This docket entry was made by the Clerk on Tuesday, January 9, 2024: MINUTE entry before the Honorable Thomas M. Durkin: as to Rishi Shah, Shradha Agarwal, Brad Purdy.

A telephone conference is set for 1/11/2024 at 10:30 a.m. All deadlines are stayed pending further discussion on the call.

Violation of these prohibitions may result in sanctions, including removal of court issued media credentials, restricted entry to future hearings, denial of entry to future hearings, or any other sanctions deemed necessary by the Court.

If a minute order or other document is enclosed, please refer to it for additional information.

For scheduled events, motion practices, recent opinions and other information, visit our web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov.

FOR THE Northern District of Illinois − CM/ECF NextGen 1.7.1.1 Eastern Division

This docket entry was made by the Clerk on Tuesday, January 9, 2024: MINUTE entry before the Honorable Thomas M. Durkin: as to Rishi Shah, Shradha Agarwal, Brad Purdy.

The telephone conference set for 1/11/2024 at 10:30 a.m. is reset for 1/12/2024 at 1:00 p.m.

If a minute order or other document is enclosed, please refer to it for additional information.

For scheduled events, motion practices, recent opinions and other information, visit our web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov.

FOR THE Northern District of Illinois − CM/ECF NextGen 1.7.1.1 Eastern Division

This docket entry was made by the Clerk on Thursday, January 4, 2024: MINUTE entry before the Honorable Thomas M. Durkin: as to Rishi Shah, Shradha Agarwal.

For the reasons stated on the record, evidentiary hearing adjourned.

If a minute order or other document is enclosed, please refer to it for additional information.

For scheduled events, motion practices, recent opinions and other information, visit our web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov.

Forfeiture Allegation One calls for any and all right, title and interest Shah may have in “any property, real or personal, which constitutes or is derived from proceeds traceable to” the charged mail and wire fraud offenses to be forfeited pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(C) and 28 U.S.C. § 2461(c).

Forfeiture Allegation Two calls for “any property constituting, or derived from proceeds obtained, directly or indirectly, as a result of” the charged bank fraud offenses to be forfeited pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 982(a)(2)(A).

AMG does not instruct courts on how to interpret the statutory language of section 853, namely the broad definitions of forfeitable property and Congress’s demand that the statute be “liberally construed to effectuate its remedial purposes.” Moreover, United States v. Surgent, No. 04-CR-364, 2009 WL 2525137 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 17, 2009), the other case relied on by Shah, was rejected by the Second Circuit in Awad.

At the start, Shah claims that for bank fraud, “any calculation of the proceeds is subject to a ‘deduction from the forfeiture to the extent that the loan was repaid, or the debt was satisfied, without any financial loss to the victim.’” R. 511 at 4–5 (quoting 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(2)(C)).

Jim McHugh from JPMorgan testified that the routine under-deliveries which were concealed, the inflated financials, and the return on investment (“ROI”) studies based on “cherry-picked” samples all would have been important to know in assessing the terms of the loans and whether to underwrite.

This docket entry was made by the Clerk on Tuesday, November 14, 2023: MINUTE entry before the Honorable Thomas M. Durkin as to Shradha Agarwal: For the reasons stated in the Court's 11/9/2023 order [575], the Court will continue deadlines and set dates for argument as follows.

As to Shradha Agarwal, sentencing memorandum and objections to the presentence report are due by 1/17/2024.

The Court takes notice of Agarwal's counsel's potential conflict on that date and will address any necessary continuance early next year.

If a minute order or other document is enclosed, please refer to it for additional information.

For scheduled events, motion practices, recent opinions and other information, visit our web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov.

On November 22, 2019, this Court entered an ex parte Protective Order (Doc. #27) (the “Protective Order”), pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 853(e)(1)(A), to preserve the availability of certain property that was alleged to be subject to forfeiture in the Superseding Indictment in the above-styled criminal action (Doc. #14).

The parties agreed to an initial implementing order, which this Court issued on April 18, 2023 (Doc. #506), that released portions of the liquid funds held by the various affected entities and expressly permitted Mr. Shah to seek the release of additional property from the Protective Order.

On September 14, 2023, Mr. Shah filed a Supplemental Motion to Amend the Protective Order (Doc. #524), seeking the release of additional assets.

This Court has set a status conference for Monday, October 23 to discuss the parties’ respective positions.

THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND DECREED that, effectively immediately, this Court’s Protective Order (Doc. #27) is hereby amended to release the following funds from any and all restraints under the Protective Order, which shall be released to Mr. Shah upon his or his counsel’s request: $4,657,883.12 in liquid funds held in the name of Jumpstart Ventures, LLC, Jumpstart Ventures II, LLC, Gravitas Holdings, LLC, or Rishi Shah by Guild Capital and any Guild Capital entities.

FOR THE Northern District of Illinois − CM/ECF NextGen 1.7.1.1 Eastern Division

Unopposed Motion for Entry of Preliminary Order of Forfeiture [466] is granted.

No appearance by Shradha Agarwal is needed at the 6/16/2023 Forfeiture Hearing.

If a minute order or other document is enclosed, please refer to it for additional information.

For scheduled events, motion practices, recent opinions and other information, visit our web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov.

The following property is to be applied toward satisfaction of the personal money judgment: a. All right, title, and interest in Investment Fund A, held in the name of Jumpstart Ventures II, LLC, including, but not limited to, approximately $60,000.00 in capital contributions submitted on or around May 31, 2018; b.

Funds in the amount of $194,616.25 seized on July 8, 2021, and all remaining right, title, and interest in Investment Company C, held in the name of Jumpstart Ventures II, LLC, including, but not limited to, $50,000 in capital contributions submitted on or about January 5, 2017; y.

All right, title, and interest in Investment Fund O, held in the name of Jumpstart Ventures II, LLC, including, but not limited to, $158,879.00 in capital contributions submitted between August 8, 2016, and April 28, 2017; bb.

Specifically, the following accounts shall be liquidated and distributed as follows: a. All right, title, and interest in Investment Fund A, held in the name of Jumpstart Ventures II, LLC, including, but not limited to, approximately $60,000.00 in capital contributions submitted on or around May 31, 2018; b.

Funds in the amount of $194,616.25 seized on July 8, 2021, and all remaining right, title, and interest in Investment Company C, held in the name of Jumpstart Ventures II, LLC, including, but not limited to, $50,000 in capital contributions submitted on or about January 5, 2017; y.

Nonetheless, the court affords defendant the benefit of the doubt and assumes that he meets the “extraordinary and compelling” standard, for purposes of this opinion only.

When faced with a similar argument, the Coe court pointed to the “well-established principle that statements of coconspirators before a defendant joins the conspiracy are nonetheless admissible against him.” 718 F.2d at 839; see also ...

AGARWAL, and BRAD PURDY

Case No. 19 CR 864 Hon.

Thomas M. Durkin United States District Judge

Defendant Shradha Agarwal respectfully joins defendant Shah's Motion to Exclude Evidence and for Related Relief (Doc. 688) and his Motion to Continue Evidentiary Hearing (Doc. 690).

Respectfully submitted,

Defendant Rishi Shah respectfully moves this Court to (1) exclude evidence relating to the Government’s recent reversal of position on the traceability of certain assets that the Government had previously conceded were not traceable to criminal proceeds and (2) preclude the Government from shifting its position on that issue at this late stage of the litigation on Mr. Shah’s Motion to Dismiss or Alternatively for a New Trial (Doc. #490).

On June 26, 2023, Mr. Shah filed a motion to amend this Court’s protective order (Doc. #474) to release millions of dollars in assets that he claimed had been improperly restrained as a result of an overly broad forfeiture allegation in the Superseding Indictment (Doc. #12).

In the intervening weeks, the Government and Mr. Shah worked together to obtain records via subpoena from numerous entities prior to the hearing relating to the value and liquidity of various investments that had previously been restrained by the Protective Order (Doc. #27).

In the days that followed, the undersigned corresponded with Mr. Johnston to further ascertain the basis for the Government’s reversal of position as part of his assessment of the potential conflict issues.

• Permitting the Government to reverse its position now—after Mr. Shah has detrimentally relied on its concessions in litigating the Motion and his case in general—would cause unfair prejudice to Mr. Shah and violate a number of well- established doctrines designed to promote the fairness and predictability of judicial proceedings, including waiver, forfeiture, law of the case, judicial and equitable estoppel, and Due Process itself.

TO COURT'S MINUTE ORDER (Doc. 624) Defendant Shradha Agarwal submits this memorandum in response to the

Court's minute order (Doc. 624) concerning an evidentiary hearing on the pending motions to dismiss or for a new trial (Docs.

Ms. Agarwal intends to address two related issues at the evidentiary hearing: (1) her desire to keep her counsel of choice, McGuire Woods, and (2) her need for the improperly frozen funds to do so.

If we discover additional documents that we intend to show, we will immediately notify the government and the Court.

We anticipate that the direct examination of the three witnesses we intend to call--Ms. Agarwal, Ms. Bell, and Mr. Blegen--will take a total of ninety minutes to two hours.

Because Reeves’s reasons for seeking a sentence reduction included the potential effects of COVID-19 on his health, this court provided the parties with an opportunity to brief United States v. Broadfield, 5 F.4th 801 (7th Cir. 2021), shortly after it was decided.

On March 2, 2022, the Seventh Circuit noted that Broadfield “was handed down before Omicron became the dominant variant in this country (with an increase in breakthrough infections among the fully vaccinated).” United States v. Rucker, 27 F.4th 560, 563 (7th Cir. 2022) (per curiam).

Reeves’s supplemental medical records and briefing predate the rise of the Omicron variant, and Reeves has developed no argument or evidence concerning his susceptibility to a breakthrough infection.

On this record, and given Reeves’s representation that he intends to obtain a COVID-19 vaccine, this court, consistent with Broadfield, finds that Reeves has not demonstrated an extraordinary and compelling reason for compassionate release to the extent he continues to base his motion on his risk of exposure to

Martin augments the circuit split by holding that arguments raised or raisable on direct appeal or on habeas are inappropriate bases for a finding of extraordinary and compelling circumstances.