fashion district kidnap-ransom indictment
TRANSCRIPT
-
8/11/2019 Fashion District Kidnap-ransom Indictment
1/32
.
1
2
3
4
5
6
.7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
FILED
D
i
4
JVN
25
P
I
Jl
[ I
f.
-
--.. ...----
--
- - -
UNITED STATES DISTRICT
COURT
FOR
THE CENTRAL
DISTRICT
OF
CALIFORNIA
October 2013 Grand Ju ry
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
P l a i n t i f f ,
v.
Q.T FASHION, INC.,
dba Q.T
Matern i ty ,
dba Andres Fashion,
JONG HACK PARK,
aka Andrew Park ,
aka
Andres,
SANG
JUN PARK,
JOSE ISABEL GOMEZ ARREOLA,
aka Chabelo,
MARIA FERRE S.A. de C.V.,
LUIS IGNACIO MUNOZ OROZCO,
aka
Nacho,
ARMANDO
ARTURO CHAVEZ GAMBOA
and
DAISY ESTRADA CORRALES,
Defendants .
The Grand
Ju ry charges :
CR
No.
8Rc
372
I N D I C T M E N T
[18 U.S.C.
1956(h):
Conspiracy
to Launder Money; 18 U.S.C.
371: Conspiracy to
Operate an
Unlicensed Money
Transmi t t ing
Business and
to
Smuggle
Goods from
the United St a t e s ; 18 U.S.C.
1960 (a) ,
(b)
1} (A),
(b)
1} (B):
Operat ing an Unlicensed Money
Transmi t t ing Business ; 18 U.S.C.
982: Criminal Forfe i ture]
INTRODUCTORY
ALLEGATIONS
1. Defendant Q.T FASHION, INC., doing bus ines s as
( dba )
Q.T
Matern i ty , dba
,
Andres
Fashion
( Q.T FASHION ),
i s a wholesale
bus iness
l o c a t e d
on
12 th
St ree t
within the
Fashion
Dis t r i c t , in Los
-
8/11/2019 Fashion District Kidnap-ransom Indictment
2/32
1
2
3
Angeles,
Cal i forn ia
tha t s e l l s clo thes to
U.S.
and Mexican
businesses .
2. Defendant JONG
HACK
PARK
a l so known
as
( aka )
Andrew
4
Park, aka Andres
( JONG PARK )
i s the
owner of defendant Q. T
5 FASHION.
6
3. Defendant SANG
JUN
PARK
( SANG PARK ) i s the business
7
manager of defendant
Q.T FASHION.
8
4. Unindicted co-conspira tor
J .A. (
unindic ted
co-conspira tor
9 J .A. )
i s
a salesperson
a t
defendant
Q.T
FASHION, who
repor ted
to
10 defendants JONG
PARK
and
SANG PARK.
11
5. Defendant
MARIA FERRE
S .A.
de
C. V. ( MARIA FERRE ) i s a
12
r e t a i l
business loca ted
in Culiacan, Sinaloa, Mexico, t ha t
s e l l s
13
clothes
imported from
businesses in
Los Angeles, Cal i fo rn ia
14
inc luding bu t not
l imi ted to
defendant
Q.T
FASHION and Businesses
#1-
15
#25.
16 6. Defendant
LUIS IGNACIO MUNOZ
OROZCO aka Nacho,
i s the
17 owner
of defendant
MARIA FERRE.
18
7 .
Defendant
ARMANDO ARTURO CHAVEZ GAMBOA
i s the accountant
19
for
defendant MARIA
FERRE.
20
8.
Defendant
DAISY
ESTRADA CORRALES worked
for defendant
MARIA
21
FERRE and advised
defendants
Q.T FASHION, JONG
PARK and
SANG
PARK
22
and un ind ic ted co -consp i ra to r J .A . when U.S. dol la rs
would
be
23
del ivered
to defendant
Q.T FASHION's
business
premises
and
how the
24
dol la rs
should be
d is t r ibu ted to
defendant
Q.T FASHION, other
s tores
25
in
the Los Angeles Fashion Dis t r i c t and defendant JOSE ISABEL GOMEZ
26 ARREOLA aka Chabelo
( ARREOLA ) .
27
28
2
-
8/11/2019 Fashion District Kidnap-ransom Indictment
3/32
.
0
1
9.
Defendant
RREOL
was
hi red
by defendant M RI
FERRE
to
2
change
the l abe l s
on
c lo th ing
merchandise
Sold by defendant Q.T
3 FASHION
to
r e f l e c t
country of
or ig in
as
the
United
Sta tes
of
America
4 r a the r
than
China, in orde r for defendant M RI FERRE to obta in the
5 benef i t of pre fe ren t i a l t a r i f f s by the Mexican government
under
the
6 North
American
Free
Trade
Agreement ( NAFTA ) .
7
10.
N FT
i s a t r e a ty
between
United Sta tes , Mexico, and Canada
8
t ha t i s
genera l ly
aimed
a t
expanding
the
f low
of goods, se rv ices ,
and
9
inves tment
among
these
th ree count r ie s .
N FT
i s
codi f ied
in
T i t l e
10 19,
Uni ted St a t e s
Code,
Sect ion
3314, and the
regula t ions
promulgated
11
thereunder , namely, 19 C.F.R.
181.11 , requi re t ha t an exporter in
12
the Uni ted St a t e s , .such
as
defendant
Q.T
FASHION,
must complete
a
13
Cer t i f i c a te of Orig in form in the
United Sta tes
ce r t i fy ing
tha t
a
14 good
being expor ted
from the
United
Sta tes in to
Mexico
qua l i f i e s
as
15 an or i g i na t i ng good
for
purposes of
p r e f e r e n t i a l
t a r i f f
t rea tment
16 under
NAFTA.
17
11.
Vict im A ( Victim A ) was a Uni ted St a t e s
c i t i zen
and drug
18
d i s t r i b u to r
for the S inaloa drug
t r a f f i ck ing
organiza t ion (the
19
Sinaloa
Car te l ) ,
who was held hostage a t a ranch in Culiacan,
20
Sinaloa , Mexico,
by seve ra l members of the
Sinaloa Carte l ,
inc luding ,
21
but
not l imi ted to , un ind ic ted co -consp i ra to rs
A.F. ,
aka El Ruso
22
( unindic ted
co-conspi ra tor A.F. ) and A.O., aka Polo ( unindic ted
23 co-conspi ra tor
A.O. ) .
24
12 .
Vict im B ( Vict im B ) and Vict im C ( Victim C ) were fami ly
25 members of
Vict im
A, who rece ived ransom
demands
from
members
of
the
26 Sinaloa Carte l regard ing the re lease
of
Vict im A.
27
28
3
-
8/11/2019 Fashion District Kidnap-ransom Indictment
4/32
0
1
13. On or about September 13, 2012,
law
enforcement
se ized over
2
100 kilograms of cocaine
for
which Victims A, B, and C were
3
re spons ib le
for
d is t r ibu t ing
in
the
United
Sta tes
thereby
crea t ing
a
4 debt owed
to
the
Sinaloa Carte l .
5 14.
Members
of the Sinaloa
Cartel
including unindicted co-
6
conspi ra tor
A.F. , used businesses
in
the
Los Angeles Fashion
7
Dis t r i c t
including defendant Q.T FASHION, to launder
illi it
8
proceeds,
including
but
not
l imi ted
to ransom money and drug
9
t r a f f i ck ing
proceeds
. .
10
15.
At
a l l
t imes
re levant
to the a l lega t ions in t h i s
11 Indictment ,
defendant
Q.T
F SHION
was not
reg is te red
or otherwise
12
l i censed
as a
money t ransmit t ing business
e i t he r with the
State of
13 Cal i forn ia or the U.S. Department of
Treasury
Financial Crimes
14 Enforcement Network
and
was not exempt
from l i cens ing .
15
16. The money laundering method
known
as the Black Market Peso
16
Exchange ( BMPE ),
a l so
known as Trade
Based
Money Laundering,
was
17
u t i l i z e d by the Sinaloa Car te l in t h i s case, and i s of ten u t i l i z ed
by
18
drug
t r a f f i ck ing organizat ions ( DTOs ) in
Mexico to obtain
Mexican
19 pesos in exchange for t he i r narcot i cs proceeds in u.s.
dol la rs .
20 17. Mexican DTOs
use the BMPE scheme
to avoid Mexican
an t i -
21 money laundering
regulat ions announced in
June
2010 tha t r e s t r i c t the
22 amounts of
physical
cash denominated in U.S. dol la rs tha t Mexican
23
banks may
receive.
24 18. By using t h i s scheme (which involves
U.S.-based business
25
par t ic ipan ts such
as defendant Q.T FASHION), the DTOs
are
able to
26
co l lec t t he i r
proceeds
in Mexico without having
to
take the r i sk of
27
smuggling u.s.
currency across the Mexican border
and
without having
28
4
-
8/11/2019 Fashion District Kidnap-ransom Indictment
5/32
-
8/11/2019 Fashion District Kidnap-ransom Indictment
6/32
\
0
0
1
COUNT ONE
2 [18 u.s. c. 1956
(h)]
3
The
Grand
Jury
re -a l leges
and
incorpora tes
by
reference
as i f
4
fu l ly
s ta ted here in paragraphs
1 through 22
of
the
In t roductory
5 Allega t ions .
6 A. OBJECTS
OF
THE CONSPIRACY
7 Beginning on an unknown date and cont inuing
un t i l
on or about
8
September
18, 2013, in
Los
Angeles
County, with in
the Centra l
9
Dis t r i c t
of
Cal i forn ia ,
and
elsewhere, defendants
Q.T
FASHION,
INC.,
10
doing
business as ( dba ) Q.T Materni ty , dba Andres
Fashion
( Q.T
11 FASHION ) , JONG HACK
PARK,
a l so
known as ( aka ) Andrew
Park,
aka
12 Andres
( JONG
PARK ), SANG
UN
PARK
( SANG PARK ), JOSE ISABEL
13 GOMEZ ARREOLA, aka Chabelo ( ARREOLA ),
MARIA
FERRE S.A. de C.V.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
( MARIA FERRE ) , LUIS IGNACIO MUNOZ OROZCO,
aka
Nacho ( MUNOZ ) ,
ARMANDO ARTURO CHAVEZ GAMBOA ( CHAVEZ GAMBOA ), and DAISY ESTRADA
CORRALES ( ESTRADA ), unindic ted
co-conspira tors
A.F. , aka
El Ruse
( un indic ted co-conspi ra tor
A.F. ) ,
and A.O.,
aka
Polo,
( un indic ted co-conspi ra tor A.O. ) , J .A. ( unindic ted co-conspi ra tor
J .A. ) ,
and
others
known and unknown
to
the Grand Jury, conspired and
agreed with each
other
to knowingly and
i n t en t iona l ly
commit
offenses
aga ins t the Uni ted Sta tes , namely:
1.
Knowing t ha t proper ty
involved
in f inanc ia l
t ransac t ions
rep resen ted
the proceeds
of
some form
of
unlawful ac t iv i ty , and
which
proper ty
was, in
fac t , the
proceeds
of a
spec i f i ed unlawful
ac t iv i ty ,
t ha t
i s , hostage
t ak ing ,
in
v io l a t ion of
Ti t l e
18,
Uni ted Sta tes
Code, Sect ion 1203(a) , and
drug t r a f f i ck ing conspiracy , in
v io l a t ion
6
-
8/11/2019 Fashion District Kidnap-ransom Indictment
7/32
0
0
1
of
T i t l e 21,
United Sta tes Code,
Sec t ion 846,
conducted and at tempted
2 to conduct
f i nanc i a l
t r ansac t ions :
3
a .
With
the
i n t en t
to
promote
the
ca r ry ing
on
of
4
spec i f i ed unlawful
ac t i v i t y (hostage t ak ing and drug t r a f f i ck i ng
5
conspi racy) , i n v io l a t ion of
Ti t l e 18,
United St a t e s
Code, Sect ion
6 195 6 (a) ( 1 ) (A) ( i ) ; and
7
b .
Knowing t ha t
the t r ansac t ions were designed in
whole
8 and in p a r t to concea l and d i sgu i se the nature , the l oca t ion , the
9 source ,
the
ownership, and
con t ro l
of
the
proceeds
of
sa i d
spec i f ied
10 unlawful a c t i v i t y (hostage t ak ing and drug t r a f f i ck ing conspiracy) ,
11
i n v io l a t ion of T i t l e 18, United Sta t e s Code, Sect ion
12 1956 a)
1)
B)
( i )
.
13
B.
ME NS BY WHICH THE
OBJECTS
OF THE
CONSPIRACY
WERE
TO
BE
14
ACCOMPLISHED
15
The
ob je c t s of
the
conspiracy
were to
be accomplished
in
16 subs tance as fo l lows:
17
1
The
Sinaloa Car te l would
genera te
l a rge quan t i t i e s of
cash
18 through the
sa l e
of cocaine and the co l l ec t i on of ransom
money
in the
19
Uni ted
St a t e s .
20
2 .
The Sinaloa Car te l would order the kidnapping of Sinaloa
21
Car te l members
and
assoc ia tes , inc luding Victim
A, who
owed
drug-
22 r e l a t ed
debts
to the S inaloa Carte l .
23
3 .
The Sinaloa
Car te l ,
inc luding un ind ic ted co -consp i ra to r
24
A.F. ,
would
main ta in a
ranch
in
Culiacan,
Sinaloa ,
Mexico, where they
25 would hold those who owed drug- re la ted debts to the Sinaloa Carte l ,
26
inc luding
Vict im A, un less and u n t i l
ransoms were
pa id
(here inaf te r ,
27 A. F . s Ranch ) .
28
7
-
8/11/2019 Fashion District Kidnap-ransom Indictment
8/32
0
0
1 4. The Sinaloa
Cartel ,
including unindicted co-conspirator
2
A.F. ,
would seek repayment of drug
debts
from
the debtors f r iends
3
and
family
members,
inc luding
Victim
A's
family
members,
Victim
Band
4
Vict im c.
5 5. The Sinaloa Carte l would d i rec t ransom payments to be made
6
to
r e t a i l
businesses in
the
United States , such as
defendant
Q.T
7 FASHION.
8 6. The Sinaloa
Cartel , including
unindicted co-conspirator
9
A.F. ,
would u t i l i z e
the
Black
Market
Peso
Exchange scheme
to
launder
10
drug proceeds and ransom money through defendants Q.T FASHION, MARIA
11
FERRE and other r e t a i l businesses .
12
7.
As
pa r t of
the
Black Market
Peso Exchange
scheme,
defendant
13 MARIA FERRE
would
purchase goods from
defendant
Q.T FASHION
and
other
14
businesses .
15
8 .
Defendants
MARIA FERRE,
MUNOZ CHAVEZ GAMBOA
ESTRADA
Q.T
16
FASHION,
JONG PARK SANG PARK unindicted co-conspi ra tor J .A.,
and
17 others
would coordinate the
del ivery
of
bulk
cash to Q.T
FASHION
by
18
unknown ind iv idua l s and the
d is t r ibu t ion
of
tha t cash
to
di f fe ren t
19 businesses in the
Los Angeles Fashion
Dis t r i c t , inc luding Q.T
20
FASHION,
and
Businesses 1- 25, as well as
to
defendant ARREOLA.
21 9.
Defendant SANG PARK
would count the bulk cash del ivered a t
22
defendant
Q.T
FASHION
by unident i f ied ind iv idua l s .
23
10. Defendant
ARREOLA would
pick up remaining
cash
del ivered to
24 defendant Q.T FASHION on behalf
of
defendant MARIA
FERRE for
fur ther
25
d is t r ibu t ion
to o ther businesses or
as payment
for
defendant
26 ARREOLA s serv ices of changing the
clothing
l abe ls on merchandise
27 purchased by defendant MARIA
FERRE
from defendant Q.T
FASHION
and
28
8
-
8/11/2019 Fashion District Kidnap-ransom Indictment
9/32
I
0
0
1
other businesses
to
r e f l e c t
t ha t the merchandise
or ig ina ted from
the
2
United St a t e s o f
America
ra ther
than China
in order for defendant
3
MARIA
FERRE
to
obta in
pre fe ren t i a l
t a r i f f
t rea tment
under
NAFTA.
4 11. Unindic ted
co-conspi ra tor J.A. would send e-mails in
5 Spanish to defendant MARIA FERRE as
di rec ted
by defendants JONG
PARK
6 and SANG PARK. Unindicted
co-conspira tor J .A.
would a lso provide
7 di rec t ions
to
money cour ie r s
del iver ing
bulk cash to
defendant
Q.T
8 FASHION.
9 C.
OVERT ACTS
10 In
fur therance
of
the
conspiracy
and to
accomplish the objec t s
11 of the
conspiracy
on o r
about
the fol lowing dates , defendants
Q.T
12 FASHION
JONG
PARK SANG
PARK
ARREOLA
MARIA
FERRE
MUNOZ CHAVEZ
13 GAMBOA ESTRADA
and
unindic ted co-conspi ra tors A.F.
A.O.
and
J .A. ,
14 and othe rs known and unknown to the
Grand
Jury committed var ious
15 over t ac ts with in the Centra l Dis t r i c t of
Cal i forn ia ,
and
elsewhere
16 inc luding ,
but
not
l imi ted to ,
the fol lowing:
17 L UNDERING OF R NSOM
MONEY
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1 .
In
October
2012
the
Sinaloa Carte l
ordered the
kidnapping
of Vict im A
for
the loss of over 100 ki lograms of cocaine which
Vict im A
was re spons ib le for d is t r ibu t ing in
the
Uni ted Sta tes
with
the
ass i s t ance
of
Victims
B and C.
2.
Beginning in October
2012
for a
per iod of
severa l weeks
the S ina loa Car te l , inc luding unindic ted co-conspi ra tor A.F. he ld
Vict im A hos tage a t A.F . s ranch in Culiacan Sinaloa , Mexico.
3. Beginning
in October
2012 while Victim
A
was
held hostage
unindic ted
co-conspi ra tor
A.F.
and others bea t , sh ot , e lec t rocu ted,
and water
boarded Vict im
A among othe r ac ts .
9
-
8/11/2019 Fashion District Kidnap-ransom Indictment
10/32
0
0
1
4 .
Beginning in October
2012, while Vict im
A
was he ld hos tage
2 un ind ic ted
c o -c o n sp i r a t o r
A.F. and
o thers
s e n t t o
Vict ims
B
and c
3 ransom
demands,
as wel l as
photographs
o f
Vict im
A
proving
t ha t
4
Vict im
A
was st ll
a l i ve .
5 5. Beginning in October
2012,
while Vict im
A
was he ld hos tage
6 un ind ic ted co -consp i ra to r
A.F. t o l d
Vict im
A
t h a t un ind ic ted co-
7 c ons p i r a to r
A.F.
used
defendant
Q.T FASHION
in Los Angeles to l aunder
8 drug
proceeds
and to impor t goods from China i n t o Mexico.
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6.
On
December
14,
2012,
Vict im
B
r ece ived
a communicat ion
d i rec t i ng Vict im
B
t o de l ive r 100,000 U.S.
do l l a r s
to defendant Q.T
FASHION
l oca ted on
East 12th St ree t i n Los
Angeles , Cal i fo rn ia
and
prov id ing
a _
e lephone number assoc ia t ed with
defendant
Q.T
FASHION.
7. On
December 14,
2012,
Vict im
c c a l l e d
the
te lephone number
prov ided in
the communication d i r e c t ing
payment
to be de l ive red to
defendant Q.T
FASHION to
ask
fo r d i r e c t i ons .
8.
On
December 14,
2012,
over
the te lephone
un ind ic ted
c o -c o n sp i r a t o r
J .A. provided d i r e c t ions to defendant
Q.T
FASHION to
Vict im
C.
9. On
December 14,
2012,
Vict ims
B a n d c de l ive red 100,000
u.s.
do l l a r s
to
defendants
Q.T
FASHION S NG PARK
and un ind ic ted
c o -c o n sp i r a t o r
J .A.
10. On December 14, 2012, defendant S NG P RK and un ind ic ted
c o -c o n sp i r a t o r J .A. took
Vict im C
i n to
a
back room l oca ted
a t
defendant
Q.T
FASHION
where defendant S NG P RK counted the cash .
11.
On
December 14,
2012,
defendant
ESTRADA
sen t defendant Q.T
FASHION an
e-mai l s t ~ i n g
t ha t
defendan t
Q.T FASHION should
10
-
8/11/2019 Fashion District Kidnap-ransom Indictment
11/32
1
d i s t r i bu t e the
$100,000 U.S. do l l a r s r ece ived t ha t morning on beha l f
2
of defendant M RI
FERRE
as fol lows:
3
usiness
Name Invoice
Date
o
mo\int
o
Cash
Invoice
To e Remitted
4
Defendant
QT
36634
10/25/2012 $3,022.50
FASHION
5
Defendant
QT
36638
10/26/2012 $4,836.00
FASHION
6
Business
1
43690
10/26/2012 $3,783.50
Business
2
3291 i n t en t iona l ly
$7,260.00
l e f t blank]
8
Business 3
23504
11/28/2012 $3,633.00
9
Business
4
2012-2879
9/27/2012 $5,847.00
10
Business
4
2012-2950
10/04/2012
$6,399.00
11
Business 5
21331
9/10/2012 $2,106.00
12
Bus iness
5
21330
9/10/2012 $1,944.00
13
Bus iness 5
22661 9/13/2012
$1,080.00
14
Business
5
22669
9/14/2012 $1,620.00
15
Bus iness
5
22679
9/17/2012 $1,782.00
16
Bus iness
24 27045
8/30/2012
$2,052.00
17
Bus iness 24
27424
10/02/2012
$798.00
18
Bus iness
6
46622
10/03/2012
$8,256.00
19
Bus iness
7 72640
10/08/2012 $5,000.00
20
Bus iness
8
5226
08/31/2012
$609.00
21
Bus iness
8
5247
09/13/2012
$3,600.00
22
Bus iness
8
5257
09/20/2012
$2,268.00
23
Business
9
603808
10/05/2012
$8,410.50
24
Bus iness 9
611060
10/25/2012 $2,262.50
25
Bus iness 9 624298
11/30/2012
$318.50
26
Bus iness
10 19054
09/20/2012
$2,727.00
27
28
11
-
8/11/2019 Fashion District Kidnap-ransom Indictment
12/32
0
0
1
Business #10
19147
10/03/2012
$7,000.00
2
Business #11
81062
08/29/2012 $8,708.00
3
Business #11
81375
09/13/2012
$3,399.00
4
Business
#12 [ in ten t iona l ly 09/05/2012
$1,278.00
l e f t blank]
5
6
12.
On
December 14,
2012,
Vict im
B rece ived a
communication
7 d i r ec t ing Vict im B to
de l iver
an addi t iona l
$40,000
U.S.
dol la rs
to
8 defendant
Q.T
FASHION.
9
13. On
December 14,
2012,
defendant
ESTR D
sent
defendant
Q.T
10 FASHION an e-mai l
s t a t i ng
t ha t another
$40,000 U.S.
do l l a r s would
be
11 de l ive red and asking about the s t a tus of
the
payments
and whether
12 defendant ESTR D could send another person to
p ick up
cash from
13
defendant
Q.T FASHION.
14
14.
On December
14, 2012, Victims
B and C
re tu rned
to defendant
15 Q.T
FASHION and
de l ive red
$40,000
u.s.
do l l a r s to
defendants
Q.T
16 FASHION
and
S NG PARK
and
unindic ted co-conspi ra tor J.A.
17
15.
On
December
14, 2012,
defendant S NG P RK and
unindic ted
18 co-conspi ra tor J .A. took Victim C in to a back room
loca ted a t
19
defendant
Q.T
FASHION
where defendant
S NG
P RK
counted the
cash.
20
16. On December
14,
2012, defendant Q.T FASHION sent defendant
21 ESTR D an e-mai l
s t a t i ng
t ha t they had
j us t
brought the money,
to
22 wai t
and
to
not send
anyone.
23
17. On
December
14,
2012,
defendant
Q.T FASHION
sent
defendant
24
ESTR D an e-mai l
asking
whether
defendant ESTR D
could give the
25 businesses d i f fe ren t t imes to pick up the
money
because defendant Q.T
26
FASHION
was very
busy.
27
28
12
-
8/11/2019 Fashion District Kidnap-ransom Indictment
13/32
0
0
1
18. on December 14, 2012, defendant ESTR D sent defendant Q.T
2 FASHION an
e mai l ag ree ing
to give businesses d i f fe ren t t imes to p ick
3
up
the money
4
19.
On
December 14,
2012, defendant Q.T FASHION sent defendant
5
ESTR D
an
e mai l
conf i rming t ha t an addi t iona l $40,000 U.S. dol la rs
6 had been rece ived and was
ready
to be picked
up.
7
20. on
December
14, 2012, defendant ESTR D sent
defendant
Q.T
8 FASHION an e-mai l advis ing t ha t a
por t ion
of t h i s money
could
be used
9
to
pay
defendant
Q.T
FASHION
10
21.
On
December 14,
2012,
defendant ESTR D
i n s t ruc t ed
11 defendant Q.T FASHION
to
d is t r ibu te the
$40,000
u.s. do l l a r s
received
12 t h a t af ternoon on
beha l f of
defendant
M RI FERRE as
fol lows:
13
usiness Name
Invoice
Date
o
mount
o
Cash
Invoice
To Be Remitted
14
Defendant
Q.T 36649
11/01/12 $885.00
FASHION
15
Defendant
Q.T
36521
11/16/12
$3,508.50
FASHION
16
Defendant RREOL
$10,000.00
Business
5
21451 09/19/12
$2,889.00
17
Business
24
27500 10/09/12
$1,863.00
Business 11
81833 10/03/12
$8,737.50
18
Business
20
137045
10/04/12
$7,858.00
19
Business 24
201077 11/20/12
$4,233.00
20
22.
on
December
14,
2012,
defendant ESTR D sent defendant Q.T
21
FASHION
an
e-mai l
i n s t ruc t ing tha t
defendant
RREOL
should
be
22
provided with
$10,000 U.S. dol la rs
from the
$40,000
ransom
payment
23
t h a t Q.T FASHION previous ly received.
24
23.
On
December 14, 2012, defendant ESTR D sent defendant Q.T
25
FASHION an
e-mai l i n s t ruc t ing Q.T
FASHION to provide
Business 9
with
26
$8,410.50, $2,262.50 and
$318.50,
which were
proceeds
from the
27
i n i t i a l
$100,000
ransom payment.
28
13
-
8/11/2019 Fashion District Kidnap-ransom Indictment
14/32
0
1 24. On
December
14, 2012, a t A.F. s Ranch in
Culiacan,
Sinaloa ,
2 Mexico, unindic ted
co-conspi rator
A.F. to ld
one
of his soldiers t ha t
3
the
ransom
money
was
avai l ab le for
pick-up
in
Culiacan
and
sent
t ha t
4
so ld i e r
to
p i c k i t
up.
5 25. on
December
14, 2012,
Victim
A was
re leased from
A.F . s
6 Ranch in Culiacan, Sinaloa , Mexico.
7
26. On December 14, 2012, defendants
Q.T
FASHION,
JONG
PARK
8 and
SANG
PARK
using
the
cash del ivered by Victims
B and C, paid
9
Business
8
approximately
$2,268
u.s.
dol la rs for
invoice
number 5257
10 dated
September 20,
2012
on behal f
of defendant MARIA
FERRE.
11 27. On December 14, 2012, defendants
Q.T
FASHION, JONG P R K
12
and
SANG
PARK using the
cash de l ive red
by
Victims
B and
c, paid
13
Business
11 approximately $3,399 U.S. dol la rs
for
invoice
number
14 81375 dated
September 13, 2012 on
behal f of defendant
MARIA FERRE.
15 28. on December 17, 2012,
defendant Q.T
FASHION sent defendant
16
ESTRADA
an e-mai l s ta t ing tha t defendant Q.T FASHION paid the
17 businesses
as reques ted
by
defendant
ESTRADA and
t ha t
$282
u.s.
18 dol la rs
remain.
19
29. on December 17, 2012,
defendant
Q.T FASHION sent
defendant
20
ESTRADA
an e-mai l s t a t ing tha t $256
U.S. dol la rs remained
from
the
21 $100,000 t ha t
had
been
del ivered
on
December
14,
2012, and
tha t $30
22
U.S. dol la rs
remained from the
$40,000
tha t
had
been delivered
l a t e r
23 tha t day.
24 L UNDERING OF DRUG TR FFICKING CONSPIR CY PROCEEDS
25 30.
on June 5,
2012, defendant Q.T
FASHION
sen t defendant
26 ESTRADA an e-mai l
s t a t ing tha t
defendant ARREOLA picked up $7,000
27
U.S.
dol la rs .
28
14
-
8/11/2019 Fashion District Kidnap-ransom Indictment
15/32
0
0
1 31. On
June 13, 2012, defendant ESTR D
sent
defendant Q.T
2 FASHION an e-mail s t a t ing tha t defendant M RI FERRE loca ted in
3
Culiacan,
Sinaloa,
Mexico,
was
t rying to
buy
dol la rs
and
tha t
4
defendant
Q.T F SHION
knew
tha t the U.S. dol l a r was curren t ly
5 expensive in Mexico a t tha t poin t in t ime.
6 32. On
June 19, 2012,
defendant
Q.T
FASHION sen t defendant
7 M RI
FERRE
an e-mail s t a t ing
tha t
Q.T FASHION had received 65,000
8 u.s. dol la rs
and
had
appl ied 14,832
u.s. dol la rs of
th i s
amount
9 towards
invoice
number 39325,
leaving
a
balance of
50,168
U.S.
10
do l la r s
11 33. On
June 19, 2012, an employee
of
defendant
M RI FERRE sent
12
defendant
Q.T FASHION an
e-mai l s ta t ing
t ha t defendant RREOL would
13
pick up
the
remaining balance of 50,168 U.S.
dol la rs
from defendant
14 Q.T
FASHION.
15
34.
On July 10,
2012, defendant Q.T FASHION
sent defendant
16 ESTR D an e-mail s t a t ing tha t
20,000 U.S. dol la rs
had
been
17 del ivered
to defendant Q.T FASHION.
18 35. On Ju ly 11, 2012, defendant
Q.T
FASHION sent defendant
19
ESTR D an e-mail
s ta t ing
tha t 15,000 U.S.
dol la rs had
been
20 del ivered to defendant Q.T FASHION.
21 36.
On Ju ly
16, 2012, defendant ESTR D
sent
defendant Q.T
22 F SHION an
e-mail asking
whether defendant Q.T F SHION received
23 15,000 U.S. dol la rs t ha t day.
24 37. On Ju ly 16,
2012, defendant Q.T
FASHION sent defendant
25 ESTR D an e-mail
confi rming
tha t defendant Q.T F SHION received
26 15,000 u.s. dol la rs t ha t day.
27
28
15
-
8/11/2019 Fashion District Kidnap-ransom Indictment
16/32
0
0
1 38. On Ju ly 16,
2012,
defendant ESTR D sent defendant Q.T
2 FASHION an
e-mai l
s t a t ing tha t
defendant
RREOL
would
pick up
3
15,000
u.s.
dol la rs
from
defendant
Q.T
FASHION.
4 39. On Ju ly 18,
2012, defendant Q.T
F SHION sen t defendant
5
ESTR D
an e-mail s t a t ing tha t 10,000 u.s. dol la rs had jus t been
6 del ivered to defendant Q.T FASHION.
7 40. On Ju ly
20, 2012,
defendant
Q.T
F SHION sen t defendant
8
ESTR D
and defendant
CH VEZ G MBO
an e-mail s t a t ing tha t defendant
9
RREOL
picked
up
7,500
U.S.
dol la rs
from
defendant
Q.T
F SHION
and
10 t ha t
13,000 u.s. dol la rs
remained.
11 41. On Ju ly 20,
2012,
defendant ESTR D sent defendant Q.T
12
FASHION an e-mail acknowledging defendant ARREOLA s
pick
up
of 7,500
13 U.S. dol la rs
14
42. on
Ju ly
27, 2012, defendant
Q.T FASHION sen t defendant
15 ESTR D
an e-mai l
s t a t ing tha t
defendant
RREOL was
a t
defendant Q.T
16
FASHION and
would
be taking 5,000
U.S. do l la r s
17 43. on Ju ly 27,
2012,
an employee of
defendant
M RI FERRE sen t
18
defendant Q.T FASHION
an
e-mai l s t a t ing
tha t
defendant RREOL would
19 be picking
up
5,000 u.s. dol la rs
20 44.
On
Ju ly
31,
2012, defendant ESTR D
sent
defendant Q.T
21 FASHION an e-mai l s t a t ing tha t defendant Q.T FASHION
would be
22
receiving
90,000 u.s. dol la rs
23
45.
on
Ju ly 31,
2012,
defendant Q.T FASHION sent defendant
24 ESTR D
and defendant
CH VEZ
G MBO
an e-mail s t a t ing
tha t
90,000
25 U.S.
dol la rs had
been del ivered , and
asking whether
defendant Q.T
26 FASHION
could
use 4,504 U.S.
dol la rs
of th i s
amount to
cred i t the
27
pending
balance
of
defendant
M RI
FERRE.
28
16
-
8/11/2019 Fashion District Kidnap-ransom Indictment
17/32
0
0
1 46. on Ju l y 31, 2012,
an employee
of d e f ~ n d n t M RI FERRE sent
2
defendant
Q.T FASHION
an
e-mai l
confirming tha t
defendant Q.T FASHION
3
could
col lec t
the
outstanding
balance
from
the
$90,000
U.S.
do l l a r s
4
to
sa t i s fy
the pending
balance of defendant
M RI
FERRE
s 47. on August 2, 2012, defendant Q.T
F SHION sent
defendant
6
ESTR D
an
e-mai l
asking
whether
defendant RREOL could pick up
7
$17,100 U.S. do l la r s
from defendant
Q.T
F SHION
tha t
day.
8 48. On August 2, 2012, an
employee
of defendant M RI FERRE
9
sen t
defendant
Q.T
FASHION
an
e-mai l confirming
tha t
defendant
10
RREOL
could
pick
up $17,100
U.S.
dol la rs from defendant Q.T
11 FASHION
12 49. On August 15, 2012, defendant Q.T FASHION
sent
defendant
13
ESTR D an
e-mai l
s t a t ing tha t defendant RREOL
had
taken a l l of the
14 cash and tha t defendant Q.T
F SHION
did not
have
any more cash
to
15 di s t r ibu te for defendant
M RI
FERRE
16
SO On August 24, 2012,
defendant ESTR D
sent
defendant Q.T
17
F SHION
an e-mai l s ta t ing tha t someone from
Business
11 would be
18 stopping by defendant
Q.T F SHION to
pick up $12,384 U.S. dol la rs
19
51.
On August 24, 2012, defendant Q.T FASHION sent defendant
20 ESTR D
an e-mai l
s t a t ing tha t
defendant Q.T FASHION made payments to
21
Business
5,
11,
and 13.
22 52. on August 24, 2012, defendant Q.T FASHION
sen t
defendant
23
ESTR D an
e-mai l
asking whether defendant Q.T FASHION should pay
24 Business 13
fo r
two invoices to ta l ing $13,224.25 u s dol lars
25
53. on August 24, 2012,
defendant ESTR D
sent
defendant
Q.T
26
FASHION an e-mai l confirming tha t defendant Q.T FASHION should pay
27
28
17
-
8/11/2019 Fashion District Kidnap-ransom Indictment
18/32
0
0
1
Business
13 a
t o t a l of
$13,224.25 U.S. do l l a r s
to sa t i s fy those
2 invoices .
3
54. On August
25, 2012,
defendant
Q.T
FASHION
sent
defendant
4 ESTR D
an e-mai l
ask ing whether defendant
Q.T
FASHION
should pay
5 Business 14, and i f so, how much.
6
55. On August 25, 2012,
defendant ESTR D sen t
defendant Q.T
7 FASHION
an
e-mai l
di rec t ing
defendant
Q.T
FASHION
to pay
$6,795.50
8
U.S.
dol la rs
to Business
14.
9
56. On August
28, 2012,
defendant
ESTR D
sent
defendant
Q.T
10 FASHION an e-mai l asking how much cash was l e f t over
from the
l a s t
11 de l ive ry .
12
57. On August 28, 2012,
defendant
Q.T FASHION
sent
defendant
13
ESTR D an e-mai l s ta t ing tha t
$6,299 U.S. do l l a r s remained
from the
14 l a s t bulk cash
del ivery.
15
58.
On
August
31,
2012, defendant Q.T
FASHION
sent defendant
16 ESTR D
an
e-mai l s ta t ing t ha t $10,000 U.S. do l l a r s had been
17 de l ive red to defendant
Q.T FASHION
18
59. On September
4,
2012,
defendant Q.T
FASHION
sent defendant
19
ESTR D an e-mai l
s t a t i n g t ha t
defendant RREOL had picked up
20 $10,000 u.s. do l l a r s from
defendant Q.T
FASHION and t ha t the
only
21 remaining
balance was with
Business
13.
22
60. On September 13, 2012, defendant
Q.T
FASHION sent
defendant
23
ESTR D an e-mai l
s t a t i n g t ha t
defendant
Q.T FASHION had rece ived a
4 de l ive ry of
$15,000 u.s.
dol la rs and ask ing
whether
defendant Q.T
25 FASHION could use $13,710 U.S. dol la rs
from
t h i s amount
to s a t i s f y
a
26 pending invoice .
27
28
18
-
8/11/2019 Fashion District Kidnap-ransom Indictment
19/32
0
0
1 61. On
September 13,
2012, an employee of
defendant
M RI FERRE
2
sent
defendant Q.T FASHION an e-mai l informing
defendant
Q.T
F SHION
3
tha t
defendant
M RI
FERRE
would
pay
defendant
Q.T
FASHION
next
week.
4 62. on September 14, 2012,
defendant ESTR D sent defendant
Q.T
5 FASHION
an
e-mai l s t a t ing
t ha t
someone from Business 15 would be
6
a r r iv ing
a t defendant Q.T FASHION to pick up a
payment of $2,080
u.s.
7 do l la r s
and asking defendant Q.T
F SHION whether
t had paid
8 Business 16 and Business 17.
9
63.
on September
14,
2012,
defendant
Q.T
FASHION
sent
defendant
10
ESTR D
an e-mai l
s t a t ing
tha t
defendant
Q.T FASHION would pay
11 Business 15, but tha t defendant ESTR D
must
t e l l Business
16
and
12 Business 17 to pick
up
t he i r
money.
13
64. On September 14, 2012,
defendant
Q.T FASHION sent
defendant
14
ESTR D
an e-mai l asking
defendant ESTR D
how much
money
Business
15 16 and Business 17
should be
paid .
l6
65. On September
14,
2012,
defendant ESTR D
sent
defendant
Q.T
l7 FASHION
an e-mai l
s t a t ing tha t $6,912 u.s.
dol la rs
should be
paid to
l8 Business 16 and $2,912
u.s.
dol la rs
should
be
paid
to Business 17,
l9 but t ha t these bus inesses should br ing t he i r
invoices
to defendant
20
Q.T FASHION
21
66. on
September
14, 2012, defendant Q.T FASHION sent defendant
22 ESTR D an e-mai l s t a t i ng tha t the
invoice
from
Business
17 showed a
23
balance of $9,832
and
asking for
fur ther
i n s t ruc t ions regarding the
24 amount Business 17
should
be paid.
25 67. on September 14, 2012,
defendant ESTR D
sent
defendant
Q.T
26
FASHION an e-mai l a t t ach ing
the two
invoices for
Business
16
and
27
Business
17, d i rec t ing defendant Q.T FASHION to
pay
the
amount se t
28
19
-
8/11/2019 Fashion District Kidnap-ransom Indictment
20/32
0
0
1
for th
on those
invoices ,
and advising defendant Q.T F SHION tha t
2 defendant RREOL
would
inform defendant
ESTR D of
mistakes.
3
68. On September
20, 2012,
defendant
ESTR D
sen t
defendant
Q.T
4 FASHION an
e-mai l asking
whether there was
any
cash
remaining from
5 the
l a s t del ivery of
bulk cash.
6
69.
on
September 20,
2012,
defendant Q.T F SHION sent defendant
7 ESTR D an e-mai l s ta t ing tha t $3,088 u.s. dol la rs remained.
8
70.
On September 21, 2012, defendant
ESTR D
sen t defendant Q.T
9 FASHION an
e-mail
s ta t ing tha t
someone
from
Business
#18
would
pick
10 up
a payment of
$3,088 u.s.
do l l a r s
11
71. On September 28, 2012, defendant MUNOZ
sen t defendant
JONG
12
P RK an e-mai l s t a t ing tha t during the fol lowing
months,
defendant
13 MUNOZ would be
in charge
of a l l payments
to defendant Q.T F SHION
14
un t i l defendant MUNOZ was able
to
s t ab i l i ze the payments and have
15
defendant
M RI
FERRE
once
again
in
good
s tanding
with defendant
Q.T
16
FASHION
17
72. on
October 1,
2012,
defendant ESTR D sent defendant Q.T
18
FASHION an e-mail s t a t ing tha t Pedro
from
Business #19 would
pick
19 up
$16,904
from defendant
Q.T
FASHION
20
73.
On
October 1,
2012, defendant ESTR D
sent
defendant
S NG
21
P RK an e-mai l
asking whether
some guy
had
de l ive red
cash to
22
defendant
Q.T
FASHION
23 74. on
October 1,
2012,
defendant
S NG P RK
sen t an e-mail to
24
defendant
ESTR D confirming tha t cash had been del ivered to
25 defendant
Q.T
FASHION
and
tha t defendant CH VEZ G MBO advised
26 defendant S NG P RK to take $10,000
U.S.
dol la rs
as
payment
for
27
28
20
-
8/11/2019 Fashion District Kidnap-ransom Indictment
21/32
0
0
1
outs tanding
invoices ,
thereby
leaving
$70,000 u.s.
dol la rs
for
2 defendant ESTRADA
3
75.
On
October
1,
2012,
defendant
ESTRADA
sen t
defendant
SANG
4
PARK
an
e-mai l
s ta t ing tha t the
lady from Business
#17 would be
5
a r r iv ing
a t defendant Q.T FASHION to pick up cash, di rec t ing
6 defendant SANG
PARK
to pay her $10,125 U.S.
do l l a r s ,
and advising
7
tha t
Business #20
a lso would be picking
up
money from
defendant
Q.T
8 FASHION.
9
76. on
October
1,
2012,
defendant
CHAVEZ
GAMBOA
sent
defendant
10 ESTRADA
an
e-mai l showing
tha t
defendant MARIA FERRE owed
$79,225
11 U.S. dol la rs to 10 d i f fe ren t businesses , inc luding
to
defendant Q.T
12 FASHION Business #6, Business
#9,
Business
#17,
Business #18,
13 Business #19, Business
#20,
and Business #24.
14 77. on October 1, 2012,
using
coded language, defendant CHAVEZ
15 GAMBOA sent
defendant
Q.T FASHION
an e-mai l asking whether
they
16 del ivered
80
T-sh i r t s .
17
78.
on
October
1,
2012, defendant CHAVEZ
GAMBOA
sent defendant
18 Q.T FASHION an e-mai l s ta t ing tha t Pedro would pick up a payment of
19 $16,904 U.S
.
do l l a r s fo r
his
invoice .
20
79.
On October
2,
2012, defendant ESTRADA sen t defendant Q.T
21
FASHION an e-mai l
s t a t ing
tha t
someone from Business
#20 would
22
co l lec t $8,594
U.S.
do l l a r s
from defendant Q.T FASHION.
23 80.
On
October 18, 2012,
defendant
CHAVEZ
GAMBOA
sent defendant
24 Q.T FASHION
an
e-mail
s ta t ing
tha t defendant MARIA FERRE was t ry ing
25
to
get
U.S. do l l a r s
but
had
not been able to do so tha t
week.
26
27
28
21
-
8/11/2019 Fashion District Kidnap-ransom Indictment
22/32
0
0
1 81. On November 6,
2012, defendant
ESTR D
sent defendant Q.T
2
F SHION
an
e-mail advising
tha t defendant
Q.T
F SHION would
be
3
rece iv ing
money
tha t
day.
4 82. On
November
6, 2012, defendant
Q.T
F SHION sent defendant
5
ESTR D an e-mail s t a t ing tha t defendant Q.T F SHION received $16,500
6 U.S. dol la rs
tha t day and
tha t a f t e r deduct ing the amount owed to
7
defendant Q.T
FASHION
$10,260
U.S.
dollars
remained.
8 83. On January
11,
2013, defendant
ESTR D
sent defendant Q.T
9
F SHION
an
e-mai l
asking
whether
money
had
been
del ivered
the
10 previous
day.
11
84. On January
11, 2013, defendant
Q.T F SHION sent
defendant
12
ESTR D an e-mai l s t a t ing tha t no money had been
del ivered
the
13
previous
day.
14
85. On January 15, 2013, defendant
ESTR D
sent defendant Q.T
15 F SHION an e-mai l s t a t ing tha t they f ina l ly del ivered money to make
16 payments,
which
would be
del ivered
to defendant Q.T
F SHION t ha t day
17
or
the
fol lowing
day.
18 86.
On
January 16,
2013, defendant
Q.T F SHION sent
defendant
19
ESTR D an e-mai l s t a t ing tha t
t
received $5,600 U.S. dol lars and
20 asking
whether
more cash would
be del ivered.
21 87. On January 16, 2013,
defendant
ESTR D sent defendant Q.T
22
F SHION an e-mai l
s t a t ing tha t
t
should be
receiving an
addi t ional
23 del ivery of $80,000
U.S.
dol la rs
24 88. On January 16,
2013, defendant
Q.T F SHION sent defendant
25 ESTR D
an
e-mai l asking
her to please t e l l the
money cour iers
tha t
26 when they ca l l
Q.T FASHION
they
should not
mention
tha t
they
are
27
28
22
-
8/11/2019 Fashion District Kidnap-ransom Indictment
23/32
0
0
1
going to
br ing money and
they should only ask for
the address of Q.T
2
FASHION
3
89. On
Apri l
5, 2013,
using
coded
language,
defendant
CH VEZ
4
G MBO s en t defendant
Q.T FASHION an
e-mai l
ask ing whether
unindic te
d
5
co-conspi ra tor
J .A.
r ece ived 75
T-sh i r t s .
6
90.
On Apri l
5,
2013,
defendant
Q.T
FASHION sent defendant
7
ESTR D
and
defendant
CH VEZ
G MBO
an e-mai l s t a t i ng
t ha t
$10,000
8
u.s.
do l l a r s had
been
de l ive red and
asking whether invoices 37950 an
d
9
37955
could
be
pa id
from
t h i s
money.
10
91.
On Apri l
5,
2013, using coded
language, defendant
CH VEZ
11
G MBO s en t
defendant
Q.T
FASHION an e-mai l
confirming
t ha t
n
12
addi t iona l
15
T-sh i r t s
had been
de l ive red .
13
92.
On Apri l 5,
2013, using
coded language,
defendant CH VEZ
14
G MBO sent an
e-mai l
i n s t ruc t ing
defendant
Q.T FASHION
to
give
15
$10,000
u.s. do l l a r s
to defendant
ESTR D
and
t ha t
o thers would
be
16
p ick ing
up
75
T-sh i r t s
soon.
17
93.
On Apri l
8
2013, defendant
ESTR D
sent defendant Q.T
18
FASHION an e-mai l s t a t i ng
t h a t
the fol lowing businesses would pick
u
p
19
cash
from
defendant
Q.T FASHION
t ha t
day
o r the fo l lowing day:
20
usiness Name
Invoice Date
o
mount of
Cash
Invoice To e Remitted
21
Defendant QT
37950 02/06/2013
$1,870.50
FASHION
22
Business
#5
25067
02/06/2013
$2,224.50
Business
#5
25034 02/14/2013 $816.00
23
Business
#5
23957
02/19/2013
$5,568.00
Business
#6 47485
01/10/2013 $1,032.00
24
Business
#6
48443
01/10/2013
$837.00
Business
#6 48594 02/20/2013 $2,749.25
Business
#6
48636
02/22/2013 $6,195.00
5
Business
#7
1371 02/20/2013 $5,832.00
Business
#9 644369 02/11/2013
$4,819.50
6
Business
#11
JP84531
02/07/2013 $4,917.00
Business
#11
JP84849
02/20/2013 $3,486.00
7
28
Business
#12
72256
02/05/2013 $4,392.00
23
-
8/11/2019 Fashion District Kidnap-ransom Indictment
24/32
.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
0
0
Business #14
30341
02/20/2013 $1,716.00
Business #21
45392 02/15/2013 $4,872.00
Business #21
45461 02/21/2013
$2,880.00
Business #23
10765
04/03/2013
$6,322.00
Business
#25
10342
02/20/2013 $4,728.00
Business
#25 10368 02/22/2013
$1,920.00
94. On
Apri l
8, 2013,
defendant
CH VEZ
G MBO
sen t an
email
to
defendant
ESTR D s t a t i n g t ha t the
exchange
ra te for the u.s. do l l a r
to
pesos
i s 12.10,
and
he does
not
want
to
pay more than 12.
95. On May 13, 2013,
defendant
Q.T FASHION sen t
defendants
ESTR D
and
CH VEZ
G MBO
an
e-mai l
s t a t i n g
t h a t $62,000 U.S. do l l a r s
had been
de l ive red to defendant
Q.T FASHION
and
t ha t a f t e r t ak ing
$18,303
u.s.
do l l a r s owed to defendant
Q.T
FASHION, a balance
of
$43,697 U.S. do l l a r s
remained.
96. On May 17, 2013,
defendant ESTR D sent defendant
Q.T
FASHION an e mai l s t a t i n g t ha t the re would be pick-ups of $4,506
U.S.
do l l a r s by
Business
#14 and
$6,277.50
U.S.
do l l a r s
by Business #21.
97. On May
17,
2013,
defendant
Q.T FASHION
rep l i ed to
defendant
ESTRADA s May 17, 2013,
e-mail confirming
t ha t the
cash al ready
had
been d i s t r ibu ted .
98. on May 21,
2013, defendant ESTR D sent defendant
Q.T
FASHION an e mai l s t a t i n g t ha t the payments should be made as
fo l lows:
$8,924.75 U.S.
dol la rs to Business
#4; $10,000
U.S. do l l a r s
to
Business
#6;
$6,662.25
U.S.
do l l a r s
to
Business
#8; and $4,413
U.S. do l l a r s to Business #11.
99. On Ju ly
12,
2013,
defendant ESTR D sent defendant
Q.T
FASHION an e mai l s t a t i n g t ha t defendant M RI FERRE
would
send
$8,000
U.S.
do l l a r s for
Business
#11
and $5,302
U.S. dol la rs for
Business #22.
24
-
8/11/2019 Fashion District Kidnap-ransom Indictment
25/32
I
0
0
1
100. On Ju ly 12, 2013, defendant Q.T
F SHION
sen t defendant
2 M RI FERRE an e-mail confirming tha t
the
cash
for
Business #11
and
3
#22
had been
picked
up.
4
101.
On Ju ly 12,
2013,
defendant ESTR D sen t defendant
Q.T
5 FASHION
an e-mai l
s t a t ing
tha t defendant Q.T
FASHION
would rece ive
6
$25,000 U.S.
do l la r s
and
tha t
the
persons del iver ing the payment
7
would
use a code
word.
8
102.
On
Ju l y
12,
2013,
defendant
Q.T
FASHION sen t defendant
9
ESTR D
and
defendant
CH VEZ
G MBO
an
e-mai l confirming
the
rece ip t
10
of $25,000 U.S. do l l a r s and
noting tha t a
balance
of
$13,302 U.S.
11
do l l a r s remained
a f t e r t took
out $11,698
u s
do l l a r s
to sa t i s fy an
12
outstanding
invoice .
13
103.
On
September
18,
2013,
using coded
language,
defendant
14
CH VEZ G MBO
sen t defendant
Q.T
F SHION an e-mai l asking
whether
T-
15 s h i r t s
had
been
del ivered to defendant
Q. T FASHION
and
s ta t ing
tha t
16
i f so, Q.T FASHION
was
to
take
some
of the money
and apply
t
to an
17 invoice
for
which defendant
M RI FERRE
owed money
to defendant Q.T
18 FASHION.
19 104.
On
September 18, 2013,
defendant
Q.T
FASHION
sent an e-mail
20 to
defendant CH VEZ G MBO s ta t ing tha t t had rece ived
$49,980 U.S.
21
do l l a r s
and had deducted
$3,523
as payment on an invoice, which
l e f t
22
a
balance of $46,457 U.S. dol la rs .
23
24
25
26
27
28
25
-
8/11/2019 Fashion District Kidnap-ransom Indictment
26/32
'
0
1
COUNT TWO
2 [18
u.s.c.
371]
3
The
Grand
Jury
re -a l leges
and
incorpora tes
by
reference
as
i
4 fu l ly s t a t ed here in paragraphs 1 through 22 of the In t roductory
5
Allegat ions .
6 A.
OBJECTS
OF
THE CONSPIRACY
7
Beginning
on an
unknown
date
and cont inuing un t i l on or about
8 September 18, 2013, in Los Angeles County, with in the Central
9
Dis t r i c t
of
Cal i forn ia
and
elsewhere, defendants
Q.T
FASHION, INC.,
10 doing business as
( dba )
Q.T Materni ty , dba Andres
Fashion
( Q.T
11 FASHION )
JONG HACK PARK, a l so
known as ( aka ) Andrew
Park, aka
12 Andres ( JONG PARK ),
SANG
JUN PARK ( SANG PARK ), JOSE ISABEL
13
GOMEZ
ARREOLA,
aka
Chabelo ( ARREOLA )
MARIA
FERRE
S.
A.
de
C.
V.
14 ( MARIA FERRE ) LUIS IGNACIO MUNOZ OROZCO aka Nacho ( MUNOZ )
15 ARMANDO ARTURO CHAVEZ
GAMBOA
( CHAVEZ GAMBOA )
DAISY ESTRADA
16
CORRALES
( ESTRADA ) and unindic ted co-conspi ra tor J
.A.,
and othe rs
17
known
and
unknown
to the Grand
Jury,
conspired and
agreed
with each
18 othe r to knowingly and in ten t iona l ly commit the fol lowing offenses
19 aga ins t
the United
Sta tes :
20
1 . Operat ing
an
unl icensed money
t ransmi t t ing
bus iness
21
af fec t ing i n t e r s t a t e
and fore ign
commerce, in
v io la t ion of Ti t l e 18,
22 United
St a t e s
Code,
Sect ions
1960(a) , 1960(b) (1) (A), and
2 3 19 6 0
(b)
( 1 ) ( B ) ;
and
24
2 .
Smuggling
goods from the United St a t e s
in
vio la t ion of
25 Ti t l e 18, Uni ted
Sta tes
Code, Sect ion 554.
26 I I
27
I I
28
26
-
8/11/2019 Fashion District Kidnap-ransom Indictment
27/32
0
0
1 B.
MEANS BY
WHICH
THE
OBJECTS
OF THE CONSPIRACY WERE TO BE
2 ACCOMPLISHED
3
The
objec t s
of
the
conspiracy
were
car r ied
out
and
to
be
4 car r ied
out
in substan ce as fol lows:
5
1.
The
Grand
Ju ry re -a l leges
and incorpora tes
by
re ference as
6
i f
fu l ly
s t a t e d here in paragraphs 1 through 11
of
Count One Sect ion
7 B.
8
12.
Defendant MARIA
FERRE
and defendant ESTRADA would seek from
9 defendant
Q.T
FASHION and othe r
Los Angeles-based
businesses blank
10 c e r t i f i c a t e of or ig in forms
t ha t
defendant MARIA FERRE could use to
11
provide to the Mexican government t ha t
would
f a l s i f y the or ig in
of
12 merchandise tha t defendant MARIA
FERRE
would
import
in to Mexico.
13 13. Defendants Q.T FASHION
JONG
PARK
and SANG PARK would
14
mainta in b lank
c e r t i f i c a t e s
of
or ig in a t the business premises
of
15 defendant Q.T
FASHION and
would send blank ce r t i f i c a t e s of or ig ins as
16 requested by defendant MARIA FERRE.
17 C.
OVERT ACTS
18 In
fur therance
of the conspiracy and
to
accomplish the objec t s
19 of the conspi racy
on
o r about
the
fol lowing da tes defendants Q.T
20 FASHION JONG PARK SANG PARK
ARREOLA
MARIA FERRE
MUNOZ CHAVEZ
21
GAMBOA
and ESTRADA
and unindic ted co-conspira tor
J .A .
and
othe rs
22
known
and
unknown to the Grand Jury
committed
various over t ac ts
23 with in
the
Centra l D i s t r i c t of Cal i forn ia
and
elsewhere including
24 but
not l imi ted to
the fol lowing:
25 1. The
Grand
Ju ry r e - a l l eges and incorpora tes by re fe rence as
26
i f
fu l ly s t a t e d
here in Overt Acts
1 through 104 of
Count
One Sect ion
27
c.
28
27
-
8/11/2019 Fashion District Kidnap-ransom Indictment
28/32
-
8/11/2019 Fashion District Kidnap-ransom Indictment
29/32
:
n
113.
On Apri l
19,
2013, defendant
M RI
FERRE maintained records
2 showing
tha t
t had
paid $3,280 U.S.
dol la rs
to defendant
RREOL as
3
of
the
week
of
March
11-16,
2013,
and
$7,093.15
U.S.
dol la rs to
4 defendant
RREOL as
of the week of Apr i l
8,
2013.
5 114. On May 14, 2013, defendant
M RI FERRE
maintained
records
6 showing tha t defendant RREOL
changed
666 labels for Business 19 on
7
goods
or ig ina t ing
from
China,
a t
a
cos t
of
$0.75 per l abe l for
a
8
t o t a l
of $499.50.
9 115. On May 14, 2013, defendant M RI FERRE maintained
records
10
showing
tha t
defendant RREOL
changed
618 l abe ls for Business 4 on
11
goods
or ig ina t ing
from
China,
a t
a
cost
of
$0.75 per l abe l
for a
12 t o t a l
of $463.50.
13 116.
On May
14,
2013,
def
endant
M RI
FERRE maintained
records
14
showing tha t defendant
RREOL
changed 456
l abe l s
for
Business 22
on
15 goods
or ig ina t ing
from China, a t a
cost
of $0.75 per l abe l for a
16 t o t a l of
$342.
17 117. On May 14, 2013, defendant
M RI FERRE
maintained
records
18
showing
tha t defendant RREOL changed
687 l abe ls
for Business
10
on
19 goods
or ig ina t ing
from
China,
a t a
cost
of
$.70 per l abe l for a
20 t o t a l of
$480.90.
21 118. On May 14, 2013, defendant
M RI FERRE
maintained records
22 showing tha t defendant
RREOL
changed 162 l abe ls for Business
14
on
23 goods
or ig ina t ing
from
China,
a t
a
cos t of $.75 per l abe l
for a
24 t o t a l of $121.50.
25 119. On May 14, 2013, defendant
M RI FERRE
maintained records
26 showing
tha t
t had
made a
$2,586 cash
payment
to defendant RREOL
27 for changing l abe l s on goods or ig ina t ing in China.
28
29
-
8/11/2019 Fashion District Kidnap-ransom Indictment
30/32
.
0
0
1 COUNT THREE
2 [18 U.S.C.
1960(a) , 1960(b)
(1)
(A),
1960(b)
(1) (B)]
3
Beginning on an
unknown
date
and
cont inuing
un t i l
on
or
about
4 September 18, 2013, in
Los Angeles
County, with in the Centra l
5
D i s t r i c t
of
Cal i forn ia and elsewhere,
defendants
Q.T
FASHION, INC . ,
6
doing
business as
( dba )
Q.T Materni ty , dba Andres
Fashion
( Q.T
7 FASHION ) ,
JONG
HACK
PARK, a l so known
as ( aka ) Andrew
Park, aka
8 Andres ( JONG PARK ) , SANG JUN PARK ( SANG PARK ) , JOSE ISABEL
9 GOMEZ
ARREOLA, aka
Chabelo ( ARREOLA ), MARIA FERRE
S.A. de
C.V.
10 ( MARIA FERRE ) ,
LUIS
IGNACIO MUNOZ OROZCO, aka Nacho ( MUNOZ ) ,
11 ARMANDO ARTURO
CHAVEZ
GAMBOA ( CHAVEZ GAMBOA )
, DAISY ESTRADA
12 CORRALES
( ESTRADA ),
and unindic ted co-conspi ra tor J .A . and othe rs
13
known
and unknown to
the
Grand
Jury,
knowingly conducted, cont ro l led
14
managed,
supervised
di rec ted
and owned an unl icensed money
15 t ransmi t t ing bus iness af fec t ing i n t e r s t a t e and fore ign
commerce tha t
16
(1) opera ted wi thout an appropria te
money
t ransmi t t ing
l icense in a
17 Sta te
namely,
Cal i fo rn i a where
such
opera t ion i s punishable as
a
18 misdemeanor
or
a fe lony
under
s ta te law; and (2) f a i l ed to
comply
19 with
the
money t ransmi t t ing
bus iness r e g i s t r a t i o n
~ q u i r m n t s under
20
Sect ion 5330
of T i t l e 31, United
Sta tes Code,
and the
regula t ions
21 thereunder.
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
30
-
8/11/2019 Fashion District Kidnap-ransom Indictment
31/32
1
2
3
1
FORFEITURE ALLEGATION
[18 u.s.c.
982(a)
(1)]
Pursuant
to
Rule
32.2
of the Federa l
Rules
of
Criminal
4
Procedure,
not ice i s
hereby
given t ha t the United Sta tes wil l seek
5 fo r f e i tu re as pa r t of any
sentence
in accordance with Ti t l e 18,
6 United St a t e s
Code,
Sect ion 982, in the event of any defendant s
7 convic t ion under Count One o r
Three
of
t h i s
Indictment . Upon such
8
convic t ion ,
each defendant so
convic ted sha l l f o r f e i t
to
the
United
9 Sta tes
any
r igh t , t i t l e , and in te re s t
in
any proper ty , r ea l or
10 personal ,
involved
in such offense , o r any
proper ty t r aceable
to such
11
proper ty , inc luding , but not l imi ted to , a t l e a s t 1,600,000
U.S.
12 dol la rs .
13
2 .
Pursuant to Ti t l e 18, United Sta tes Code, Sect ion 982(b)
(1)
14
and T i t l e 21,
United
Sta tes Code, Sect ion 853(p),
each
defendant
15 convic ted under
Count
One o r Three of t h i s Ind ic tment sha l l fo r fe i t
16
subs t i t u t e
proper ty,
up
to the value of
the
t o t a l
amount descr ibed in
17
paragraph
one, i f ,
as
the r e s u l t of any
ac t o r
omiss ion of
sa id
18 defendant , sa i d proper ty ,
o r
any por t ion the reof , cannot be
loca ted
19 upon the
exerc i se
o f due di l igence ; has
been
t r ans fe r red , sold to , o r
20
deposi ted wi th a t h i r d
par ty ;
has
been placed beyond the j u r i sd i c t ion
21
of the cour t ; has been subs t an t i a l ly diminished in value; or has been
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
31
-
8/11/2019 Fashion District Kidnap-ransom Indictment
32/32
2
commingled with
other proper ty
tha t
cannot
be div ided without
3
d i f f i cu l t y
4
5
6
7
8
11
12
ROBERT
E.
DUGDALE
Assi s t an t United Sta t e s Attorney
13 Chief Criminal Divis ion
14
KEVIN
M LALLY
Assi s t an t United Sta tes Attorney
15
Chief
Organized Crime Drug
Enforcement Task
Force
16
ROB B. VILLEZA
17 Assi s t an t United Sta tes Attorney
Deputy
Chief
Organized Crime
18 Drug
Enforcement Task
Force
19 ANGELA L. SCOTT
Assi s t an t United Sta t e s
Attorney
20
Organized
Crime
Drug
Enforcement
Task Force
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
A
TRUE BILL
Foreperson