the proceeds of some form of unlawful activity, in violation of 12 Title 18, United States Code, Section 1956(a)(l)(B)(i). 13 14 15 MANNER AND MEANS 30. MK loaned RUSH money, in the form of cash proceeds paid to MK by marijuana cultivators. MT, acting as RUSH's agent, structured a majority of the cash into MT's bank account in 16 the form of deposits in amounts less than $10,000. MT then used proceeds deposited into MT's bank 17 account to repay a debt owed by RUSH. 18 31. Interest-only payments on the loan were funded by MT, who provided monthly sums to 19 RUSH' s family trust. The RUSH family trust then paid MK the monthly interest payments by check, 20 under the deceptive guise that the payments were for consulting services rather than as debt repayment. 21 32. When RUSH could not repay the loan principal to MK, RUSH offered instead to provide 22 favorable treatment to MK, Company B, and Company C in labor union matters in exchange for 23 forgiveness of the debt. RUSH accepted the debt forgiveness in or about November 2014. 24 25 · 26 OVERT ACTS 33. overt acts were committed in the Northern District of California and elsewhere: a. 27 28 In furtherance of the conspiracy and to effect the objects of that conspiracy, the following On or about December 17, 2010, RUSH caused a $3,000 check to be mailed to MK for "services." INDICTMENT 8 Case 4:15-cr-00454-HSG Document 10 Filed 09/17/15 Page 12 of 13 b. 1 2 On or about November 16, 2012, RUSH caused an IRS Form 1099 for $36,000 in miscellaneous income to be issued to MK. c. 3 On or about December 15, 2011, RUSH caused a $3,000 check to be mailed to 4 MK for "Dec services." 5 All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 371. 6 7 COUNT FIFTEEN: (18 U.S.C. § 1956-Money Laundering by Concealment) 8 9 34. incorporated as if fully set forth here. 10 11 35. On or about and between February 15, 2010, and January 23, 2013, in the Northern District of California, the defendant, DANIEL RUSH, 12 13 The factual allegations in Paragraphs 1 through 4 and 7 through 9 are re-alleged and did knowingly conduct and attempt to conduct financial transactions affecting interstate commerce, to 14 wit, the payment of funds in excess of $100,000 from MT to RUSH to MK, in $3,000 increments, which 15 involved the proceeds of specified unlawful activities, that is honest services fraud in violation of 18 16 U.S.C. §§ 1341, 1343, and 1346, and cultivation of marijuana in violation of21 U.S.C. § 841, knowing 17 that the transactions were designed in whole and in part to conceal and disguise the nature, source, 18 ownership, and control of the proceeds of said specified unlawful activities and, while conducting and 19 attempting to conduct such financial transactions, knowing that the property involved in the financial 20 transactions represented the proceeds of some form of unlawful activity. 21 All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1956(a)(l)(B)(i) and 2. 22 23 FORFEITURE ALLEGATION: (18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(l)(C)) 24 36. The allegations contained in Counts One through Twelve of this Indictment are hereby 25 realleged and incorporated by reference for the purpose of alleging forfeitures pursuant to Title 18, 26 United States Code, Section 981(a)(l)(C) and Title 28, United States Code, Section 2461(c). 27 Ill 28 Ill INDICTMENT 9 Case 4:15-cr-00454-HSG Document 10 Filed 09/17/15 Page 13 of 13 37. 2 Upon conviction of the offenses set forth m Cow1ts One through Twelve of this Indictment, the defendant, 3 DANIEL RUSH, 4 shall forfeit to the United States of America, pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 5 981(a)(l)(C) and Title 28, United States Code, Section 2461(c), any property, real or personal, which 6 constitutes or is derived from proceeds traceable to the offense. The property to be forfeited includes, 7 but is not limited to money and property taken by RUSH . 8 38. If any of the property described above, as a result of any act or omission of RUSH: a. cannot be located upon the exercise of due diligence; 9 10 b. has been transferred or sold to, or deposited with, a third party; 11 c. has been placed beyond the jurisdiction of the court; 12 d. has been substantially dim inished in value; or 13 e. has been commingled with other property which cannot be divided without difficulty, 14 the United States of America shall be entitled to forfeiture of substitute prope1ty pursuant to Title 21, 15 United States Code, Section 853(p), as incorporated by Title 28, United States Code, Section 2461 (c). 16 17 All pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 981(a)(1 )(C) and Title 28, United States Code, Section 2461 (c). 18 19 Dated: _ _ q-+-f_! "7--+1-IS_ A TRUE BILL. 20 Foreperson 21 22 23 BRIAN J. STRETCH Acting United States Attorney 24 t°~~ c~ 25 PHILIP A:GUENTERT Deputy Chief, Criminal Division 26 27 28 INDICTMENT IO