Judge Ronnie Abrams
A “speaking” indictment charged defendants’ conspiracy to commit immigration fraud through submission of fraudulent asylum applications, on behalf of Chinese aliens, by the Moslemi and Bandrich law firms in Manhattan. Under warrant, FBI agents seized “virtually every record” from both law firms. District court denied defendants suppression of evidence, and their motions for a bill of particulars and disclosure of Brady and Giglio materials. The affidavit underlying the warrant application, and indictment, described illegal activities occurring at the Moslemi firm, identified specific evidence stored at the firm and provided reason to believe that such evidence could be recovered. Similarly, the Bandrich warrant application established probable cause to believe that evidence could be found at the Bandrich law firm. In denying Liu a bill of particulars the court, distinguishing United States v. Nachamie, concluded that identification of falsehoods in 50 out of the 432 allegedly fraudulent asylum applications in defendants’ possession was not necessary for Liu’s defense. The court noted that Liu sought to impermissibly use her requested bill of particulars as a discovery tool so as to preview the evidence or the theory of the government’s case.
