Fashion District Kidnap-ransom Indictment

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


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


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


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


5/32


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


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


8/32

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


16/32

0

0

1 38. On Ju ly 16,

2012,


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,


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


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


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


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


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


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


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,


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


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


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


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


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


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,


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,


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


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


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


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


28/32


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.


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.


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.


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


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


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


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

Fashion District Kidnap-ransom Indictment

Documents