Home / Volley / Global Football / Transcript: The United States of America versus Daryan Warner

Transcript: The United States of America versus Daryan Warner

The following lengthy excerpts are taken from the United States of America versus Daryan Warner, which was heard by the Honourable William Kuntz of the United States District Court in the Eastern District of New York on 18 October 2013:

Photo: Ex-FIFA vice-president Jack Warner (right) and his son Daryan respond to a question from then Trinidad Express reporter Lasana Liburd on the Simpaul Travel 2006 World Cup ticket scandal.
Photo: Ex-FIFA vice-president Jack Warner (right) and his son Daryan respond to a question from then Trinidad Express reporter Lasana Liburd on the Simpaul Travel 2006 World Cup ticket scandal.

SWEARING-IN THE DEFENDANT, DARYAN WARNER

THE CLERK: We are here for a criminal guilty plea, Docket Number 13 CR 584, USA versus John Doe.

Counsel, please state your appearances for the record.

MR. LAVERNE: Good morning, Your Honor. Darren LaVerne and Evan Norris for the United States. Also with us now at counsel table is Special Agent Gerald Randall of the FBI.

THE COURT: Good morning.

MR. BRAFMAN: Good morning, Your Honor. Benjamin Brafman and Joshua Kirschahner, for Daryan Warner, who is present in the courtroom. His last name is spelled W-A-R-N-E-R.

THE COURT: All right. And we will refer to him throughout as “Mr. John Doe.” Is that acceptable?

MR. BRAFMAN: It is acceptable, even though it is a sealed proceeding — but yes, it is acceptable.

THE COURT: Okay. It just tends to minimize potential problems down the road.

MR. BRAFMAN: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: Mr. Jackson, would you please swear the defendant?

THE CLERK: Yes, Your Honor.

Photo: President Barack Obama (left) hosts FIFA president Sepp Blatter (centre) and then vice-president Jack Warner during the United States' ill-fated 2022 World Cup bid.
Photo: President Barack Obama (left) hosts FIFA president Sepp Blatter (centre) and then vice-president Jack Warner during the United States’ ill-fated 2022 World Cup bid.

THE CHARGES

The Court: “The United States Attorney charges in the introduction to Counts 1 and 2, that at all times relevant to Counts 1 and 2 of this Information: One, the Federation Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) was the international body governing organized soccer, commonly known outside the United States as football.

FIFA was an entity registered under Swiss law and headquartered in Zurich, Switzerland. FIFA was composed of as many as 208 member associations, each representing organized soccer of a particular nation or territory, including the United States and four of its overseas territories: American Samoa, Guam, Puerto Rico and the United States Virgin Islands.

Two, the World Cup Soccer’s premier event was a quadrennial international tournament organized by FIFA, involving the senior men’s teams of 32 nations.

Three, in 2006, the World Cup was held in Germany, and in 2010, the next World Cup was held in South Africa.

Four, FIFA established rules governing, among other things, the sale and use of tickets to 2006 World Cup and the 2010 World Cup. The FIFA Ticketing Office, FTO, was the official sales agent with respect to the distribution of tickets for the 2006 World Cup and the 2010 World Cup. The FTO was operated by an event-management company engaged by FIFA.

Five, from in or about and between 2005 and ’11, both dates being approximate and inclusive, the defendant, together with others, participated in a scheme to obtain World Cup tickets from FIFA based on materially false and fraudulent prettiness, representations and promises, and to resell those tickets to others for a substantial profit.

2006 World Cup ticket scheme: 6, in advance of the 2006 World Cup, the defendant, and Co-conspirator Number 1, a ticket broker based in Florida whose identity is known to the United States Attorney, agreed to be partners for the purpose of obtaining tickets to the 2006 World Cup and reselling them at a substantial mark-up.

The defendant’s role in the scheme was to purchase tickets from the FTO. After purchasing the tickets, the defendant would sell them to the co-conspirator number 1, who in turn would sell them to, among others, travel agents, tour operators and other ticket brokers.

Seven, prior to 2006, the FTO had advised the defendant, that it would not sell him tickets if the defendant intended to resell the tickets to or through co-conspirator number 1.

Eight, it was part of the scheme that the defendant attempted to purchase and did purchase tickets from the FTO. Because the defendant knew that the FTO would not sell the tickets to him for resale to co-conspirator number 1, the defendant disguised and concealed his intention to resell the tickets to co-conspirator number 1.

For example, on one occasion, defendant defendant when asked by a representative of the FTO if the was working with co-conspirator number 1, the lied and said he was not.
Nine, it was further part of the scheme that sought to disguise and conceal his intention to

defendant resell tickets for the 2006 World Cup to co-conspirator number 1 from an auditing firm that had been hired by FIFA to investigate irregularities in the resale of tickets to the 2006 World Cup.

Ten, among other things, the defendant, together with co-conspirator number 1, agreed to provide and did provide to the FTO and to the auditing firm documents that falsely represented that the defendant intended to resell tickets to the 2006 World Cup directly to certain travel agencies and tour operators not associated with co-conspirator number 1.

Eleven, as a result of the scheme, the defendant and co-conspirator number 1 made a substantial profit from the sale of the 2006 World Cup tickets that the defendant procured from the FTO based on false pretenses.

2010 World Cup ticket scheme: 12, FIFA became aware that the defendant had resold 2006 World Cup tickets obtained from the FTO to co-conspirator number 1. As a result, the defendant understood and believed that the FTO would not sell him tickets for the 2010 World Cup. Further, the defendant understood and believed that the FTO would not sell such tickets to any other individual if the FTO knew the tickets would later be provided to the defendant for resale.

Thirteen, nevertheless, the defendant continued his scheme with co-conspirator number 1 to obtain 2010 World Cup tickets and sell them at a substantial mark-up, as they did in 2006.

Fourteen, it was part of the scheme that for the purpose of causing the FTO to provide the defendant with tickets that he could resell at substantial mark-up, the defendant asked two of his family member whose identities are known to the United States Attorney, defined as the “Two Family Members,” to obtain tickets from the FTO on his behalf. The defendant understood and believed that his two family members, who at the time were FIFA officials entitled to purchase a certain allotment of tickets, obtained the tickets without disclosing to the FTO that they intended to provide the tickets to the defendant for resale.

Fifteen, after receiving the tickets from his Two Family Members, the defendant along with co-conspirator number 1, resold the tickets at a substantial mark-up. The defendant and co-conspirator number 1 made a substantial profit from the sale of tickets to the 2010 World Cup. Count 1, wire fraud conspiracy, paragraph 16. The allegations contained in paragraphs one through 15 are re-alleged and re-incorporated as if set forth fully in this paragraph.

Seventeen, in or about and between 2005 and 2011, both dates being proximate and inclusive, within the Southern District of Florida and elsewhere, the defendant, together with others, did knowingly and intentionally conspire to devise a scheme and artifice to defraud FIFA, and to obtain money and property from FIFA by means of materially false and fraudulent pretenses, representations and promises, and for the purpose of executing such scheme and artifice did transmit and cause to be transmitted in interstate and foreign commerce writings, signs, signals, pictures and sounds to wit: Interstate and international emails and wire transfers, contrary to Title 18, United States Code, Section 1343, citing Title 18, United States Code, Section 1349 and Section 3551, et sequentia.

Count 2: Money laundering conspiracy, paragraph eighteen. The allegations contained in paragraphs one through 17 are re-alleged and incorporated as if fully set forth in this paragraph.

Nineteen, in or about and between 2005 and 2011, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the Southern District of Florida and elsewhere, the defendant, together with others, did knowingly and intentionally conspire to transport, transmit and transfer monetary instruments and funds, to wit: Wire transfers from a place in the United States to and through a place outside the United States, and to a place in the United States from and through a place outside the United States, with intent to promote the carrying on of specified unlawful activity, to wit: Wire fraud, contrary to Title 18, United States Code, Section 1343, all contrary to Title 18, U. S. Code, Section 1956(a)(2)(A), Title 18, U. S. Code, Sections 1956(h), and 3551, et sequentia.

Introduction to Count 3: At all times relevant to Count 3 of this Information, the currency reporting requirements provided as follows: Structuring and currency reporting requirements. Transactions in currency were defined as transactions involving the physical transfer of money as defined in Title 31, Code of Federal Regulations, Section 1010.100(bbb).

Paragraph 21. Domestic financial institutions were required to file a currency transaction report (FinCEN Form 104, hereinafter referred to as a “CTR”) with the United States Department of the Treasury for each transaction in currency, such as a deposit, withdrawal, exchange of currency or other payment or transfer by, through or to such financial institutions in excess of $10,000, as required by Title 31, United States Code, Section 5313 and Title 31, Code of Federal Regulations, Section 1010.311.
Paragraph 22, CTRs were filed on forms that required, among other things, the identity of the individual who conducted the transaction, (Part One of the CTR) and the individual or organization for whom the transaction was completed (Part Two of the CTR).

Paragraph 23, CTRs were required to be filed to assist the United States in criminal, tax and regulatory investigations and proceedings, as stated in Title 31, United States Code, Section 5311.

Twenty-four, Structuring. “Structuring” a financial transaction, was defined in Title 31, Code of Federal Regulations, Section 1010.100(xx), as conducting or attempting to conduct one or more transactions in currency in any amount at one or more financial institutions on one or more days in any manner, for the purpose of evading the Currency Reporting Requirements including, without limitation, by breaking down a sum of currency exceeding $10,000 into smaller sums, including sums at or below $10,000, and conducting a currency transaction or a series of currency transactions at or below $10,000.

Count 3, Structuring.” Paragraph 25. The allegations contained in paragraphs 20 through 24 are re-alleged and incorporated as if fully set forth in this paragraph.

Twenty-six, in or about and between July 2011 and December 2011, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendant, together with others, for the purpose of evading the reporting requirements of Title 31, United States Code, Section 5313(a), and the regulations prescribed thereunder, did knowingly and intentionally structure, assist in structuring and attempt to structure one or more transactions with one or more domestic financial institutions by (a) breaking down sums of currency exceeding $10,000 into smaller sums including sums at or below $10,000, and depositing the smaller sums of currency into accounts with one or more domestic financial institutions; and (b) conducting a series of currency transactions, including transactions at or below $10,000 at one or more domestic financial institutions, all as part of a pattern of illegal activity involving more than $100,000 in a 12-month period, in violation of Title 31, United States Code, Sections 5324(a)(3) and 5324(d)(2); Title 18, United States Code, Section 2 and Section 3551, et sequentia.

Criminal forfeiture allegation as to Count 1, 27. The United States hereby gives notice to the defendant that upon his conviction of the offense charged in Count 1, the Government will seek forfeiture in accordance with Title 18, U. S. Code, Section 981(a)(1)(C) and Title 28, U. S. Code, Section 2461(c), which requires any person convicted of such offense to forfeit any and all property, real or personal, which constitutes or is derived from proceeds traceable to a violation of such offense.

Twenty-eight, if forfeitable property, as a the defendant: (a) cannot any of the above-described result of any act or omission of be located upon the exercise of due diligence; (b) has been transferred or sold or deposited with a third party; (c) has been placed beyond the jurisdiction of the Court; (d) has been substantially diminished in value; or (e) has been commingled with other property which cannot be divided without difficulty, it is the intent of the United States, pursuant to Title 21, United States Code, Section 853(p), as incorporated by Title 28, United States Code, Section 2461(c), to seek forfeiture of any other property of the defendant up to the value of the forfeitable property described in this forfeiture allegation, pursuant to Title 18, U. S. Code, Section 2461(c); Title 18, U. S. Code, Section 981(a)(1)(C), Title 21, United States Code, Section 853(p).

Criminal Forfeiture Allegation as to Count 2. The United States hereby gives notice to the defendant that upon his conviction of the offense charged in Count 2, the Government will seek forfeiture in accordance with Title 18, U. S. Code, Section 982(a)(1), which requires any person convicted of such offense to forfeit any and all property, real or personal, involved in such offense or any property traceable to such offense.

Thirty, if any of the above-described forfeitable property as a result of any act or omission of the defendant: (a) cannot be located upon the exercise of due diligence; (b) has been transferred or sold to or deposited with a third party; (c) has been placed beyond the jurisdiction of the Court; (d) has been substantially diminished in value; or (e) has been commingled with other property which cannot be divided without difficulty, it is the intent of the United States, pursuant to Title 21, U. S. Code, Section 853(p), incorporated by Title 18, U. S. Code, Section 982(b), to seek forfeiture of any other property of the defendant up to the value of the forfeitable property described in this forfeiture allegation, Title 18, U. S. Code, Sections 982(a)(1), 982(b); Title 21, United States Code, Section 853(p).

Criminal Forfeiture Allegations as to Count 3, 31. The United States hereby gives notice to the that upon conviction of the offense charged in Count paragraph defendant 3, the Government will seek forfeiture in accordance with Title 31, U.S. Code, Section 5317(c)(1), which requires any person convicted of such offense to forfeit any property, real or personal, involved in such offense and any property traceable to such property.

If any of the above-described forfeitable property as a result of any action or omission of the defendant: (a) cannot be located upon the exercise of due diligence; (b) has been transferred or sold to, or deposited with a third party; (c) has been placed beyond the jurisdiction of the Court; (d) has been substantially diminished in value; or (e) has been commingled with other property which cannot be divided without difficulty, it is the intent of the United States, pursuant to Title 21, United States Code, Section 853(p), to seek forfeiture of any other property of the defendant up to the value of the forfeitable property described in the forfeiture allegation, Title 31, U. S. Code, Section 5317(c)(1), Title 21 United States Code, Section 853(p).”

Signed by Loretta E. Lynch, United Eastern District of New York.

Counsel, have I read Court Exhibit Information, accurately?

MR. LAVERNE: Yes, Your Honor.

MR. BRAFMAN: Yes, Your Honor.

Photo: Slogans in Chaguanas West taunt former MP Jack Warner over his family's affairs.
Photo: Slogans in Chaguanas West taunt former MP Jack Warner over his family’s affairs.

THE PENALTIES

THE COURT: All right. This is the Cooperation Agreement, which is Court Exhibit 6 for identification. I’m going to read that in now.

“Pursuant to Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, the United States Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District and the defendant agree to the following: One, the defendant will waive indictment and where applicable, venue, and plead guilty to a three-count Information to be filed in this district, charging violations of 18 USC, Section 1349, Count 1; 18 USC, Section 1956(h), Count 2; and 31 USC Section 5324(a)(3), Count 3.

The foregoing Counts carry the following statutory penalties: Count 1, wire fraud conspiracy, maximum term of imprisonment 20 years, 18 USC, Sections 1343 and 1349; (b) minimum term of imprisonment, zero years, 18 USC, Section 1343, 1349; (c) maximum supervised release term, three years to follow any term of imprisonment. If a condition of release is violated, the defendant may be sentenced up to two years imprisonment without credit for pre-release imprisonment or time previously served on post-release supervision, 18 USC, Section 3583(b)(E); (d) maximum fine, $250,000, pursuant to 18 USC, Section 3571(b)(3); (e) restitution, mandatory in an amount to be determined by the Court, pursuant to 18 USC, Sections 3663 and 3663(a); (f) $100 special assessment, pursuant to 18 USC, Section 3013; (g) criminal forfeiture:

The defendant consents to criminal forfeiture as set forth below in paragraphs seven through 14; 18 USC, Sections 981(a)(1)(C); 28 USC, Section 2461(c) and 21 USC, Section 853(p); (h) other penalties: Removal as set forth below in paragraph 18.

Count 2, Money Laundering Conspiracy: Maximum term of imprisonment, 20 years under 18 USC, 1956(a) and (h); (b) minimum term of imprisonment, zero years, under 18 USC, 1956(a) and (h); (c), maximum supervised release term, three years to follow any term of imprisonment. If a condition of release is violated, the defendant may be sentenced to up to two years imprisonment without credit for pre-release imprisonment or time previously served on post-release supervision, 18 USC, 3583(b)(E); (d) maximum fine is the greater of $500,000 or twice the value of the monetary instrument or funds involved, pursuant to 18 USC, Section 1956(a); (e) restitution, mandatory in an amount to be determined by the Court, pursuant to 18 USC, Sections 3663 and 3663(a); (f) $100 special assessment, pursuant to 18 USC, 3013; (g) criminal forfeiture: The defendant consents to criminal forfeiture as set forth below in paragraphs seven through 14, 18 USC, Sections 982(a)(1) and 982(b), 28 USC, 2461(c) and 21 USC, Section 853(p); (h) other penalties: Removal as set forth below in paragraph 18.

Count 3, Structure: Maximum term of imprisonment, ten years, 31 USC, Section 5324(d)(2); (b) minimum term of imprisonment, zero years, under 31 USC, Section 5324(b)(2); (c), maximum supervised release term, three years to follow any term of imprisonment. If a condition of release is violated, the defendant may be sentenced up to two years imprisonment without credit for pre-release imprisonment or time previously served on post-release supervision, 18 USC, Section 3583(b) and (e); (d) maximum fine, $500,000, 31 USC, Section 5324(e)(2); (e) restitution: The parties agree that restitution with respect to any defendant’s tax liabilities — should be any of defendant’s tax liabilities — may be ordered by the Court pursuant to 18 USC, Section 3663; (f) $100 special assessment, 18 USC, Section 3013; (g) criminal forfeiture: The defendant consents to criminal forfeiture as set forth below in paragraphs seven through 14, 21, USC, Section 853(p) and 31 USC, Section 5317(c)(1); (h) other penalties: Removal as set forth below in paragraph 18. The sentence imposed on each count may run consecutively.

Two, the defendant understands that although imposition of a sentence in accordance with the United States Sentencing Guidelines is not mandatory, the Guidelines are advisory, and the Court is required to consider any applicable Guideline provisions, as well as other factors enumerated in 18 USC, Section 3553(a) to arrive at an appropriate sentence in this case.

The United States Attorney’s Office will advise the Court and the Probation Department of information relevant to sentencing, including all criminal activity engaged in by the defendant. Such information may be used by this Court in determining the defendant’s sentence.

If the defendant clearly demonstrates acceptance of responsibility through allocution and subsequent conduct prior to the imposition of a sentence, a two-level reduction will be warranted, pursuant to USSG, Section 3E1.1(a).

Furthermore, if the defendant has accepted responsibility as described above and if the defendant pleads guilty on or before October 18th, 2013 — which is today’s date — an additional one-level reduction will be warranted pursuant to USSG, Section 3E1.1(b).

Three, the defendant will provide truthful, complete and accurate information and will cooperate with the Office of the United States Attorney. This cooperation will include but is not limited to the following: The defendant agrees to be fully debriefed and to attend all meetings at which his presence is requested concerning his participation in and knowledge of all criminal activities; (b) the defendant agrees to furnish to the Office of the United States Attorney all documents and other material that may be relevant to the information to the investigation, and that are in the defendant’s possession or control, and to participate in undercover activities pursuant to the specific instructions of law enforcement agents or this office; (c) the defendant agrees not to reveal his cooperation or any information derived therefrom to any third party without prior consent of the Office; (d) the defendant agrees to testify at any proceeding in the Eastern District of New York or elsewhere, as requested by the Office; (e) the defendant consents to adjournments of his sentence as requested by the Office; (f) the defendant agrees to cooperate fully with the Internal Revenue Service in the ascertainment, computation and payment of his correct federal income tax liability for the years 2007 through 2012.

To that end, the defendant will file amended tax returns as directed by the Internal Revenue Service prior to the imposition of sentence and consents to the disclosure to the Internal Revenue Service of information relating to his financial affairs that is in the possession of third parties.

(g) The defendant agrees to comply with the forfeiture provision set forth in paragraphs seven through 14 below. The Office agrees that, (a) except as provided in paragraphs one, 16 and 17, no criminal charges will be brought against the defendant for his heretofore disclosed participation in, one, fraud and money laundering in connection with the following: (a) aiding and abetting the receipt of a bribe and/or kickback payment made by the South African Bid Committee in connection with its bid to host the FIFA World Cup; and (b) the sale of tickets for the FIFA World Cup in or about and between 1994 and 2011, as alleged in Counts 1 and 2 with respect to the 2005 to 2011 time period.

Two, structuring financial transactions in or about and between July 2011 and December 2011, as alleged in Count 3.

And three, bulk cash smuggling in or about and between July 2011 and December 2011; (b) no statements made by the defendant during the course of this cooperation will be used against him except as provided in paragraphs two, 16 and 17.

Paragraph five. The defendant agrees that the Office may meet with and debrief him without the presence of counsel, unless the defendant specifically requests counsel’s presence at such debriefings and meetings. Upon request of the defendant, the Office will endeavor to provide advanced notice to counsel of the place and time of the meetings and debriefings, it being understood that the Office’s ability to provide such notice will vary according to time constraints and other circumstances.

The Office may accommodate requests to alter the time and place of such debriefings. It is understood, however, that any cancellations or reschedulings of debriefings or meetings requested by the defendant that hinder the Office’s ability to prepare adequately for trials, hearings or other proceedings may adversely affect the defendant’s ability to provide substantial assistance.

Matters occurring at any meeting or debriefing may be considered by the Office in determining whether the defendant has provided substantial assistance or otherwise complied with this agreement, and may be considered by the Court in imposing sentence, regardless of whether counsel was present at the meeting or debriefing.

Six, if the Office determines that the defendant has cooperated fully, provided substantial assistance to law enforcement authorities and otherwise complied with the terms of this agreement, the Office will file a motion pursuant to USSG, Section 5K1.1 with the sentencing Court, setting forth the nature and extent of his cooperation. Such a motion will allow this Court in applying the advisory Guidelines to consider a range below the Guidelines range that would otherwise apply.

In this connection, it is understood that a good faith determination by the Office as to whether the defendant has cooperated fully and provided substantial assistance and has otherwise complied with the terms of this agreement, including the demonstration of acceptance of responsibility described in paragraph two, and the Office’s good faith assessment of the value, truthfulness, completeness and accuracy of the cooperation shall be binding upon him. The defendant agrees when making this determination, the Office may be consider facts known to it at the time — at this time.

The Office will not recommend to the Court a specific sentence to be imposed. Further, the Office cannot and does not make a promise or representation as to what sentence will be imposed by this Court.

Seven, the defendant acknowledges that money and property is subject to forfeiture as result of his violation of 18 USC, Sections 1349 and 1956(h), and 31 USC, Section 5324(a)(3), as alleged in the Information.

Pursuant to 18 USC, Sections 981(a)(1)(C) and 982(a)(1); 28 USC, Section, 2461(c), and 31 USC, Section 5317(c)(1), the defendant consents to the forfeiture of $1,177,843.95 — $1,177,843,95, which represents a portion of the monies that the defendant received from ticket sales in connection with the 2006 FIFA World Cup, and monies the defendant structured (the first forfeiture money judgment) and the forfeiture of a second unspecified amount of United States currency to be determined by this Court at sentencing (the second forfeiture money judgment) and together with the first forfeiture money judgment, the forfeiture money judgments — plural — (a) any property, real or personal, which constitutes or is derived from proceeds traceable to the defendant’s violation of 18 USC, Section 1349, and/or as substitute assets in accordance with the provisions of 21 USC, Section 853(p), as incorporated by 28 USC, Section 2461(c).

(b) Property, real or personal, involved in the defendant’s violation of 18 USC, Section 1956(h) or property traceable to such property and/or as substitute assets in accordance with the provisions of 21 USC, Section 853(p), as incorporated by 18 USC, Section 982(b) and (c).

(c) Property, real or personal, involved in the defendant’s violation of 31 USC, Section 5324(a)(3) or property traceable to such property and/or substitute assets in accordance with the provisions of 21 USC, Section 853(p), as incorporated by 31 USC, Section 5317(c)(1)(B).

The defendant consents to the entry of an Order of Forfeiture pursuant to Rule 32.2 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, forfeiting the amount of the forfeiture money judgments.

Eight, the defendant consents to the entry of the forfeiture money judgments. The defendant shall pay $200,000 towards the first forfeiture money judgment on or before October 25 of 2013, the first due date, and shall pay the remaining balance of the first forfeiture money judgment in full on or before November 18th, 2013, the second due date.

The defendant shall pay the second forfeiture money judgment in full on or before the date of his sentencing. The third due date. The first due date, second due date and third due dates are referred to generally as the “Applicable Due Dates.”

The defendant acknowledges that the Office, at its sole discretion, may seek to forfeit the amount of forfeiture money judgment through commencement of an administrative or civil forfeiture proceeding. The defendant consents to the entry of an Administrative Declaration of Forfeiture as to any payments made towards the forfeit money judgments, and waives the requirements of 18 USC, Section 983 regarding Notice of Seizure in non-judicial forfeiture matters.

The defendant further waives the filing of a civil forfeiture complaint as to any payments made towards the forfeiture money judgments, in accordance with the procedures set forth in 18 USC, Section 983. Defendant agrees to execute any documents necessary to effectuate the administrative or civil forfeiture of any payments made towards the forfeiture money judgment.

Nine, all payments towards the forfeiture money judgment shall be made by certified or bank check payable to the United States Marshal Service and delivered by hand or overnight courier on or before the applicable due date to Assistant United States Attorney Brian Morris, United States Attorney’s Office, Eastern District of New York, 271 Cadman Plaza East, Seventh Floor, Brooklyn, New York, 11201, the criminal docket number noted on the face of the checks.

The defendant acknowledges that all funds paid by the defendant pursuant to this paragraph shall be subject to a restitution hold to ensure their availability for transfer to the Clerk of Court, in satisfaction of any Order of Restitution entered at or after the time of sentencing for the benefit of any victims, pursuant to 18 USC, Sections 3663 and 3663(a), in the event that the Attorney General grants any request for remission or restoration in accordance with the provisions of 18 USC, Section 1963(g) and 28 CFR, Part 9.

Ten, if either or both of the forfeiture money judgments is or is not paid on or before the applicable due date, interest shall accrue on any unpaid portion thereof at the judgment rate of interest from that date.

If the defendant fails to pay any portion of the forfeiture money judgment on or before the applicable due date, the defendant consents to the forfeiture of any other property of his, up to the amount of the forfeiture money judgment, pursuant to 21 USC, Section 853(p), the Federal Debt Collection Procedures Act or any other applicable law.

Eleven, the defendant agrees to fully assist the Government in effectuating the payment of the forfeiture money judgment by, among other things, executing any documents necessary to effectuate the transfer of title to the United States of any substitute assets. The defendant agrees not to file or interpose any claims or to assist others to file or interpose any claims to any property against which the Government seeks to execute the forfeiture money judgments in any administrative or judicial proceeding.

Twelve, the failure of the defendant to forfeit any monies and/or properties as required under this agreement, including the failure of the defendant to execute any documents to accomplish same on a timely notice to do so shall constitute a material breach of this agreement. Upon such a breach, the defendant will not be entitled to withdraw the plea, but the Office may bring additional criminal charges against the defendant.

Thirteen, the defendant knowingly and voluntarily waives his right to any required notice concerning the forfeiture of the monies and/or properties forfeited hereunder, including notice set forth in an Indictment or Information.

In addition, the defendant knowingly and voluntarily waives his right, if any, to a jury trial on the forfeiture of said monies and/or properties, and waives all constitutional, legal and equitable defenses to the forfeiture of said monies and/or properties, including but not limited to any defenses based on principles of double jeopardy, the ex post facto clause of the Constitution, the statute of limitations, venue or any defense under the Eighth Amendment, including a claim of excessive fines.

Fourteen, the defendant agrees that the entry or payment of the forfeiture money judgments are not to be considered fines or payment on any income taxes or civil penalties that may be due.

Fifteen, the defendant agrees that with respect to all charges referred to in paragraphs one and 4(a), he is not a prevailing party within the meaning of the Hyde Amendment 18 USC, Section 3006(a), and will not file any claim under that law.

The defendant waives any right to additional disclosure from the Government in connection with the guilty plea. The defendant agrees to pay the special assessment by check, payable to the Clerk of the Court at or before sentencing. The defendant understands that he may be subject to removal as set forth in paragraph 18 below. Nonetheless, the defendant affirms that he wants to plead guilty and to waive his right to appeal as set forth at the beginning of this paragraph, even if the consequence is the defendant’s automatic removal from the United States.

Sixteen, the defendant must at all times give complete, truthful and accurate information and testimony, and must not commit or attempt to commit any further crimes. Should it be judged by the Office that the defendant has failed to cooperate fully and has intentionally given false, misleading or incomplete information or testimony, has committed or attempted to commit any further crimes or has otherwise violated any provision of this agreement, the defendant will not be released from his plea of guilty, but this Office will be released from its obligations under this agreement, including (a) not to oppose a downward adjustment of two levels for acceptance of responsibility described in paragraph two above, and to make the motion for an additional one-level reduction described in paragraph two above; and (b) to file the motion described in paragraph six above. Moreover, this Office may withdraw the motion described in paragraph six above, if such motion has been filed prior to sentencing.

The defendant will also be subject to prosecution for any federal criminal violation with the Office’s knowledge, including but not limited to the criminal activity described in paragraph four above, perjury and obstruction of justice.

Seventeen, any prosecution resulting from the defendant’s failure to comply with the terms of this agreement may be premised upon, among other things, (a) any statement made by the defendant to the Office or to other law enforcement agents on or after November 30th, 2012; (b) any testimony given by him before any grand jury or other tribunal, whether before or after the date of this agreement signed by the defendant; and (c) any leads derived from such statements or testimony.
Prosecutions that are not time-barred by the federal statute of limitations on the date of this agreement — on the date this agreement is signed may be commenced against the defendant in accordance with this paragraph, notwithstanding the expiration of the statute of limitations between the signing of this agreement and the commencement of any such prosecution.

Furthermore, the defendant waives all claims under the United States Constitution, Rule 11(f) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule 410 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, and any other federal statute or rule. The statements made by him or after November 30th, 2012, or any leads derived therefrom should be suppressed.

Eighteen, the defendant recognizes that pleading guilty may have consequences with respect to the defendant’s immigration status if the defendant is not a citizen of the United States. Under federal law, a broad range of crimes are removable offenses, including the offenses to which the defendant is pleading guilty. Indeed, because the defendant is pleading guilty to wire fraud conspiracy and money laundering conspiracy, removal is presumptively mandatory.

Removal and other immigration consequences are the subject of a separate providing, however, and the defendant understands that no one, including the defendant’s attorney or the District Court can predict with certainty the effect of the defendant’s conviction on the defendant’s immigration status. The defendant nevertheless affirms that he wants to plead guilty regardless of any immigration consequences that his plea may entail, even if the consequences are the defendant’s automatic removal from the United States.

Nineteen, if the defendant requests and in the Office’s judgment, the request is reasonable, the Office will recommend to the Department of Justice that the defendant and if appropriate other individuals, be issued an S Visa classification, it being understood that the Office’s authority can only recommend and that the decision to certify the recommendation rests with the Department of Justice. And further, that the final decision whether to grant such relief rests with the Department of Homeland Security, both of which will make their respective decisions in accordance with the applicable law.

The defendant understands that notwithstanding the Office’s recommendation that he be issued an S Visa classification, pleading guilty could result in the defendant’s removal. In accordance with paragraph 18 above, the defendant nevertheless affirms that the defendant wants to plead guilty regardless of any immigration consequences that the defendant’s plea may entail, even if the consequences are the defendant’s automatic removal from the United States.

Twenty, this agreement does not bind any federal, state or local prosecuting authority other than the Office, and does not prohibit the Office from initiating or prosecuting any civil or administrative proceeding directly or indirectly involving the defendant.

Twenty-one, apart from the written proffer agreements dated November 30, 2012; December 2, 2012; December 5, 2012; December 11, 2012; December 19, 2012; January 16, 2013; February 19, 2013; February 20th, 2013;
May 28, 2013; September 4, 2013; and September 26, 2013, no promises, agreements or conditions have been entered into other than those set forth in this agreement, and none will be entered into unless memorialized in writing and signed by all parties. This agreement supersedes any prior promises, agreements or conditions between the parties.”

Dated October 17th, 2013, Brooklyn, New York, and signed, as we said earlier, by Mr. LaVerne on behalf of the U. S. Attorney, Loretta Lynch, through the supervisor, signed by the defendant and by the defendant’s counsel.

Have I read the cooperation agreement, Court 6, in its entirety accurately, counsel?

MR. LAVERNE: Yes, Your Honor. The Government has one slight change to the agreement —

THE COURT: Yes, sir.
MR. LAVERNE: — that I don’t think the defense will quarrel with. On page 13, paragraph 15, final sentence of that paragraph beginning with “nevertheless,” the sentence currently reads, “Nevertheless, the defendant affirms that he wants to plead guilty,” and then says, “and to waive his right to appeal as set forth at the beginning of this paragraph.”

We propose striking that portion of the sentence referring to his right to appeal. It’s a mistake in the agreement. There is, in fact, no waiver, specific waiver of right to appeal in this agreement.

THE COURT: So the words you want stricken, just so we’re clear, are —

MR. LAVERNE: “And to waive his right to appeal, as set forth at the beginning of this paragraph.”

THE COURT: Okay. I am striking that out, and I’m going to ask if that is acceptable to defense counsel.

MR. BRAFMAN: Yes, Your Honor.

Photo: Former FIFA vice-president and TTFA special advisor Jack Warner. PNM treasurer Raymond Tim Kee served as vice-president under Warner for over a decade. (Copyright AFP 2015)
Photo: Former FIFA vice-president and TTFA special advisor Jack Warner.
PNM treasurer Raymond Tim Kee served as vice-president under Warner for over a decade.
(Copyright AFP 2015)

INSTRUCTING THE DEFENDANT, DARYAN WARNER

THE COURT: Thank you, sir.

Mr. Doe, your attorney advises this Court that you wish to plead guilty to the Information which I previously read, and to do so pursuant to the Cooperation Agreement, both of which I have just read to you. Do you need to have me read them again to you, sir?

THE DEFENDANT: No, Your Honor.

THE COURT: I say again, sir, this is a serious decision and I must be certain that you make it understanding your rights and the consequences of your plea.

You understand that having taken an oath and having been sworn to tell the truth, you must do so to this Court. If you were to lie to this Court deliberately in response to any question I ask you, you could face further criminal charges for perjury. Do you understand that, sir?

THE DEFENDANT: Yes, Your Honor.

THE COURT: If you need me to repeat anything, sir, you have only to have to ask. It is important that you understand everything that goes on in these proceedings today. Is that clear?

THE DEFENDANT: Yes, Your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. Again, sir, just so the record is clear, how old are you?

THE DEFENDANT: Forty-five years old.

THE COURT: You have briefly described already your educational background.

So, sir, I must be certain that whatever decision you make today, you make with a clear head. I’m going to ask you some general questions about your health.

First, are you presently or have you recently been under the care of a doctor, a physician, a psychiatrist or psychologist for any reason?

THE DEFENDANT: No, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Sir, other than the alcohol you have testified about earlier, in the past 24 hours, have you taken any pills or any drugs or any medicine or consumed any alcohol of any kind?

THE DEFENDANT: No, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Have you have been hospitalized or treated for any drug-related problem, sir?

THE DEFENDANT: No, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Is your mind clear as you sit here today, sir?

THE DEFENDANT: Yes, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Do you understand everything that is being said to you, sir?

THE DEFENDANT: Yes, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Defense counsel, have you discussed the question of a guilty plea with your client?

MR. BRAFMAN: Yes. We had extensive discussions, Your Honor.

THE COURT: In your view, sir, does he understand the rights he would be waiving by pleading guilty?

MR. BRAFMAN: Yes, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Do you have any questions as to his competence to proceed today?

MR. BRAFMAN: No, sir.

THE COURT: Mr. Doe, are you satisfied with the assistance that your attorney has given you thus far in this case?

THE DEFENDANT: Yes, Your Honor.

THE COURT: I’m going to ask counsel for the defendant, do you feel, sir, that you need more time to discuss the question of a guilty plea with your client?

MR. BRAFMAN: No, sir.
THE COURT: Sir, I previously read the charge to you. Do you need to hear them read again? THE DEFENDANT: No, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Now, sir, you have a right to plead not guilty to these charges. No one can be forced to plead guilty. Do you understand that?

THE DEFENDANT: Yes, Your Honor.

THE COURT: If you plead not guilty to these charges or if you persist in your plea of not guilty, you have a right under the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America to a speedy and a public trial before a jury of your peers with the assistance of your counsel. You understand that, sir?

THE DEFENDANT: Yes, Your Honor.

THE COURT: At any trial, sir, you would be presumed to be innocent. You would not have to prove that you are innocent. This is because under our system of law, it is the United States Government that must come forward with proof that establishes beyond a reasonable doubt that you are, in fact, guilty of the crimes charged. If the Government failed to meet this burden of proof, the jury would have the duty to find you not guilty. You understand that, sir?

THE DEFENDANT: Yes, Your Honor.

THE COURT: In the course of a trial, witnesses for the Government would have to come here to this court and to testify in your presence. Your lawyer would have the right to cross-examine these witnesses. You can raise legal objections to the evidence the Government sought to offer against you. You can offer evidence on your behalf if you thought there was evidence that might help you in your case. You could compel witnesses to come to court and to testify in your defense, if you thought it would help your case. Do you understand that?

THE DEFENDANT: Yes, Your Honor.

THE COURT: At a trial, you would have the right to testify on your own behalf if you wished to do so. On the other hand, you could not be forced to be a witness at your own trial. This is because under the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, no person can be compelled to be a witness against himself. If you wish to go to trial or chose not to testify, this Court would instruct the jury that it could not hold that against you. You understand?

THE DEFENDANT: Yes, Your Honor.

THE COURT: If instead of going trial, sir, you plead guilty to the crimes charged and if I accept your guilty plea, you will be giving up your right to a trial and all the other rights I’ve just discussed with you. There will be no trial in this case. There will be no appeal on the question of whether or not you did or did not commit the crimes set forth in the Information. You understand that, sir?

THE DEFENDANT: Yes, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Now, while this Court is not bound by the Sentencing Guidelines, this Court will take them into consideration in determining what a reasonable sentence would be under all the circumstances available to me in this case. You understand that, sir?

THE DEFENDANT: Yes, Your Honor.

THE COURT: If you do plead guilty, I will have to ask you certain questions about what you did in order to satisfy myself as the Court that you are, in fact, guilty of the charges. You will have to answer my questions and to acknowledge your guilt, and if you do this, sir, you will be giving up your right not to incriminate yourself. You understand?

THE DEFENDANT: Yes, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Sir, are you willing to give up your right to a trial and to all the other rights I have just discussed with you?

THE DEFENDANT: Yes, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Now, we have the written plea agreement to which the plea is being offered, and that is being filed and has been filed under seal, is that correct?

MR. LAVERNE: Yes.
THE COURT: Is that correct?
MR. BRAFMAN: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: And it is your understanding that the Cooperation Agreement is the agreement that was, in fact, reached with the Government?

THE DEFENDANT: Yes, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Sir, did you hear and see everything the prosecutor and your counsel just said?

THE DEFENDANT: Yes, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Did you read and sign the written Cooperation Agreement?

THE DEFENDANT: Yes, I did.
THE COURT: Did you understand it?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes, I do.
THE COURT: And did you discuss it with your counsel before you signed it?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes, I did.

Photo: ILP political leader Jack Warner.
Photo: ILP political leader Jack Warner.

THE DEFENDANT, DARYAN WARNER, TESTIFIES

THE COURT: Sir, please describe briefly in your own words what you did to commit the crime charged in Count 1 of the Information and where you did it. We’re going to do this count-by-count, all right?

MR. BRAFMAN: Your Honor, for the convenience of the Court, we have a —

THE COURT: Have you done the allocution?

MR. BRAFMAN: Done the allocution and it incorporates all counts. I think it does them chronologically.

THE COURT: All right. Why don’t we do it that way, then.

So I’m going to ask you to describe in your own words what you did to commit the crimes charged in Count 1 of the Information, in Count 2 of the Information, and in Count 3 of the Information, and in so doing, I’m going to ask you to describe where you committed those crimes, as well. So with that, please proceed.

THE DEFENDANT: In between 2005 and 2011, within the Southern District of Florida and elsewhere.

THE COURT: Within the Southern District of Florida. Go ahead.

THE DEFENDANT: And elsewhere. I agreed with — I agreed with others to purchase tickets —

THE COURT: Take your time. Take a drink of water. Slowly and loudly. Channel your inner Lord Vader, not your inner Woody Allen, okay? That’s what I say all the time. So —

THE DEFENDANT: It’s the price of a West Indies accent.

THE COURT: I understand. And also, the price of Woody Allen accent of being New Yorkers. Take your time. This is very important. Go ahead.

THE DEFENDANT: I agreed with others to purchase tickets to the 2006 and 2010 FIFA World Cup, and resell at a substantial profit.

In 2006, I purchased the tickets directly from FIFA, and I misled FIFA to believe that my partner in reselling the tickets was not involved in the transaction, because I believed that FIFA would not have sold them to me had he been involved.

In 2010, I purchased tickets from others in order to mislead FIFA to believe that I was not receiving tickets, because I believed that FIFA would no longer sell tickets directly to me. In furtherance of this agreement, I sent and received emails across state and international lines. In between 2005 and 2011, within the Southern District of Florida and elsewhere, I agreed with others to complete wire transfers from the United States to and from a place outside of the United States to further the previously-mentioned fraud to resell tickets to the 2006 and 2010 World Cups.

MR. BRAFMAN: Your Honor, if I may interrupt just for a moment?

THE COURT: Yes?

MR. BRAFMAN: With respect to Counts 1 and 2 of the Information, the defendant, after consultation with counsel, is prepared to waive venue and plead guilty to those crimes in the Eastern District of New York.

THE COURT: Well, I was going to ask him, did you engage in any of this activity within the Eastern District of New York at all or are you just waiving venue? I want to know whether or not you did any activity here in the Eastern District of New York or not, as a factual matter, then we can talk about the waiver of venue.

MR. BRAFMAN: We are not aware of any conduct within the Eastern District of New York with respect these two counts, and he is waiving venue with respect to Count 3. There is activity in the Eastern District of New York.

THE COURT: Okay. You understand, sir, what it means to waive venue?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes, I do.

THE COURT: Okay. What is your understanding of means?
THE DEFENDANT: I could be prosecuted of something although it’s at another location.

THE COURT: Say that again, a little bit louder?

THE DEFENDANT: Sorry. I could be prosecuted for that occurred, even though it was not in that something location or at that location.

THE COURT: All right. Just so we’re clear, in terms of your activities with respect to Count 1, you’re saying you didn’t do anything in the Eastern District of New York, but you’re waiving venue with respect to Eastern District of New York with respect to Count 1? Is that what you’re saying?

THE DEFENDANT: Yes, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Now, respect to Count 2, same thing, you’re waiving venue objections with respect to Count 2 and you’re saying you didn’t do anything within the Eastern District of New York with respect to Count 2, is that right?

THE DEFENDANT: Yes, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Now, with respect to Count 3, you’re saying you did, in fact, engage in activity in the Eastern District of New York with respect to Count 3?

THE DEFENDANT: Yes, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Okay. What did you do in the Eastern District of New York with respect to Count 3?

THE DEFENDANT: In between July 2011 and December 2011, in Queens, New York and other places, I deposited cash into domestic banks in amounts less than 10,000, to avoid the banks filing the requisite reports for cash deposits in excess of 10,000.

I was aware that the banks were obligated to report currency transactions in excess of 10,000, and I made the deposits in smaller amounts to evade this requirement. I made the deposits and violated the law as part of a pattern of illegal activity —

THE COURT: I made the deposits as part of a pattern of illegality. Is that what you said, sir?

THE DEFENDANT: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Okay. Go ahead.
THE DEFENDANT: Involving more than 100,000, within

the July 2011 to December 2011 period.
THE COURT: Involving amounts of more than $100,000, is that what you said, sir?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes, Your Honor.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. LAVERNE: I’m sorry, Your Honor. Just so we have it clear on the record, if the defendant would just reread the final sentence?
THE DEFENDANT: The final paragraph: “I was aware that the banks were obligated to report currency transactions in excess of $10,000, and I made the deposits in smaller amounts to evade this requirement. I made the deposits and violated the law as part of a pattern of illegal activity, involving more than 100,000, within the July 2011 to December 2011 period.”

THE COURT: All right. I’m going to ask the court reporter to read back what she got, and we’ll just make sure that — we’ll take it from there.

Why don’t you read back what you got?
(Record read.)
MR. BRAFMAN: Your Honor, may we go back on the record for a moment?
THE COURT: Sure.

MR. BRAFMAN: Make I make a suggestion just to help expedite matters to ensure accuracy, because I realize how meticulous Your Honor is in taking the plea?

There is a typed allocution that the defendant has adopted as his words. Unfortunately, it had to be rewritten in portions based on the discussions this morning with the Government, so we don’t have a typed version.

But may I suggest one of two things? Either we hand the document to the reporter or perhaps if I could read it, slowly and clearly with the defendant sitting beside me, and then the defendant could acknowledge that that’s exactly what he said, because there are some important mistakes, through no fault of the stenographer, that this might avoid.

THE COURT: I would suggest you read it slowly and clearly with your client next to you and have him adopt the statements, and I would suggest that we mark as an exhibit the written document for our friends across the harbor.

MR. BRAFMAN: That’s fine.
THE COURT: I would suggest both.
MR. BRAFMAN: I have no objection to that. Let me read it, sir.
MR. LAVERNE: And the Government has no objection. I also would just say that, having spoken to the defendant about the allocution before this proceeding and having sat here and listened to the defendant say it, although it has been difficult, I believe what he said in court, even though it wasn’t already all recorded accurately was consistent with what the allocation that is about to be put into evidence is.

MR. BRAFMAN: So do I, sir. There is no question about that.

THE COURT: So does this Court, but as I said, I have friends across the harbor on the 17th Floor and they will get the record as they get it. So let’s do it with this in mind.

MR. BRAFMAN: Just so the 17th Floor recognizes that I am not pledaing guilty to any of this.

THE COURT: I’m sure they recognize that, sir.

MR. BRAFMAN: Thank you, Your Honor.
This is the defendant’s allocution, who is sitting beside me: “In between 2005 and 2011, within the Southern District of Florida and elsewhere, I agreed with others to purchase tickets to the 2006 and 2010 FIFA World Cups, and resell at a substantial profit. In 2006, I purchased the tickets directly from FIFA, and I misled FIFA to believe that my partner in reselling the tickets was not involved in the transaction, because I believe that FIFA would not have sold them to me had he been involved.

In 2010, I purchased tickets from others, in order to mislead FIFA to believe that I was not receiving tickets, because I believed that FIFA would no longer sell tickets directly to me. In furtherance of this agreement, I sent and received emails across state and international lines.

In between 2005 and 2011, within the Southern District of Florida and elsewhere, I agreed with others to complete wire transfers from the United States to and through a place outside of the United States, to further and promote the previously-mentioned fraud to resell tickets to the 2006 and 2010 World Cups.

In between July 2011 and December 2011, in Queens, New York, and other places, I deposited cash into domestic banks in amounts less than $10,000 to avoid the banks filing the requisite reports for cash deposits in excess of $10,000. I was aware that the banks were obligated to report currency transactions in excess of $10,000, and I made the deposits in smaller amounts to evade this requirement. I made the deposits and violated the law as part of a pattern of illegal activity involving more than $100,000 within the July 2011 to December 2011 period.”

That completes the allocution, Your Honor, and we would be prepared to hand up the written printed paper that we read from, and have it marked as an exhibit.

THE COURT: Before you do that, sir —
Mr. Doe, is that, in fact, your allocution?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes, it is, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Okay. I’m going to ask you to initial that piece of paper and to date it today’s date, which is October the 18th, 2013.

And what’s the next exhibit number? Is that number eight?

THE CLERK: Eight, Judge.

THE COURT: All right. We’ll mark that as Court’s Exhibit Number 8. Would you show it to the prosecution and see if they have any objection to it being marked as an exhibit under seal and in evidence?

MR. BRAFMAN: (Complies.)
Any objection?
MR. LAVERNE: I do not have an objection, Your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. It is admitted into evidence as Court Exhibit 8, under seal, and it is a statement of Mr. Doe.

All right. The Court finds, based on the information provided to this Court, that the defendant is acting voluntarily, that he fully understands the charges, that he fully understands his rights, and he fully understands the consequences of his plea.

The Court further finds that there is, moreover, a factual basis for the plea. I therefore accept the plea of guilty as to Count 1, Count 2 and Count 3 of the Information.

MR. LAVERNE: Your Honor, I’m sorry to interrupt again.

THE COURT: That’s all right.

MR. LAVERNE: I could be wrong, but I believe we started with his plea to Count 1, which we received with the expectation as Your Honor suggested of going through the allocution with respect to each count. We then had an allocution to all three counts, but I’m not sure if we had actually him plead guilty to Counts 2 and 3.

MR. BRAFMAN: Your Honor, I think the record will reflect that he said the word “guilty” three separate times. I have it in my notes.

THE COURT: He did, but that’s okay. I like to do belt and suspenders. I heard him say it three times. You heard him say it three times. The prosecutor didn’t hear him say it three times. So let’s do it again.

MR. LAVERNE: Thank you.

THE COURT: Sir, did you plead guilty with respect to Count 1?

THE DEFENDANT: Yes, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Sir, did you plead guilty with respect to Count 2?

THE DEFENDANT: Yes, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Sir, did you plead guilty with respect to Count 3?

THE DEFENDANT: Yes, Your Honor.

THE COURT: And when I say “Counts,” I’m referring to the Counts of the Information, is that correct?

THE DEFENDANT: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: All right.
Anything else?
MR. LAVERNE: Thank you, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Okay. I accept the pleas of guilty to Count 1, to Count 2, and to Count 3 of the Information from the defendant, John Doe.

Is there a bail application?

MR. LAVERNE: Your Honor, I’m not aware of any application. I think the parties both agree that the current bail conditions, which include a substantial cash amount deposited with the clerk and the security of other property — of other automobiles in this case is sufficient, and that bail should be the terms continued under those terms.
THE COURT: Any objection to that?
MR. BRAFMAN: No, Your Honor.
THE COURT: All right. Then bail is continued on and conditions under which it currently exists. I hereby order the Probation Department to set an appropriate date for sentencing, in consultation with this Court.

Is there anything further that either counsel or the defendant wishes to state to the Court today?

MR. BRAFMAN: Yes, Your Honor, on the question of sentencing, sir?

THE COURT: Yes?

MR. BRAFMAN: We would ask that the Probation Department not begin trying to prepare a report at this time. It’s anticipated that sentencing in this case may be delayed for a significant period on consent of the defendant, so that he can comply with the terms of his cooperation agreement.

I think if Probation were to begin now, it would be very premature and perhaps almost impossible, given the nature of the investigation. I think the Government would consent to the application.

MR. LAVERNE: We have no objection to holding the PSR in abeyance at this time.

THE COURT: I certainly have no objection to your making a request of Probation that they hold the preparation of the PSR in abeyance. My experience is that they’ve got lots on their plate —

MR. BRAFMAN: That’s correct.

THE COURT: — and it’s not likely that they’re about to zoom ahead with this, in light of where we are in the real world on this.

I can understand your concerns as to theoretical matters, but I think even post-Government shutdown, in the world of the sequester and everything else going on, I wouldn’t worry about that.

MR. BRAFMAN: Thank you, sir.
THE COURT: I thank you.
MR. LAVERNE: Thank you very much.
THE COURT: Anything else I can help you gentlemen with today?
MR. BRAFMAN: No. Thank you for your patience, sir.

THE COURT: All right. I thank you for your patience and your time. All right. We are adjourned.

MR. NORRIS: Thank you, Your Honor.

MR. LAVERNE: Thank you. (Sentencing concluded.)

AboutEditor

Editor

Check Also

Longdenville, Haiti and the banker’s son: How FIFA’s Garcia report shatters the Jack Warner myth

FIFA’s investigative report into the 2018 and 2022 World Cup bids—won by Russia and Qatar …

37 comments

  1. Anyone remembers the letter to the editor that Daryan wrote in defence of his family or something like that? What became of that bs ? Anybody got a link?

  2. I wouldn’t say that. If the evidence is overwhelming and the case is tight a good lawyer will seek his client’s interest and get the best possible plea arrangement. If you read the document in its entirety you would notice that the minimum penalty is zero years. He could very well do a couple years as a supervisee and never spend a day in prison

  3. At some point, they must have figured out they were doing something wrong. They kept doing it, enabling, aiding and abetting each other. So while Jack is culpable for leading his children into the dark, they had ample opportunity to disengage and walk away. #NoSympathy

  4. If we’re talking biblically the age of accountability is 12, legally its 18. At this point all pot sit on their own bottom. #nosympathy

  5. don’t think it started at 46 though.jack has to take responsibility for that .’It’s written that anyone who willfully leads a child astray it were better for him if a millstone be hung about his neck and he be cast into the sea ”

  6. 46 is kinda old to be blaming daddy for your hot water eh

  7. lesson to all parents , don’t involve your children in your corrupt practices I am sorry for those two young men whose character was brought into disrepute by their father.

  8. He must have said something when the FBI first contacted him though. I would think. But I’m guessing of course

  9. So from reading this. I wonder if he kept to the terms and didn’t inform daddy about his plea during the last 2 years

  10. Remember the WC 2006 ticket fiasco? Remember how angry people were? Well like some people forgetting now. #NoSympathy

  11. His father put him in that position. How do you put your own children in harms way by including them in your criminal enterprise? #NoSympathy

  12. Great job. Thanks for sharing. Very insightful and informative.

  13. Gaiven Clairmont

    enjoyed the info and yea from 18 to 3, he was a very good witness indeed, JW is sweating even if he isn’t showing it, smdh

  14. This is a classic Federal Court proceeding. He hot caught with his hands in the cookie jar and then squealed like a pig when he got caught. Don’t be surprise if you ain’t hear people start committing suicide around the globe with these recent developments. It happened in Italy a few years ago

  15. This is a classic Federal Court proceeding. He hot caught with his hands in the cookie jar and then squealed like a pig when he got caught. Don’t be surprise if you ain’t hear people start committing suicide around the globe with these recent developments. It happened in Italy a few years ago

  16. 18 – 3? He sang the songs of Solomon??

  17. Re Jack’s extradition…….Does TT have any anti-wiretapping laws?

  18. Wow that’s a lot of information. But I like the court proceedings though it really tells a tail. This is huge.

  19. Sure thing. Sorry I couldn’t do more than an information dump here.
    This doesn’t deal with Jack Warner at all but only the charges for Daryan.
    There were about 18 charges. And he plea bargained down to three. So he must have been a very cooperative witness.

  20. He did not have a good lawyer at all. They just caved in to everything. Wow!

    • Well, he was facing a possible 18 charges with serious jail time. He eventually was charged for just three.
      Presumably, that was his reward for being a very cooperative witness in the case against his father.

    • He was tricked big time. No one gets into this much heat for structuring their accounts. He stayed within limits. A bunch of trumped up charges. However, he was dumb to incriminate his father, re-sell WC tickets and purchase real estate properties in cash.

    • A case of inexperience overshadowed by the might of US Justice.

  21. poor William … sad surname

  22. Lasana, like yuh working US State Department? 🙂

  23. This is way more complicated and fraudulent than JW had earlier indicated in his interview post- prison time

  24. Sorry. I couldn’t do more than an information dump here.
    This doesn’t deal with Jack Warner at all but only the charges for Daryan.
    There were about 18 charges. And he plea bargained down to three. So he must have been a very cooperative witness.

  25. Lengthy is joke. Need a day to read this.