Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
v.
SCOTT W. ROTHSTEIN,
Defendant.
/
The United States of America respectfully requests, pursuant to the provisions of 18 U.S.C.
§ 1963(d)(1)(A), and the provisions 21 U.S.C. § 853(e)(1)(A), that this Court enter a Protective
Order to preserve the availability of the property identified for forfeiture in the Information issued
on December 1, 2009. In support of this motion the United States submits that:
U.S.C. §1962(d), with a money laundering conspiracy in violation of 18 U.S.C. §1956(h), with a
mail and wire fraud conspiracy in violation of 18 U.S.C. §1349 and with substantive wire fraud in
2. The Information also placed defendant on notice that, if convicted, the United States
would pursue forfeiture of certain specific assets, and a money judgment, pursuant to the applicable
statutes. The assets sought for forfeiture are listed in Exhibit A, attached hereto.
3. Significant litigation is likely to commence with respect to the assets sought for
forfeiture, even though Defendant ROTHSTEIN has consented to the forfeiture of the majority of
4. Indeed, litigation regarding assets named for forfeiture in both the civil case (09-
61780-CIV-ZLOCH), and the instant case, has already commenced. For example, in 09-34791-
BKC-RBR, Adv. Pro. No. 09-02464-RBR, TD Bank, N.A. has filed a Complaint for Interpleader
the Chapter 11 Trustee of Rothstein, Rosenfeldt & Adler, P.A. has sought a preliminary injunction
and a finding by the Bankruptcy Court, that the assets of defendant, ROTHSTEIN, individually, as
well as assets of the various entities controlled by defendant, ROTHSTEIN should become part of
5. Entry of the requested protective order should ensure that the property sought for
forfeiture, as listed in the Information, will be available for forfeiture upon conviction of defendant,
ROTHSTEIN and so that there will be an orderly presentation of third party claims to the property
1
The defendant’s consent is of record in the related civil case, 09-61780-CIV-ZLOCH,
Docket Entry 20. The consent, and schedules attached thereto, were prepared prior to the
finalization of the charging document, and, as such, does not address all items contained for
forfeiture in the civil case or in the instant criminal action. Some of the assets missing from the
consent are bank accounts at TD Bank and Gibraltar Bank. Upon information and belief,
defendant stands ready to stipulate to the forfeiture of all assets listed in the charging document
and civil case, even though those assets were omitted from the consent.
2
The seven largest accounts at TD Bank, N.A. are named for forfeiture in the instant case,
and the civil forfeiture action (09-61780-CIV-ZLOCH) at Bank Accounts (BA9) through
(BA15).
3
The Trustee and his counsel, were unaware of the stipulation by ROTHSTEIN at the
time the adversary proceeding was filed. The Trustee and his counsel are currently in
discussions with undersigned counsel for the United States regarding how assets not otherwise
named for forfeiture, should be handled, and how, if at all, the Trustee should be involved with
the assets named for forfeiture.
order or injunction, require the execution of satisfactory performance bond, or take any other action
to preserve the availability of property subject to forfeiture for violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d).
or injunction, require the execution of satisfactory performance bond, or take any other action to
preserve the availability of property subject to forfeiture for violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h),5 18
Revenue Service Special Agent Lisa Klitz, verified under penalty of perjury, establish sufficient
4
Any third party claims to the subject property may be properly brought and resolved in
ancillary proceedings conducted by this Court following the execution of a Preliminary Order of
Forfeiture and service of notice to all interested parties in accordance with the provisions of
federal forfeiture law.
5
Title 18, United States Code, Section 982(a)(1) provides for forfeiture upon violation of
Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1956, 1957 and 1960. Title 18, United States Code,
Section 982(b) provides that forfeiture of property under Section 982 is governed by the
provisions of Title 21, United States Code, Section 853.
6
Title 18, United States Code, Section 981(a)(1)(C) provides for forfeiture when certain
crimes, or conspiracies to commit those crimes, are concerned. The violations for which such
forfeiture is available include offenses constituting specified unlawful activities in 18 U.S.C. §
1956(c)(7). Title 18, United States Code, 1956(c)(7) lists, as an offense, “any act or activity
constituting an offense listed in section 1961(1).” A violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343 is among the
offenses set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 1961(1). Title 28, United States Code, Section 2461, allows the
“civil” forfeiture provisions of 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(C) to be utilized in a criminal case. Title
28, United States Code, Section 2461 provides that the procedures set forth in 21 U.S.C. § 853
apply to all stages of a criminal forfeiture proceeding.
MEMORANDUM OF LAW
The United States seeks to preserve the status quo of the property listed in the Information
by preventing the alienation and dissipation of the property subject to forfeiture. Given the clear
Congressional determination that property acquired through illegal activities be forfeited to the
United States,7 it is equally clear that the public interest lies in preserving these properties for
forfeiture.
Congress has determined that property involved in, traceable to and acquired through illegal
activities shall be forfeited to the United States. Title 18, United States Code, Section 1963
mandates criminal forfeiture to the United States upon conviction of any violation of 18 U.S.C. §
1962 and Title 21, United States Code, Section 853 mandates criminal forfeiture to the United States
upon conviction of any violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956, 18 U.S.C. § 1349 and 18 U.S.C. § 1343.
To preserve forfeitable property pending the conclusion of a trial, the District Court is
empowered to restrain the dissipation of property pre-trial. Title 18, United States Code, Section
(1) Upon application of the United States, the court may enter a restraining order
or injunction, require the execution of a satisfactory performance bond, or
take any other action to preserve the availability of property described in
subsection (a) for forfeiture under this section –
7
Once the property is forfeited, the Attorney General of the United States may restore the
forfeited property to victims of the charged crimes. See 18 U.S.C. §§1963(g) and 21 U.S.C.
§853(“i”).
while Title 21, United States Code, Section 853(e)(1) provides in pertinent part:
(1) Upon application of the United States, the court may enter a restraining order
or injunction, require the execution of a satisfactory performance bond, or
take any other action to preserve the availability of property described in
subsection (a) of this section for forfeiture under this section –
Pre-trial restraint of assets has been approved by the United States Supreme Court and the
United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. In United States v. Monsanto, 491 U.S. 600
(1989), the Supreme Court upheld the pre-trial restraint which prevented the defendant from
disposing of his house, his apartment and $35,000 in cash prior to trial. The Supreme Court noted:
"[I]t would be odd to conclude that the Government may not restrain
property, such as the home and apartment in respondent's possession,
based on a finding of probable cause, when we have held that. . ., the
Government may restrain persons where there is a finding of
probable cause to believe that the accused has committed a serious
offense."
Id., at 615-16.
In the same year as the Monsanto decision, the Eleventh Circuit recognized the right of the
court may restrain the defendant from using . . . assets before trial.
The restraints may be imposed by way of a restraining order, an
injunction, the execution of a performance bond, or a temporary
seizure of certain assets which, because of their liquidity, can be
readily transferred or hidden.
United States v. Bissell, 866 F.2d 1343, 1349 (11th Cir.) cert denied, 493 U.S. 849 (1989).
Third parties are barred, under the provisions of 18 U.S.C. § 1963(i) and 21 U.S.C. § 853(k)
from intervening in a trial of a criminal case involving forfeiture and are barred from commencing
an action at law or equity against the United States concerning the validity of its interest in the
property sought for forfeiture.8 The entry of a restraining order under these circumstances acts to
protect and preserve the interests of third parties. Third party claimants are afforded a post-trial
hearing in accordance with 18 U.S.C. § 1963(l) and in accordance with 21 U.S.C. §853(n).
Once an indictment or information has issued, the court may order such restraints ex parte.
United States v. Bissell, 866 F.2d 1343, 1349 (11th Cir.) cert denied, 493 U.S. 849 (1989). No
requirement exists for notice or an evidentiary hearing prior to the issuance of a restraining order.
United States v. Monsanto, 924 F.2d 1186, 1193 (2d Cir. 1991), cert. denied, 112 S. Ct. 382 (1982).
A restraining order may issue when there is a determination of probable cause to believe that
the property will ultimately be proven forfeitable. A full-blown hearing is not required. Congress
found that requiring the government to have a full blown hearing to meet the standards for obtaining
8
For instance, interpleader actions are precluded by these bars, see Johnson v. United
States, 2001 WL 1064505, at *2 (N.D. Ill. Sept 13, 2001); United States v. BCCI Holdings
(Luxembourg) S.A. (In re Oppenheimer & Co), 1992 WL 44321, at *3 (D.D.C. Feb. 10, 1992), as
are actions in bankruptcy proceedings. See In re: American Basketball League, Inc., 317 B.R.
121, 129 (Bkrtcy. N.D. Cal. 2004); In re: Smouha, 136 B.R. 921, 926 (Bkrtcy. S.D.N.Y. 1992).
See also, Bissell, 866 F.2d at 1353; In Re Protective Order, 790 F. Supp. 1140 (S.D. Fla. 1992)(J.
Probable cause has been established in the Information. As stated in the Senate Report on
the Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984, “the probable cause established in the indictment
or information is, in itself, to be sufficient basis for the issuance of a restraining order.” Senate
Report No. 225, 98th Cong., 2d. Sess. 203, reprinted in 1984 U.S. Code Congressional and
Administrative News, 3182, 3385. Probable cause that the property will ultimately be proven
forfeitable, is further established through the verification of the Special Agent attached hereto.
As the elements required for a Protective Order, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1963(d)(1)(A), and
pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 853(e)(1)(A), have been met, the United States moves for the entry of the
The United States requests that the Court enter a protective order immediately restraining,
prohibiting, and enjoining defendant, and his agents, servants, employees, attorneys, family
members and those persons in active concert or participation with him, and those persons, financial
institutions, or entities who have any interest or control over the subject property from attempting
or completing any action that would affect the availability, marketability or value of said property,
including but not limited to withdrawing, transferring, selling, assigning, pledging, distributing,
encumbering, wasting, secreting or otherwise disposing of, or removing from the jurisdiction of this
Court, all or any part of their interest, direct or indirect, in all of the properties identified in
The United States further requests that appropriately designated agents of the United States
be directed to promptly serve a copy of the Court’s protective order upon defendant and to give
notice of the protective order entered herein to those individuals or institutions in control of, or with
an interest, in the assets in question. The United States requests that it be permitted to provide
notice of the entry of the protective order through facsimile transmission to such institutions and
individuals (other than defendant). To the extent that the protective order is provided to such
institutions and individuals, the United States requests that this Court direct that such institutions
and individuals, provide, within 20 days of the service of the protective order, information regarding
the interest claimed by such institutions or individuals, and to provide other information which may
The United States further requests that the protective order remain in full force and effect
WHEREFORE, based on the foregoing, the United States requests the Court enter the
proposed Protective Order submitted herewith, and grant such other relief as is just and lawful.
Respectfully submitted,
JEFFREY H. SLOMAN
ACTING UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
s/ Alison W. Lehr
ALISON W. LEHR
Assistant United States Attorney
EXHIBIT A
PROPERTIES SOUGHT FOR FORFEITURE
(RP1) 2307 Castilla Isle, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, hereafter also referred to as
Lauderdale Shores Reamen Plat 15-31 B Lot 2 Blk 5 with a Folio Number of
5042 12 13 0210;
(RP2) 2308 Castilla Isle, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, hereafter also referred to as
Lauderdale Shores Reamen Plat 15-31 B Lot 2 Blk 4 with a Folio Number of
5042 12 13 0020;
(RP3) 2316 Castilla Isle, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, hereafter also referred to as
Lauderdale Shores Reamen Plat 15-31 B Lot 3 & Lot 4 W ½ Blk 4 with a Folio
(RP4) 30 Isla Bahia Drive, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, hereafter also referred to as
easements found therein or thereon, and is more particularly described as: Isla
(RP5) 29 Isla Bahia Drive, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, hereafter also referred to as
easements found therein or thereon, and is more particularly described as: Isla
(RP6) 350 SE 2nd Street, Unit 2840, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, hereafter also referred to
particularly described as: 350 Las Olas Place Condo Unit 2840 with a Folio
(RP8) 2133 Imperial Point Drive, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, hereafter also referred to as
Imperial Point 1 Sec 53-44 B Lot 11 Blk 22 with a Folio Number of 4942 12 07
2020;
(RP9) 2627 Castilla Isle, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, hereafter also referred to as
Lauderdale Shores Reamem Plat 15-31 B Lot 22 Blk 5 with a Folio Number of
5042 12 13 0380;
(RP10)10630 NW 14th Street, Apt. 110, Plantation, Florida, hereafter also referred to as
is more particularly described as: OPTIMA VILLAGE 1-“C” CONDO UNIT 201
(RP11) 227 Garden Court, Lauderdale by the Sea, Florida, hereafter also referred to as
described as: SILVER SHORES UNIT A 28-39 B POR of Lot 4, BLK 5 DESC
(RP12) 708 Spangler Boulevard, Bay 1, Hollywood, Florida, hereafter also referred to as
and easements found therein or thereon, and is more particularly described as:
0010;
(RP13) 1012 East Broward Boulevard, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, hereafter also referred to
and easements found therein or thereon, and is more particularly described as:
BEVERLY HEIGHTS 1-30 B LOT 1 W 100, LOT 2 W 100 BLK 17 with a Folio
(RP14) 950 N Federal Highway, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, hereafter also referred to as
and easements found therein or thereon, and is more particularly described as: 31-
(RP15) 350 Las Olas Boulevard, Commercial Unit 2, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, hereafter
is more particularly described as: 350 LAS OLAS PLACE COMM CONDO
(RP16) 361 SE 9 Lane, Boca Raton, Florida hereafter also referred to as “Defendant
(RP17) 1198 N Old Dixie Highway, Boca Raton, Florida hereafter also referred to as
(RP18) 1299 N Federal Highway, Boca Raton, Florida hereafter also referred to as
(RP19) 151 East 58 Street, Apartment 42D, New York, New York hereafter also referred
(RP20) 11 Bluff Hill Cove Farm, Narragansett, Rhode Island hereafter also referred to as
(RP21) 15 Bluff Hill Cove Farm, Narragansett, Rhode Island hereafter also referred to
(RP22) 353 4 Ave., Unit 12-H, Brooklyn, NY hereafter also referred to as “Defendant
(RP23) 290W 11th St #1C, NY, NY hereafter also referred to as “Defendant RP23,”
D. Tangibles (“T”)
(T1) 304 pieces of jewelry, watches, necklaces and earrings seized on or about
Monday, November 9, 2009 from the residence of Scott and Kimberly Rothstein;
(T2) 16 DuPont Lighters seized on or about Monday, November 9, 2009 from the
(T3) 3 pieces sports memorabilia seized on or about Monday, November 9, 2009 from
2009, from the office of Scott W. Rothstein at the law firm of Rothstein,
(T6) $30,000 in American Express Gift Cards to the attention of Scott Rothstein,
(T7) $50,000 in American Express Gift Cards to the attention of Scott Rothstein,
(T8) 5 additional watches being turned over to the United States by Les Stracher; and
(T9) Guitar collection of Scott W. Rothstein, located at the residence of Scott and
(BA1) Fidelity Investments Stock Account, in the name of Scott W. Rothstein, valued at
approximately $1,263,780;
(BA7) Bank account at Banque Populaire, Morocco, in the name of Ahnick Khalid, up
(BA8) Bank account at Banque Populaire, Morocco, in the name of Steve Caputi, up to
(BA9) Toronto Dominion Bank, N.A. account 6860291266 in the name of Rothstein
Rosenfeldt Adler, P.A. which, on or about November 11, 2009, contained the
Rosenfeldt Adler, P.A. which, on or about November 11, 2009, contained the
(BA12)Toronto Dominion Bank, N.A. account 6860422200 in the name of DJB Financial
amount of $64,970.00;
(BA13)Toronto Dominion Bank, N.A. account 6860755757 the name of RRA Sports and
(BA14)Toronto Dominion Bank, N.A. account 6860755781 in the name of RRA Goal
Line Management, LLC, which, on or about November 11, 2009, contained the
Rosenfeldt Adler, P.A., which, on or about November 11, 2009, contained the
(BI1) Stock certificates, if issued, or the beneficial interest in such shares, of 50,000
shares of capital stock, in Gibraltar Private Bank & Trust, a federally chartered
Scott W. Rothstein;
(BI7) Scott W. Rothstein’s equity interest in Café Iguana, Pembroke Pines, Florida;
(BI15) Scott W. Rothstein’s equity interest in RRA Sports and Entertainment, LLC;
(BI17) Scott W. Rothstein’s equity interest, and licensing rights, in Alternative Biofuel
Company;
(BI20) Scott W. Rothstein’s equity interest in, and loan to, Africat Equity IG Decide;
(BI21) Scott W. Rothstein’s equity interest in, and rents derived from 1198 Dixie LLC;
(BI22) Scott W. Rothstein’s equity interest in, and rents derived from 1299 Federal LLC;
(BI24) All equity interest held by or on behalf of Scott W. Rothstein, in the following
a. 29 Bahia LLC;
b. 235 GC LLC;
d. 353 BR LLC;
j. 2133 IP LLC;
k. 15158 LLC;
l. AANG LLC;
m. AAMG1 LLC;
n. AAMM Holdings;
p. Advanced Solutions;
x. BOVCU LLC;
y. BOVRI LLC;
bn. WAWW;
and
G. Contributions (“C”)
(C1) $6,000 in campaign contributions made to Alex Sink and voluntarily offered, and
account and voluntarily offered, and turned over, to the United States by the
account and voluntarily offered, and turned over, to the United States by the
offered, and turned over, to the United States by the Republican Party of Florida;
business entity known as WAWW and voluntarily offered, and turned over, to
hospital advised the United States of the donation from the Rothstein Family
(C7) $1,000,000 Charitable Donation to Holy Cross Hospital, which hospital advised
the United States of the donation from the Rothstein Family Foundation for the
and turned over, to the United States by the office of Charlie Crist; and
(C9) All funds voluntarily turned over to the United States (IRS/FBI), since in or about
Found at:
The Florida Legal Blog
www.floridalegalblog.org
Case 0:09-cr-60331-JIC Document 12-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/06/2009 Page 2 of 2
Found at:
The Florida Legal Blog
www.floridalegalblog.org
Case 0:09-cr-60331-JIC Document 12-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/06/2009 Page 1 of 3
v.
SCOTT W. ROTHSTEIN,
Defendant.
/
PROTECTIVE ORDER
THIS MATTER is before the Court upon the motion of the United States of America for
entry of a Post Information Protective Order pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 1963,
and Title 21, United States Code, Section 853(e)(1)(A). The Court having reviewed the Ex Parte
Motion for Protective Order and Memorandum of Law, and the Affidavit of Special Agent Lisa
Klitz, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, finds that:
1. The United States seeks the protective order to prevent the transfer, alienation,
encumbrance or dissipation of the subject property by the defendant or any third party which would
3. Probable cause has been shown for the entry of a protective order to preserve the
1 Found at:
The Florida Legal Blog
www.floridalegalblog.org
Case 0:09-cr-60331-JIC Document 12-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/06/2009 Page 2 of 3
5. The need to preserve the availability of the subject property through the entry of the
requested order outweighs the hardship on any party against whom the order is to be entered; and
6. Any third party claims to the subject property may be properly brought and resolved
in ancillary proceedings conducted by this Court following the execution of a Preliminary Order of
members and those persons in active concert or participation with him, and those persons, financial
institutions, or other entities who have any interest or control over the subject property listed in
Exhibit A, are hereby RESTRAINED, ENJOINED, AND PROHIBITED, without prior approval
of this Court and upon notice to the United States and an opportunity for the United States to be
heard, from attempting or completing any action that would affect the availability, marketability or
value of said property, including but not limited to withdrawing, transferring, selling, assigning,
diminishing the value of, all or any part of their interest, direct or indirect, in the following property:
SEE EXHIBIT A
B. Property owner(s) are required to maintain the present condition of the real properties
subject to this Order, including timely payment of all mortgage payments, and insurance, utilities,
properties subject to this Order shall respond promptly to requests by the Government for
information on said mortgage’s current status. No action shall be taken to foreclose against the real
2 Found at:
The Florida Legal Blog
www.floridalegalblog.org
Case 0:09-cr-60331-JIC Document 12-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/06/2009 Page 3 of 3
properties;
D. Any financial institutions, other entities or individuals, holding liens on the vehicles
and vessels subject to this Order shall respond promptly to requests by the Government for
information on the current status of said liens. No action shall be taken to accelerate any loans on
E. Any financial institutions holding accounts subject to this Order shall respond
promptly to requests by the Government for information on said accounts’ current status.
F. Any persons or entities having an interest in those business interests named as subject
to forfeiture, shall respond promptly to requests by the Government for information on the status
G. The Secretary of the Treasury or his designee, or other authorized agent of the United
States shall promptly serve a copy of this Protective Order upon defendant, and make a return
thereon reflecting the date and time of service. Notice of the entry of this Order shall be given to
known institutions, entities or individuals, having an interest in the subject property, where such
interest is defined as a “legal interest” and not merely an interest as a creditor of defendant. Such
H. This Protective Order shall remain in full force and effect until further order of this
Court.
___________________________________
JAMES I. COHN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
3 Found at:
The Florida Legal Blog
www.floridalegalblog.org
Case 0:09-cr-60331-JIC Document 12-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/06/2009 Page 1 of 15
EXHIBIT A
PROPERTIES SUBJECT TO COURT’S PROTECTIVE ORDER
(RP1) 2307 Castilla Isle, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, hereafter also referred to as
Lauderdale Shores Reamen Plat 15-31 B Lot 2 Blk 5 with a Folio Number of
5042 12 13 0210;
(RP2) 2308 Castilla Isle, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, hereafter also referred to as
Lauderdale Shores Reamen Plat 15-31 B Lot 2 Blk 4 with a Folio Number of
5042 12 13 0020;
(RP3) 2316 Castilla Isle, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, hereafter also referred to as
Lauderdale Shores Reamen Plat 15-31 B Lot 3 & Lot 4 W ½ Blk 4 with a Folio
(RP4) 30 Isla Bahia Drive, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, hereafter also referred to as
easements found therein or thereon, and is more particularly described as: Isla
(RP5) 29 Isla Bahia Drive, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, hereafter also referred to as
easements found therein or thereon, and is more particularly described as: Isla
(RP6) 350 SE 2nd Street, Unit 2840, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, hereafter also referred to
particularly described as: 350 Las Olas Place Condo Unit 2840 with a Folio
(RP8) 2133 Imperial Point Drive, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, hereafter also referred to as
Imperial Point 1 Sec 53-44 B Lot 11 Blk 22 with a Folio Number of 4942 12 07
2020;
(RP9) 2627 Castilla Isle, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, hereafter also referred to as
Lauderdale Shores Reamem Plat 15-31 B Lot 22 Blk 5 with a Folio Number of
5042 12 13 0380;
(RP10)10630 NW 14th Street, Apt. 110, Plantation, Florida, hereafter also referred to as
is more particularly described as: OPTIMA VILLAGE 1-“C” CONDO UNIT 201
(RP11) 227 Garden Court, Lauderdale by the Sea, Florida, hereafter also referred to as
described as: SILVER SHORES UNIT A 28-39 B POR of Lot 4, BLK 5 DESC
(RP12) 708 Spangler Boulevard, Bay 1, Hollywood, Florida, hereafter also referred to as
and easements found therein or thereon, and is more particularly described as:
0010;
(RP13) 1012 East Broward Boulevard, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, hereafter also referred to
and easements found therein or thereon, and is more particularly described as:
BEVERLY HEIGHTS 1-30 B LOT 1 W 100, LOT 2 W 100 BLK 17 with a Folio
(RP14) 950 N Federal Highway, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, hereafter also referred to as
and easements found therein or thereon, and is more particularly described as: 31-
(RP15) 350 Las Olas Boulevard, Commercial Unit 2, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, hereafter
is more particularly described as: 350 LAS OLAS PLACE COMM CONDO
(RP16) 361 SE 9 Lane, Boca Raton, Florida hereafter also referred to as “Defendant
(RP17) 1198 N Old Dixie Highway, Boca Raton, Florida hereafter also referred to as
(RP18) 1299 N Federal Highway, Boca Raton, Florida hereafter also referred to as
(RP19) 151 East 58 Street, Apartment 42D, New York, New York hereafter also referred
(RP20) 11 Bluff Hill Cove Farm, Narragansett, Rhode Island hereafter also referred to as
(RP21) 15 Bluff Hill Cove Farm, Narragansett, Rhode Island hereafter also referred to
(RP22) 353 4 Ave., Unit 12-H, Brooklyn, NY hereafter also referred to as “Defendant
(RP23) 290W 11th St #1C, NY, NY hereafter also referred to as “Defendant RP23,”
D. Tangibles (“T”)
(T1) 304 pieces of jewelry, watches, necklaces and earrings seized on or about
Monday, November 9, 2009 from the residence of Scott and Kimberly Rothstein;
(T2) 16 DuPont Lighters seized on or about Monday, November 9, 2009 from the
(T3) 3 pieces sports memorabilia seized on or about Monday, November 9, 2009 from
2009, from the office of Scott W. Rothstein at the law firm of Rothstein,
(T6) $30,000 in American Express Gift Cards to the attention of Scott Rothstein,
(T7) $50,000 in American Express Gift Cards to the attention of Scott Rothstein,
(T8) 5 additional watches being turned over to the United States by Les Stracher; and
(T9) Guitar collection of Scott W. Rothstein, located at the residence of Scott and
(BA1) Fidelity Investments Stock Account, in the name of Scott W. Rothstein, valued at
approximately $1,263,780;
(BA7) Bank account at Banque Populaire, Morocco, in the name of Ahnick Khalid, up
(BA8) Bank account at Banque Populaire, Morocco, in the name of Steve Caputi, up to
(BA9) Toronto Dominion Bank, N.A. account 6860291266 in the name of Rothstein
Rosenfeldt Adler, P.A. which, on or about November 11, 2009, contained the
Rosenfeldt Adler, P.A. which, on or about November 11, 2009, contained the
(BA12)Toronto Dominion Bank, N.A. account 6860422200 in the name of DJB Financial
amount of $64,970.00;
(BA13)Toronto Dominion Bank, N.A. account 6860755757 the name of RRA Sports and
(BA14)Toronto Dominion Bank, N.A. account 6860755781 in the name of RRA Goal
Line Management, LLC, which, on or about November 11, 2009, contained the
Rosenfeldt Adler, P.A., which, on or about November 11, 2009, contained the
(BI1) Stock certificates, if issued, or the beneficial interest in such shares, of 50,000
shares of capital stock, in Gibraltar Private Bank & Trust, a federally chartered
Scott W. Rothstein;
(BI7) Scott W. Rothstein’s equity interest in Café Iguana, Pembroke Pines, Florida;
(BI15) Scott W. Rothstein’s equity interest in RRA Sports and Entertainment, LLC;
(BI17) Scott W. Rothstein’s equity interest, and licensing rights, in Alternative Biofuel
Company;
(BI20) Scott W. Rothstein’s equity interest in, and loan to, Africat Equity IG Decide;
(BI21) Scott W. Rothstein’s equity interest in, and rents derived from 1198 Dixie LLC;
(BI22) Scott W. Rothstein’s equity interest in, and rents derived from 1299 Federal LLC;
(BI24) All equity interest held by or on behalf of Scott W. Rothstein, in the following
a. 29 Bahia LLC;
b. 235 GC LLC;
d. 353 BR LLC;
j. 2133 IP LLC;
k. 15158 LLC;
l. AANG LLC;
m. AAMG1 LLC;
n. AAMM Holdings;
p. Advanced Solutions;
x. BOVCU LLC;
y. BOVRI LLC;
bn. WAWW;
and
G. Contributions (“C”)
(C1) $6,000 in campaign contributions made to Alex Sink and voluntarily offered, and
account and voluntarily offered, and turned over, to the United States by the
account and voluntarily offered, and turned over, to the United States by the
offered, and turned over, to the United States by the Republican Party of Florida;
business entity known as WAWW and voluntarily offered, and turned over, to
hospital advised the United States of the donation from the Rothstein Family
(C7) $1,000,000 Charitable Donation to Holy Cross Hospital, which hospital advised
the United States of the donation from the Rothstein Family Foundation for the
and turned over, to the United States by the office of Charlie Crist; and
(C9) All funds voluntarily turned over to the United States (IRS/FBI), since in or about