`
`Case 1:16-cr-00091-PKC Document 488 Filed 10/07/22 Page 3 of 14Case 1:16-cr-00091-PKC Document 489 Filed 10/07/22 Page 1 of 12
`
`
`
`
`
`
`STIPULATION AND ORDER
`
`S1 16 Cr. 91 (PKC)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` x
`
`
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`x
`:
`:
`:
`:
`x
`:
`:
`:
`:
`x
`:
`:
`:
`:
`x
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
`---------------------------------------------------------------
`
`UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
`
`
`-v.-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`SCOTT TUCKER,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`---------------------------------------------------------------
`
`DAVID FEINGOLD, et al.,
`
` Petitioner.
`---------------------------------------------------------------
`
`KIM TUCKER, et. al.,
`
` Petitioner.
`---------------------------------------------------------------
`
`PAUL C. RAY
`
` Petitioner.
`---------------------------------------------------------------
`
`
`WHEREAS, on or about November 30, 2016, SCOTT TUCKER (the
`
`“Defendant”), was charged in a fourteen-count Superseding Indictment, S1 16 Cr. 091 (PKC) (the
`
`“Indictment”), with conspiracy to collect unlawful debts, in violation of Title 18, United States
`
`Code, Section 1962(d) (Count One); collection of unlawful debts, in violation of Title 18, United
`
`States Code, Section 1962(c) (Counts Two through Four); conspiracy to commit wire fraud, in
`
`violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1349 (Count Five); wire fraud, in violation of
`
`Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1343 and 2 (Count Six); conspiracy to commit money
`
`laundering, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1956(h) (Count Seven); promotion
`
`money laundering, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1956(a)(l)(A)(i) and 2
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cr-00091-PKC Document 488 Filed 10/07/22 Page 4 of 14Case 1:16-cr-00091-PKC Document 489 Filed 10/07/22 Page 2 of 12
`
`
`(Count Eight); concealment money laundering, in violation of Title 18, United States Code,
`
`Sections 1956(a)(l)(B)(i) and 2 (Count Nine); and with false Truth in Lending Act disclosures, in
`
`violation of Title 15, United States Code, Section 1611 and Title 18, United States Code, Section
`
`2 (Counts Ten through Fourteen);
`
`WHEREAS, on or about October 13, 2017, the Defendant was found guilty
`
`following a jury trial of all counts of the Indictment;
`
`WHEREAS, on or about April 17, 2018, the Court entered an Amended Preliminary
`
`Order of Forfeiture as to Specific Property/Money Judgment (the “Order of Forfeiture”) (D.E.
`
`344), imposing a money judgment against the Defendant in the amount of $3,500,000,000.00 and
`
`forfeiting, inter alia, all of the Defendant’s right, title and interest in certain property of the
`
`Defendant;
`
`WHEREAS, on or about June 9, 2021, the Court entered a Preliminary Order of
`
`Forfeiture as to Substitute Assets (the “Substitute Asset Order”) (D.E. 447) forfeiting, inter alia,
`
`all right, title and interest of the Defendant in the following assets that at the time were in the
`
`possession, custody, and control of the Monitor (the “FTC Monitor”) appointed in an action
`
`brought by the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) against the Defendant, among others,
`
`captioned FTC v. AMG Services, Inc., et al., 12 Civ. 536 (GMN) (VCF), in the United States
`
`District Court of Nevada (the “FTC Action”):
`
`
`
`
`
`a.
`
`$106,881.69 in United States currency representing the proceeds received
`by the FTC Monitor from the sale of the real property located at 100
`Manning Street, Newark, Ohio, 43055 and 502 Maple Avenue, Newark,
`Ohio 43055, a recycling plant located in Licking County, Ohio,
`representing EVAS Investment LLC’s interest (Item Q in the Substitute
`Asset Order);
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cr-00091-PKC Document 488 Filed 10/07/22 Page 5 of 14Case 1:16-cr-00091-PKC Document 489 Filed 10/07/22 Page 3 of 12
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`e.
`
`$3,100,000 representing funds received by the FTC Monitor from German
`May relating to monies owed to Westfund LLC (Item WW in the
`Substitute Asset Order);
`
`$10,000 representing funds received by the FTC Monitor from
`Homeowners Realty Partners, LLC resolving a promissory note held by
`EVAS Investments LLC (Item XX in the Substitute Asset Order);
`
`$1,262,039.29 representing funds received by the FTC Monitor from
`EyeVerify, LLC relating to Defendant’s interest in EyeVerify, LLC (Item
`ZZ in the Substitute Asset Order); and
`
`$104,535.72 representing funds received by the FTC Monitor from Jerry
`Gottlieb pursuant to a settlement agreement resolving monies owed to
`Defendant (Item FFF in the Substitute Asset Order)
`
`
`(a. through e., collectively, the “Subject Property”);
`
`
`
`
`
`WHEREAS, David Feingold, both individually and as Trustee for the David
`
`Feingold B. Trust dated February 1996, the Chad M. Feingold Grantor Trust #2 dated November
`
`1999, and the Erika Feingold Grantor Trust #2 dated November 1999; Dylan Jagger Investment
`
`Co.; Homeowners Realty, LLC; UMR Building, LLC, United Material Recovery, LLC and EVAS
`
`Investments, LLC (collectively, the “Feingold Petitioners”) filed a Verified Petition for an
`
`Ancillary Proceeding asserting an interest in the Subject Property (the “Feingold Petition”) (D.E.
`
`464);
`
`
`
`
`
`WHEREAS, Kim Tucker, the Defendant’s former wife, and several corporate
`
`entities Kim Tucker claims to currently own (the “Kim Tucker Parties”) filed third-party petitions
`
`asserting an interest in, inter alia, the Subject Property (collectively, the “Kim Tucker Petitions”)
`
`(D.E. 450 and 463);
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cr-00091-PKC Document 488 Filed 10/07/22 Page 6 of 14Case 1:16-cr-00091-PKC Document 489 Filed 10/07/22 Page 4 of 12
`
`
`
`
`
`
`WHEREAS, Paul C. Ray, filed a Third-Party Petition asserting an interest in, inter
`
`alia, the Subject Property (the “Ray Petition”) (D.E. 476);
`
`
`
`
`
`WHEREAS, the total value of the Subject Property is approximately $4,583,456.70
`
`in United States currency; and
`
`WHEREAS, the Government, the Feingold Petitioners, the Kim Tucker Parties,
`
`and Paul C. Ray have agreed to settle the Feingold Petition and a portion of the Kim Tucker
`
`Petitions and the Ray Petition with respect to their claims of interest in the Subject Property
`
`without further litigation on the terms and conditions set forth below;
`
`WHEREAS, on August 24, 2022, an order was issued in the FTC Action (the
`
`“Transfer Order”) requiring the FTC Monitor to “[p]romptly . . . transfer all remaining funds
`
`[collected by the Monitor], after deductions for the fees and expenses approved in this Order
`
`[and] the reserve approved [therein], to the United States of America or its designee pursuant to
`
`the [Order of Forfeiture],” which includes, but is not limited to, the Subject Property;
`
`WHEREAS the Government has subsequently received the transfer of funds
`
`contemplated by the Transfer Order (the “Funds”);
`
`IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between the United
`
`States of America, by its attorney Damian Williams, United States Attorney, Assistant United
`
`States Attorney, Sagar K. Ravi of counsel; the Feingold Petitioners by and through their counsel
`
`Carol Lee, Esq.; the Kim Tucker Parties and their counsel, Richard Finneran, Esq.; and Paul C.
`
`Ray, pro se, that:
`
`1.
`
`The Government shall release and transfer $686,417 of the Subject
`
`Property (the “Feingold Settlement”) to the Feingold Petitioners.
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cr-00091-PKC Document 488 Filed 10/07/22 Page 7 of 14Case 1:16-cr-00091-PKC Document 489 Filed 10/07/22 Page 5 of 12
`
`
`
`2.
`
`The Government shall release and transfer $213,822.38 (the “Kim Tucker
`
`Parties’ Settlement”) to Kim Tucker.
`
`3.
`
`The Government shall release and transfer $20,000 of the Subject Property
`
`(the “Ray Settlement”) to Paul C. Ray.
`
`4.
`
`Subject to and conditioned upon the release and transfer of the Feingold
`
`Settlement, the Kim Tucker Parties’ Settlement, and the Ray Settlement as set forth above, the
`
`Feingold Petitioners, the Kim Tucker Parties, and Paul C. Ray agree not to contest the United
`
`States’ contention, pursuant to Title 21, United States Code, Section 853(n)(6)(A), that the
`
`Government has a superior interest in the Subject Property, with the exception of the Feingold
`
`Settlement, the Kim Tucker Parties’ Settlement, and the Ray Settlement.
`
`5.
`
`Subject to and conditioned upon the release and transfer of the Feingold
`
`Settlement as set forth above, the Feingold Settlement shall satisfy all claims contained in the
`
`Feingold Petition and the Feingold Parties hereby withdraw any remaining claims to the Subject
`
`Property or to any other property identified in the Substitute Asset Order.
`
`6.
`
`Subject to and conditioned upon the release and transfer of the Kim
`
`Tucker Parties’ Settlement as set forth above, the Kim Tucker Parties’ Settlement shall satisfy all
`
`claims contained in the Kim Tucker Petitions only with respect to the Subject Property and does
`
`not preclude the Kim Tucker Parties from asserting any claims in the remaining assets identified
`
`in the Substitute Asset Order or any other assets or challenging the Substitute Assets Order with
`
`respect to the remaining assets identified in the Substitute Asset Order or in any other assets.
`
`Except as provided in this paragraph, nothing in this Stipulation and Order, including its recitals,
`
`shall be construed as a concession by the Kim Tucker Parties as to any issue that has been raised
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cr-00091-PKC Document 488 Filed 10/07/22 Page 8 of 14Case 1:16-cr-00091-PKC Document 489 Filed 10/07/22 Page 6 of 12
`
`
`or may be raised in this or any other proceeding, or otherwise used to the detriment of any one of
`
`them.
`
`7.
`
`Subject to and conditioned upon the release and transfer of the Ray
`
`Settlement as set forth above, the Ray Settlement shall satisfy all claims contained in the Ray
`
`Petition only with respect to the Subject Property and does not preclude Paul C. Ray from
`
`asserting any claims in the remaining assets identified in the Substitute Asset Order or in any
`
`other assets or challenging the Substitute Assets Order with respect to the remaining assets
`
`identified in the Substitute Asset Order or any other assets. Except as provided in this paragraph,
`
`nothing in this Stipulation and Order, including its recitals, shall be construed as a concession by
`
`Paul C. Ray as to any issue that has been raised or may be raised in this or any other proceeding,
`
`or otherwise used to his detriment.
`
`8.
`
`Subject to and conditioned upon the release and transfer of the Feingold
`
`Settlement, the Kim Tucker Parties’ Settlement, and the Ray Settlement as set forth above, the
`
`Feingold Petitioners, the Kim Tucker Parties, and Paul C. Ray (the “Settling Parties”) are hereby
`
`barred from asserting, or assisting others in asserting, any claim against the United States of
`
`America (“USA”), the IRS, the Department of Treasury (“DOT”), the Department of Justice
`
`(“DOJ”), the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York (“USAO-SDNY”), or
`
`any agents and employees of the USA, the IRS, the DOT, the DOJ, or the USAO-SDNY, in
`
`connection with or arising out of the seizure, restraint, and/or constructive possession of the
`
`Subject Property, including, but not limited to, any claim that there was no probable cause to
`
`seize and/or forfeit the Subject Property, that the Settling Parties are a prevailing party with
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cr-00091-PKC Document 488 Filed 10/07/22 Page 9 of 14Case 1:16-cr-00091-PKC Document 489 Filed 10/07/22 Page 7 of 12
`
`
`respect to the Subject Property, or that the Settling Parties are entitled to attorney’s fees or any
`
`award of interest on account of this Stipulation and Order.
`
`9.
`
`Subject to and conditioned upon the release and transfer of the Feingold
`
`Settlement, the Kim Tucker Parties’ Settlement, and the Ray Settlement as set forth above, the
`
`Settling Parties hereby agree to waive all rights to appeal or otherwise challenge or contest the
`
`validity of this Stipulation and Order.
`
`10.
`
`Each party shall bear its own costs and attorney’s fees with respect to this
`
`Stipulation and Order.
`
`11.
`
`This Stipulation and Order may be executed in counterparts, each of which
`
`shall constitute an original as against the party whose signature appears on it. All executed
`
`counterparts shall be deemed to be one and the same instrument. This Stipulation and Order
`
`shall become binding when one or more counterparts, individually or taken together, bears the
`
`signature of all parties.
`
`
`
`[REMAINDER OF PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cr-00091-PKC Document 488 Filed 10/07/22 Page 10 of 14Case 1:16-cr-00091-PKC Document 489 Filed 10/07/22 Page 8 of 12
`
`12.
`
`A facsimile or electronic image of the original signature of any party
`
`executing this Stipulation and Order shall be deemed an original signature and shall constitute an
`
`original as against the party whose signature appears in the facsimile or electronic image.
`
`AGREED AND CONSENTED TO:
`
`DAMIAN WILLIAMS
`United States Attorney for the
`Southern District of New York
`Attorney for the United States
`
`By:
`
`SAGAR K. RAVI
`Assistant United States Attorney
`One St. Andrew’s Plaza
`New York, New York 10007
`(212) 637-2195
`
`THE FEINGOLD PETITIONERS
`
`By:
`
`By:
`
`DAVID FEINGOLD
`Petitioner, Individually and on behalf of
`the Feingold Petitioners.
`
`CAROL LEE, ESQ.
`Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP
`31 West 52nd Street
`New York, New York 10019-6131
`(212) 858-1000
`Attorneys for the Feingold Petitioners
`
`(cid:20)(cid:19)(cid:18)(cid:19)(cid:22)(cid:18)(cid:21)(cid:19)(cid:21)(cid:21)
`DATE
`
`DATE
`
`DATE
`
`[SIGNATURES CONTINUE OF THE FOLLOWING PAGE]
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cr-00091-PKC Document 488 Filed 10/07/22 Page 11 of 14Case 1:16-cr-00091-PKC Document 489 Filed 10/07/22 Page 9 of 12
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cr-00091-PKC Document 488 Filed 10/07/22 Page 12 of 14Case 1:16-cr-00091-PKC Document 489 Filed 10/07/22 Page 10 of 12
`
`12.
`
`A facsimile or electronic image of the original signature of any party
`
`executing this Stipulation and Order shall be deemed an original signature and shall constitute an
`
`original as against the party whose signature appears in the facsimile or electronic image.
`
`AGREED AND CONSENTED TO:
`
`DAMIAN WILLIAMS
`United States Attorney for the
`Southern District of New York
`Attorney for the United States
`
`By:
`
`SAGAR K. RAVI
`Assistant United States Attorney
`One St. Andrew’s Plaza
`New York, New York 10007
`(212) 637-2195
`
`THE FEINGOLD PETITIONERS
`
`By:
`
`By:
`
`DAVID FEINGOLD
`Petitioner, Individually and on behalf of
`the Feingold Petitioners.
`
`CAROL LEE, ESQ.
`Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP
`31 West 52nd Street
`New York, New York 10019-6131
`(212) 858-1000
`Attorneys for the Feingold Petitioners
`
`DATE
`
`DATE
`
`10/3/2022
`DATE
`
`[SIGNATURES CONTINUE OF THE FOLLOWING PAGE]
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cr-00091-PKC Document 488 Filed 10/07/22 Page 13 of 14Case 1:16-cr-00091-PKC Document 489 Filed 10/07/22 Page 11 of 12
`
`10-6-2022
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cr-00091-PKC Document 488 Filed 10/07/22 Page 14 of 14Case 1:16-cr-00091-PKC Document 489 Filed 10/07/22 Page 12 of 12
`
`Date: 10/7/2022
`
`