United States v. Boutros

Citation: Not availableDocket: Criminal No. 2019-0264

Court: District Court, District of Columbia; December 16, 2019; Federal District Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Defendant Tricia Steele Boutros faces charges of Wire Fraud and Aggravated Identity Theft. Following an initial release order on October 28, 2019, the Government sought revocation of her release on November 21, 2019, claiming she violated release conditions by engaging in additional fraudulent activities and failing to obtain prior approval for transactions over $1,000. During a December 9, 2019 hearing, the Government introduced evidence from a search warrant that discovered controlled substances sent to the Defendant's home. The Defendant contested the Government's claims regarding her financial transactions and the search findings. After hearings on December 9 and 11, 2019, the court found probable cause for revocation under the Bail Reform Act, asserting that no conditions could ensure her appearance or community safety. Consequently, the court ordered her held without bond based on the evidence presented, including testimony from FBI Special Agent Joshua A. Huckel and supporting documents filed by both parties and Pretrial Services.

The Court has made factual findings to supplement those recorded on December 11, 2019, focusing on financial transactions exceeding $1,000. The Defendant operates three accounts: a Charles Schwab brokerage account, a Paxos Trust Company account, and a Paxful account, the latter two dealing in cryptocurrency. On October 25, 2019, the Defendant transferred $30,000 in total from her Charles Schwab account to her Paxos account. 

Subsequently, on October 30, 2019, an individual identified as J.S., who suffers from Parkinson's Disease, granted computer access to two men referred to as 'Jack Wilson' and an unnamed associate. After multiple contacts, J.S. allowed access, leading to unauthorized transfers from J.S.'s accounts—including a $29,000 transfer from J.S.’s Charles Schwab Inherited IRA account to the Defendant's account, and a $5,000 transfer to Rockwell Capital Management. An attempted transfer to an account in Hong Kong was not completed. 

J.S. later informed Agent Huckel about the wire transfers and asserted that Jack Wilson and his associate had hacked into J.S.’s computer. On October 31, 2019, the Defendant made three Bitcoin transfers totaling $29,000 via her Paxful account to a user named 'RedWomen.' On November 7, 2019, Charles Schwab reversed the wire transfer to the Defendant’s account, which she unsuccessfully attempted to dispute, claiming the transfer was for 'property.' 

Defendant's counsel argued that the transactions were part of an agreement made before the Court imposed pretrial release conditions, but conceded that no evidence supported this claim, nor did the Defendant obtain prior approval from Pretrial Services. The Court determined that there is clear evidence of violations of release conditions regarding the Defendant’s transfers after October 28, 2019.

Additionally, on November 8, 2019, a search warrant was authorized for a package sent to the Defendant's home, believed to contain controlled substances from a Dark Web supplier. The package ultimately contained 70 Soma pills, classified as a Schedule IV controlled substance under the Controlled Substances Act.

Three packages were sent from a Dallas sender to the Defendant's home on September 12, October 3, and October 23, 2019, with a seized package dated November 5, 2019. Although the Defendant's counsel acknowledged that the packages reached the apartment building, they disputed whether the Defendant received them, noting her status as a recovering addict. Following this, the Court mandated drug testing on October 28, 2019, which returned negative results for substances tested, although carisoprodol was not included in the tests.

The Court established probable cause that the Defendant attempted and conspired to possess controlled substances post-October 28, 2019. It found by clear and convincing evidence that the Defendant violated her pretrial release conditions by engaging in financial transactions exceeding $1,000 without PSA approval after that date. Notable transactions included a $29,000 wire transfer from J.S. to the Defendant and three bitcoin transfers totaling $29,000 to 'RedWomen.' The Defendant's counsel argued her ignorance of the circumstances of the J.S. transfer, but the Court maintained that the Defendant was aware of the wire transfer and contested its reversal. 

Regarding the bitcoin transfers, the Court concluded that these constituted financial transactions regardless of whether they resulted in value being received by the Defendant. The Defendant provided no evidence of any pre-existing agreements for these transactions prior to her release, and the Court determined that the transactions clearly violated the prohibition against financial dealings exceeding $1,000. 

Additionally, the Court found probable cause for violations of federal law, specifically that the Defendant attempted and conspired to possess a controlled substance in violation of 18 U.S.C. 846 and 21 U.S.C. 844(a).

The Government bears the burden to establish, by a probable cause standard, that the Defendant conspired to possess a controlled substance, including demonstrating the time frame of the conspiracy and the statute violated, regardless of the absence of specific acts in furtherance. A conspiracy requires an agreement between at least two individuals to violate the Controlled Substances Act, with the Government needing to prove that the Defendant knowingly entered the conspiracy with specific intent. To show that the Defendant attempted to possess a controlled substance, the Government must demonstrate that she engaged in conduct that would constitute the crime under her belief of the circumstances, requiring a "substantial step" towards the commission of the crime with the requisite intent.

For the underlying crime, the Government must prove that the Defendant knowingly or intentionally possessed a controlled substance, which can be actual or constructive possession. Knowledge can be established if the Defendant knew she possessed a substance listed on the schedules, even if she did not know its specific identity, or by showing she knew the substance's identity. 

The Court found reasonable inferences that the Defendant communicated with a third party to send controlled substances to her home and ordered a package containing Carisoprodol shortly after the imposition of her pretrial release conditions. It was inferred that the order was made shortly before the package was shipped, given the online nature of the transaction. While the Defendant's admission of being a recovering addict suggests intentional ordering of the package, her counsel proposed alternative explanations involving her ex-husband or drug traffickers. However, these theories were deemed implausible due to the specifics of the transactions and the fact that the package was addressed to her real name and address.

Defendant is found to have engaged in a conspiracy to possess Carisoprodol, a Schedule IV controlled substance, evidenced by her ordering packages and the shipment from an unknown supplier between September 12 and November 5, 2019. The Court infers that Defendant knowingly possessed the substance, as it is more likely than not that she ordered it and communicated her intentions to the supplier. Additionally, Defendant demonstrated intent to possess by directing the package to her apartment and taking substantial steps towards possession after pretrial conditions were imposed. 

The Court notes that Defendant's financial transactions pose a danger to the community, revealing potentially fraudulent activity. Although the Government did not pursue revocation of her pretrial conditions based solely on fraud violations, it highlighted concerns regarding the legitimacy of a $29,000 wire transfer linked to a conversation between Defendant and a Charles Schwab employee. Defendant claimed the transaction was a currency exchange, while the Government suggested it was illegitimate and involved fraud against a retiree suffering from Parkinson's Disease. The Court imposed restrictions on transactions over $1,000 to protect the public, as Defendant's actions indicated recklessness in verifying identities and securing agreements, ultimately leading to public harm. 

Given the nature of the offenses and violations of release conditions, the Court concludes that no conditions can ensure Defendant will not pose a danger to the community, supporting the decision for detention under 18 U.S.C. 3142(g).

Defendant's nonviolent actions have resulted in significant harm to the victims and J.S. The evidence supporting the charged offenses and violations of pretrial release conditions suggests a slight preference for detention, as outlined in 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g)(2). The Court finds the evidence regarding the violations of release conditions to be clear and convincing, which also favors detention. 

Defendant's history indicates a disregard for court-imposed conditions, with transactions occurring shortly after acknowledging these conditions. This pattern includes complex and harmful financial dealings, including purchasing controlled substances from the dark web, suggesting a risk of future similar conduct despite a lack of prior criminal record. The potential danger to the community weighs in favor of detention, particularly given the substantial harm to J.S. and the risk of similar future actions.

The Court notes that no monitoring conditions could sufficiently prevent Defendant from posing a danger to others, as the Pretrial Services Agency lacks the capability to surveil her bank or internet activities. Therefore, no conditions of release would adequately ensure community safety.

Defendant's alleged attempt and conspiracy to possess a controlled substance under 21 U.S.C. § 844(a) and § 846 further support detention, despite these being misdemeanors lacking a presumption against release. The sophistication displayed in evading detection through complex transactions enhances the case for detention. While the weight of evidence for the charged offenses remains inconclusive, the history and characteristics of the Defendant strongly favor detention, as stated in 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g)(3).

Defendant has exhibited a pattern of harmful financial transactions, including violations of pretrial release conditions and the apparent purchase of controlled substances from the dark web. Although she has no prior criminal record, this behavior raises concerns about the potential for future law violations. The Court assesses the nature of the danger to the community as slightly favoring detention, as outlined in 18 U.S.C. 3142(g)(4). There is no evidence that Defendant intended to distribute controlled substances; however, her financial support of a third-party supplier's criminal activities poses a risk. Effective monitoring of her internet activity and drug testing would be necessary to mitigate this risk, but the Pretrial Services Agency lacks the capability to monitor her internet use. Consequently, the Court concludes that no conditions of release would adequately ensure community safety, as per 18 U.S.C. 3148(b)(2)(A). Although Defendant's counsel proposed regular drug testing and treatment options, the Court determined that these would not resolve the inherent risks due to Defendant's sophisticated drug use and ability to circumvent testing by using the dark web. Thus, the Court orders Defendant to be held without bond, following the December 11, 2019 Order of Detention.