Five Star Bank Lawsuit

Case 6:24-cv-06153-FPG Document 1 Filed 03/11/24 Page 1 of 15
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
FIVE STAR BANK,

Plaintiff, CASE NO. __________________
v.
KATHERINE MOTT, ROBERT HARRIS;
KRM EVENTS, LLC; KATHERINE’S ON CIVIL ACTION
MONROE, LLC; THE DIVINITY ESTATE
AND CHAPEL, LLC; KNC ELEGANCE, COMPLAINT
LLC d/b/a THE WINTERGARDEN BY
MONROES; 11 WEXFORD GLEN, LLC;
RCC MONROES LLC; NAF
REMODELING LLC; MONROES AT
RIDGEMONT LLC; CRESCENT BEACH
AT THE LAKE LLC; MOTT
MANAGEMENT LLC;
Defendants.
Plaintiff Five Star Bank (“Plaintiff” or “FSB”), by and through its undersigned attorneys,
for its Complaint against defendants KRM Events, LLC; Katherine’s on Monroe, LLC; The
Divinity Estate and Chapel, LLC; KNC Elegance, LLC d/b/a The Wintergarden by Monroes; 11
Wexford Glen, LLC; RCC Monroes LLC; NAF Remodeling LLC; Monroes at Ridgemont LLC;
Crescent Beach at the Lake LLC; Mott Management LLC; (collectively, the “Entity Defendants,”
and Katherine Mott and Robert Harris, in their individual capacities and as the controlling
members of certain of the Entity Defendants (collectively, “Defendants”), alleges as follows:
BACKGROUND
1. Plaintiff brings this Complaint against Defendants to recover a total of $18.9
million in funds unlawfully obtained by Defendants through a fraudulent check-kiting scheme
perpetrated by Defendant Mott using numerous bank accounts associated with the Entity
Defendants held at FSB since 2022 and accounts held at several other local financial institutions.
1
27872776.6
Plaintiff also brings claims for breach of the operative Deposit Account Agreement governing the
at-issue accounts and a claim for violation of the Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act
(“RICO”) arising from Plaintiff’s corrupt use of her businesses to perpetuate a clear pattern of
financial fraud.
2. Mott, using the Entity Defendants bank accounts held at FSB, perpetrated a
fraudulent check-kiting scheme in order to artificially inflate the balance of the various Entity
Defendants’ bank accounts with Plaintiff and create an artificial source of funding.
3. This check-kiting scheme was uncovered by Plaintiff, and the subsequent
reconciliation of Defendants’ deposit accounts resulted in an overdraft of those accounts in an
amount exceeding $18.9 million.
4. Plaintiff brings this action for fraud, breach of contract, indemnification, and
seeking an order requiring Defendants to repay in full the amounts Defendants fraudulently
obtained and for the appointment of a Receiver to manage the ongoing operations of the Defendant
Entities, investigate, and oversee their financial affairs and make whole any and all parties
aggrieved by the Defendants fraudulent scheme.
PARTIES
5. Plaintiff Five Star Bank is a New York State chartered bank under the New York
State Banking Laws with a principal place of business in Warsaw, New York. FSB offers
consumer and commercial banking and lending services to individuals, municipalities, and
businesses throughout Central and Western New York.
6. Upon information and belief, Defendant Katherine Mott is a natural person residing
in Rochester, New York.
7. Upon information and belief, Defendant Robert Harris is a natural person residing
2
27872776.6
in Rochester, New York.
8. Upon information and belief, Defendant KRM Events, LLC is a New York Limited
Liability Company managed, operated, and/or controlled by Defendants Robert Harris and
Katherine Mott.
9. Upon information and belief, Defendant Katherine’s on Monroe, LLC is a New
York Limited Liability Company managed, operated, and/or controlled by Defendant Katherine
Mott.
10. Upon information and belief, Defendant The Divinity Estate and Chapel, LLC is a
New York Limited Liability Company managed, operated, and/or controlled by Defendant
Katherine Mott.
11. Upon information and belief, Defendant KNC Elegance, LLC is a New York
Limited Liability Company managed, operated, and/or controlled by Defendant Katherine Mott.
12. Upon information and belief, Defendant 11 Wexford Glen, LLC is a New York
13. Upon information and belief, Defendant RCC Monroes LLC is a New York Limited
Liability Company managed, operated, and/or controlled by Defendant Katherine Mott.
14. Upon information and belief, Defendant NAF Remodeling LLC is a New York
15. Upon information and belief, Defendant Monroes at Ridgemont LLC is a New York
16. Upon information and belief, Crescent Beach at the Lake LLC is a New York
17. Upon information and belief, Mott Management LLC is a New York Limited
3
27872776.6
Liability Company managed, operated, and/or controlled by Defendant Katherine Mott.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
18. Jurisdiction is proper because this matter is brought pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §
1964(c), conferring jurisdiction upon an appropriate United States District Court.
19. Venue is in this district because Defendants are subject to jurisdiction in this
District and a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims occurred
in this District.
ALLEGATIONS COMMON TO ALL COUNTS
20. Defendant Katherine Mott dominated and controlled each of the Entity Defendants
and perpetrated the fraudulent conduct alleged herein such that their separate existence is a sham
and respecting the separateness of corporate entities would permit Defendant Mott to abuse the
corporate form to commit a fraud causing injury to Five Star Bank.
21. With respect to each of the at-issue identified herein, Mott exercised complete
domination over each of the Entity Defendants through sole control over the management and
financial affairs of each entity.
22. Mott exploited and abused the privilege of doing business in the corporate form by
using the various Entity Defendants to perpetrate the fraudulent scheme described herein to cause
FSB to wrongfully pay over $20.4 million in funds on behalf of the Entity Defendants by kiting
checks between various accounts held at FSB and elsewhere.
23. Mott used these Entity Defendants in furtherance of a fraud to her personal benefit
by creating a tangled web of transactions to settle and net out, buying further time to defraud
Plaintiff out of funds to which Mott and the Entity Defendants were not entitled.
24. On November 29, 2022, Mott and Harris opened a business demand deposit
4
27872776.6
account with FSB in the name of KRM Events, LLC under account number ending in -0529 (the
“KRM Events Account I”). Mott and Harris are authorized signatories for the KRM Events
Account I.
25. On November 29, 2022, Mott opened a business demand deposit account with
FSB in the name of KRM Events LLC under an account number ending in -0545 (the “KRM
Events Account II”). Mott is an authorized signatory for the KRM Events Account II.
FSB in the name of Katherine’s on Monroe, LLC under an account number ending in -0596 (the
“Monroe” Account). Mott is an authorized signatory on the Monroe Account.
FSB in the name of The Divinity Estate and Chapel, LLC under an account number ending in -
0618 (the “Divinity” Account). Mott is an authorized signatory on the Divinity Account.
FSB in the name of KNC Elegance, LLC under an account number ending in -0588 (the “KNC
Account”). Mott is an authorized signatory on the KNC Account.
29. Between November 29, 2022 and January 11, 2024, Defendants Mott and Harris
opened numerous other accounts in the name of Defendants.
A. The Fraudulent Check Kiting Scheme
30. Starting in February 2024, Defendant Mott began “kiting” checks between
Defendants’ various deposit accounts held at FSB and accounts held at other financial institutions,
including Kinecta Federal Credit Union (“Kinecta FCU”).
31. In a typical kiting transaction, Mott would write a check on the Kinecta FCU
account for which insufficient funds existed and deposit that check into an account controlled by
5
27872776.6
an Entity Defendant held at FSB.
32. By taking advantage of the delay inherent in bank reconciliation of deposits (and
the widespread practice of honoring checks on the basis of uncollected balances), Mott and the
Entity Defendants were able to temporarily inflate the cash balance in the Entity Defendants’
accounts at FSB to create the appearance of additional cash in the FSB accounts despite insufficient
funds to honor the check in the originating accounts at Kinecta FCU.
33. As a result, transfers and checks written from the FSB accounts that otherwise
would have been refused or returned were made and honored by FSB to its detriment.
34. Specifically, between February 23, 2024 and present, Defendant deposited or
caused to be deposited approximately 68 checks in an aggregate amount exceeding $62 million
into the various accounts held in the name of the Entity Defendants held at FSB. Mott deposited
each of those checks with FSB despite knowing that the check amounts exceeded the balance of
the accounts from which they would be drawn.
35. Using the artificially-inflated account balances created when Defendant Mott
deposited these fraudulent checks, Mott issued checks drawn on the Entity Defendants’ FSB
accounts and directed funds transfers out of those accounts totaling over $20.4 million despite
knowing the checks she previously deposited with FSB would ultimately be dishonored for
insufficient funds in the originating accounts.
36. Kinecta ultimately dishonored certain checks and charged back the amounts,
resulting in an over $20 million overdraw on the Entity Defendants’ accounts at FSB.
37. Ultimately, as a direct result of Defendant Mott’s knowing, fraudulent conduct,
Mott overdrew the Entity Defendants’ accounts at FSB by over $20 million.
38. Despite offsetting a small portion of its substantial losses with other funds held or
6
27872776.6
controlled by Mott as permitted under the operative Deposit Account Agreement, FSB has suffered
losses of at least $18.9 million as a direct result of Mott and the Entity Defendants’ check-kiting
scheme.
B. Defendants Violated the FSB Deposit Agreement
39. As a result of activity by Defendant Mott, each of the foregoing accounts are
currently overdrawn in the amounts set forth below:
Account Holder Account Number Current Balance

Ending
0529 $ (3,482,241.59)
0545 $ (3,297,878.60)
0588 $ (3,879,031.41)
0596 $ (4,868,265.06)
0618 $ (3,454,900.93)
40. The operative Deposit Account Agreement governing the at-issue FSB accounts
provides, in relevant part:
B. Responsibility to Repay.
You are responsible for any negative balances in your Account. This includes
Overdrafts and any associated fees. . . . You agree to pay all costs and expenses
we incur in collecting any Overdraft. We may still pursue collection of the
amount you owe (including taking legal action against you) after it is charged off.
41. Pursuant to the Deposit Account Agreement, Mott and the Entity Defendants were
and remain responsible for paying the negative balances in each of the Entity Defendants’
accounts.
42. To date, neither Mott nor the Entity Defendants have resolved these overdrafts,
which total approximately $18.9 million dollars.
43. Because they have failed to cure these account overdrafts, Mott and the Entity
Defendants are in breach of the Deposit Account Agreement and liable to Plaintiff in an amount
7
27872776.6
no less than the total overdraft amount.
C. Mott and the Entity Defendants Must Indemnify and Defend FSB
44. As stated, Mott and the Entity Defendants’ fraudulent course of conduct also
defrauded other banking institutions, such as Kinecta FCU.
45. In addition to the losses it has incurred as a result of Defendants’ conduct, FSB may
be the subject of claims for losses and damages incurred by other institutions utilized by
Defendants in connection with their financial malfeasance.
46. The operative Deposit Account Agreement expressly allocates the risk of such
losses to Defendants, providing, in relevant part, that:
[Accountholder] will defend, indemnify and hold harmless FSB and its service
providers against and in respect to any and all loss, liability, expense and damage,
including consequential, special and punitive damages, directly or indirectly
resulting from:
i. the processing of any request received by FSB relating to your Accounts;
ii. any breach of the provisions of this Agreement;
iii. [ ]
iv. any dispute between you and any third party in connection with your
Account;
v. relying upon instructions from you or someone purporting to be you;
vi. insufficient funds in your Account or any returned deposits on your Account
and
vii. any and all actions, suits, proceeding, claims, demands, judgments, costs
and expenses (including attorney’s fees) incident to the foregoing.
47. FSB has suffered a loss of no less than $18.9 million as a result of “insufficient
funds in [Defendants’] Account[s] or any returned deposits on [Defendants’] Account[s].”
48. Further, FSB may be subject to claims by other persons or entities for damages
suffered in connection with Defendants’ fraudulent conduct.
49. Accordingly, Defendants must indemnify FSB for its losses resulting from
Defendants’ fraudulent deposits and wrongful use of funds to which they were not entitled and
wrongfully credited to their accounts in connection with their check kiting scheme, including, but
8
27872776.6
not limited to, its losses totaling over $18.9 million and for any claims by any other person or
entity arising from Defendants’ check kiting scheme.
D. Defendants’ Corrupt Enterprise
50. Defendant Mott operated and continues to operate a RICO enterprise engaged in
interstate and foreign commerce that directly targeted FSB through a pattern of criminal conduct.
51. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Defendant Mott wrongfully utilized entities
that were operating as lawful businesses, the Entity Defendants, in furtherance of the commission
of a pattern of criminal financial misconduct.
52. Defendants’ pattern of criminal conduct occurred in the course of interstate
commerce in utilizing facilities including the Federal Reserve’s SWIFT system for the transfer of
funds and interstate automated clearinghouse (ACH) facilities for fraudulent financial transactions,
all in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1344.
53. Defendants repeatedly and intentionally violated, inter alia, 18 USC § 1344, which
proscribes any scheme to defraud a federally-insured financial institution to obtain any monies,
credits, assets, securities, or other property owned by, or under the control of, such institution.
54. Moreover, Defendants repeatedly violated 18 U.S.C. § 1957 through their attempts
to knowingly engage in monetary transactions in criminally derived property greater than
$10,000.00, specifically, in repeatedly attempting to deposit and withdraw funds based on
dishonored or knowingly fraudulent checks.
55. Defendants’ conduct constitutes a pattern of “racketeering activity” within the
meaning of 18 U.S.C § 1961(1).
56. Harm to FSB from this pattern of criminal conduct was foreseeable and, in fact,
FSB was directly and proximately harmed by reason of Defendants’ racketeering activity and
9
27872776.6
fraudulent scheme in the amount of at least $18.9 million.
57. Upon information and belief, Defendant Mott continues to utilize the Entity
Defendants to perpetuate her financial schemes and avoid accountability for liability by wrongfully
exploiting the corporate form.
58. Defendants’ conduct described herein constitutes a pattern of racketeering activity
within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 1961(5).
59. Plaintiff has been injured as a direct and proximate result of Defendants’
racketeering activity, unlawful conduct, and RICO enterprise.
60. Plaintiff is entitled to recover treble damages plus costs and attorneys’ fees from
Defendants pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c).
COUNT I
(Fraud)
61. Plaintiff incorporate the allegations set forth in Paragraphs 1-52 as if fully set forth
herein.
62. Defendants knowingly engaged in a scheme or artifice to defraud FSB by
knowingly presenting checks for deposit and issuing checks despite knowing that the account
paying the check did not have sufficient funds to cover those checks.
63. Specifically, Defendants wrote over 65 negotiable instruments in the form of
checks beginning on February 23, 2024, for deposit in various accounts maintained by Defendants
at FSB.
64. Upon information and believe, Ms. Mott wrote or caused to be written such check
knowing there were insufficient funds in the accounts on which the checks were drawn. A
spreadsheet is attached hereto as Exhibit A to detail the wrongful checks and negative balances of
the overdrawn accounts.
10
27872776.6
65. Plaintiff reasonably relied on the negotiable instruments submitted for deposit to or
issued from any of the at-issue accounts being valid and supported by sufficient funds.
66. However, Defendant Mott knew that the negotiable instruments issued from the at-
issue FSB accounts or presented for deposit into those accounts would be dishonored for lack of
funds.
67. The pattern of the checks, including the amounts and fact that they went repeatedly
between accounts owned by Defendants, and, upon information and belief, beneficially owned by
Defendant Mott, is strong evidence that Defendants acted to deprive FSB of funds.
68. Defendants knowingly engaged in this wrongful conduct with the intent of
wrongfully obtaining from FSB or depriving FSB of funds to which Defendants were never
entitled.
69. As a direct result of Defendants’ fraudulent scheme, FSB has suffered losses
totaling no less than $18.9 million for which Defendants are liable.
COUNT II
(RICO – 18 U.S.C. § 1964)
70. Plaintiff incorporates the allegations of Paragraphs 1-62 as if fully set forth
herein.
71. At all relevant times, Defendants engaged and participated in a criminal enterprise
whose activities affect interstate commerce.
72. Defendant knowingly used fraudulently-obtained and non-consensual extensions
of credit by depositing fraudulent and worthless checks and used that income to issue additional,
fraudulent checks or direct FSB to make electronic payments using such unlawfully-obtained
credit.
73. These acts individually constitute “racketeering activities” within 18 U.S.C. §
11
27872776.6
1965(1) and collectively constitute a “pattern of racketeering activity” within 18 U.S.C. § 1965(5).
74. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ racketeering activities and
violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1962, Plaintiff has been injured by wrongfully paying out at least $20
million based on Defendants’ wrongful conduct.
75. WHEREFORE Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court enter a judgment
against Defendants in an amount equal to three times the damages Plaintiff sustained pursuant to
18 U.S.C. 1965(c).
COUNT III
(Breach of Contract)
76. Plaintiff incorporates the allegations of Paragraph 1-68 as if fully set forth herein.
77. Under the Deposit Account Agreement governing each of the at-issue accounts, the
account holder is responsible for curing any negative balance in any of its accounts.
78. Presently, the KRM Events I Account, ending in -0529, has a balance of negative
$3,482,241.59.
79. Presently, the KRM Events II Account, ending in -0545, has a balance of negative
$3,294,566.80.
80. Presently, the Elegance Account, ending in -0588, has a balance of negative
$3,879,031.41.
81. Presently, the Monroe Account, ending -0596, has a balance of negative
$4,868,265.06.
82. Presently, the Divinity Account, ending -0618, has a balance of negative
$3,454,900.93.
83. These negative account balances breach the governing Deposit Account
Agreement’s requirements that the account holder cure all negative balances and all accounts must
12
27872776.6
have a minimum balance of $.01.
84. Because she is the authorized signatory for each account and each entity operated
as Defendant Mott’s alter ego, Defendant Mott is jointly and severally liable with each of the Entity
Defendants to FSB in an amount equal necessary to restore each balance to $0.01.
85. Accordingly, Defendants are liable to Plaintiff for an amount no less than necessary
to cure each negative account balance to no less than $.01.
WHEREFORE Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court enter a judgment in an amount
no less than $18.9 million against Defendants and in favor of Plaintiff.
COUNT IV
(Collection on Debt)
86. Plaintiff incorporates the allegations of Paragraph 1-78 as if fully set forth herein.
87. Under the Deposit Account Agreement governing each of the at-issue accounts, the
account holder is responsible for curing any negative balance in any of its accounts.
88. Presently, the KRM Events I Account, ending in -0529, has a balance of negative
$3,482,241.59.
89. Presently, the KRM Events II Account, ending in -0545, has a balance of negative
$3,294,566.80.
90. Presently, the Elegance Account, ending in -0588, has a balance of negative
$3,879,031.41.
91. Presently, the Monroe Account, ending -0596, has a balance of
negative$4,868,265.06.
92. Presently, the Divinity Account, ending -0618, has a balance of
negative$3,454,900.93.
93. Accordingly, Defendants are liable to Plaintiff for no less than $18,979,005.79,
13
27872776.6
which is the total amount necessary to satisfy Defendants’ presently owing debt in the same
amount.
WHEREFORE Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court enter an Order in favor of
Plaintiff requiring Defendants to pay Plaintiff no less than $18,979,005.79.
COUNT V
(Indemnification)
94. Plaintiff incorporates the allegations of Paragraphs 1-86 as if fully set forth herein.
95. The parties’ relationship is governed by the terms of the operative Deposit Account
Agreement.
96. Pursuant to that Agreement, Defendants are required to indemnify Plaintiff for any
against and in respect to any and all loss, liability, expense and damage, including consequential,
special and punitive damages, directly or indirectly resulting from:
i. the processing of any request received by FSB relating to your Accounts;

ii. any breach of the provisions of this Agreement . . .
iii. insufficient funds in your Account or any returned deposits on your
Account and
iv. any and all actions, suits, proceeding, claims, demands, judgments, costs
and expenses (including attorney’s fees) incident to the foregoing.
97. FSB has suffered losses in an amount no less than $18.979,005.79 directly resulting
from “insufficient funds in [Defendants’] Account[s] or any returned deposits on [Defendants’]
Account[s]” and will be subject to further legal action by other victims of Defendants’ fraudulent
conduct.
98. Accordingly, Defendants are obligated to indemnify FSB for its losses in an amount
no less than $18,979,005.79, plus FSB’s reasonable attorneys’ fees and expenses incurred in
prosecuting this action.
99. Moreover, Defendants are obligated to indemnify and defend FSB for any suit by
any third party arising from Defendants’ fraudulent conduct.

14
27872776.6
WHEREFORE Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court enter an Order in favor of
Plaintiff in the amount of $18,979,005.79, plus all accruing interest amounts through the date of
judgment and thereafter at the maximum post-judgment interest rate permitted by law, plus all
costs of collection (including, without limitation, reasonable attorneys’ fees), directing that
Defendants must defend and indemnify Plaintiff in any litigation arising from the conduct alleged
herein, and for such other and further relief to Plaintiff as this Court deems just, proper, and
equitable under the circumstances.
DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY
Plaintiff demands a trial by jury on all issues that are so triable.
Dated: March 11, 2024 BARCLAY DAMON LLP
By: ______________________________
David G. Burch, Jr.
Benjamin Zakarin
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Office and Post Office Address
125 East Jefferson Street
Syracuse, New York 13202-2078
Telephone (315) 425-2716
15
27872776.6

Five Star Bank Lawsuit

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Five Star Bank Lawsuit

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 6:24-cv-06153-FPG Document 1 Filed 03/11/24 Page 1 of 15

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

FIVE STAR BANK,

members of certain of the Entity Defendants (collectively, “Defendants”), alleges as follows:

1. Plaintiff brings this Complaint against Defendants to recover a total of $18.9

million in funds unlawfully obtained by Defendants through a fraudulent check-kiting scheme

3. This check-kiting scheme was uncovered by Plaintiff, and the subsequent

reconciliation of Defendants’ deposit accounts resulted in an overdraft of those accounts in an

amount exceeding $18.9 million.

aggrieved by the Defendants fraudulent scheme.

businesses throughout Central and Western New York.

in Rochester, New York.

in Rochester, New York.

9. Upon information and belief, Defendant Katherine’s on Monroe, LLC is a New

Liability Company managed, operated, and/or controlled by Defendant Katherine Mott.

Liability Company managed, operated, and/or controlled by Defendant Katherine Mott.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

18. Jurisdiction is proper because this matter is brought pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §

1964(c), conferring jurisdiction upon an appropriate United States District Court.

ALLEGATIONS COMMON TO ALL COUNTS

corporate form to commit a fraud causing injury to Five Star Bank.

financial affairs of each entity.

checks between various accounts held at FSB and elsewhere.

“Monroe” Account). Mott is an authorized signatory on the Monroe Account.

Account”). Mott is an authorized signatory on the KNC Account.

opened numerous other accounts in the name of Defendants.

A. The Fraudulent Check Kiting Scheme

including Kinecta Federal Credit Union (“Kinecta FCU”).

an Entity Defendant held at FSB.

funds to honor the check in the originating accounts at Kinecta FCU.

caused to be deposited approximately 68 checks in an aggregate amount exceeding $62 million

the accounts from which they would be drawn.

insufficient funds in the originating accounts.

37. Ultimately, as a direct result of Defendant Mott’s knowing, fraudulent conduct,

B. Defendants Violated the FSB Deposit Agreement

currently overdrawn in the amounts set forth below:

Account Holder Account Number Current Balance

provides, in relevant part:

which total approximately $18.9 million dollars.

no less than the total overdraft amount.

defrauded other banking institutions, such as Kinecta FCU.

Defendants in connection with their financial malfeasance.

losses to Defendants, providing, in relevant part, that:

funds in [Defendants’] Account[s] or any returned deposits on [Defendants’] Account[s].”

suffered in connection with Defendants’ fraudulent conduct.

entity arising from Defendants’ check kiting scheme.

D. Defendants’ Corrupt Enterprise

of a pattern of criminal financial misconduct.

52. Defendants’ pattern of criminal conduct occurred in the course of interstate

all in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1344.

to knowingly engage in monetary transactions in criminally derived property greater than

$10,000.00, specifically, in repeatedly attempting to deposit and withdraw funds based on

dishonored or knowingly fraudulent checks.

55. Defendants’ conduct constitutes a pattern of “racketeering activity” within the

meaning of 18 U.S.C § 1961(1).

fraudulent scheme in the amount of at least $18.9 million.

exploiting the corporate form.

58. Defendants’ conduct described herein constitutes a pattern of racketeering activity

within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 1961(5).

racketeering activity, unlawful conduct, and RICO enterprise.

Defendants pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c).

62. Defendants knowingly engaged in a scheme or artifice to defraud FSB by