OPINION & PRELIMINARY ORDER After an eight-day trial and two days of deliberation, a jury convicted Paul Fishbein (“Fishbein”) of mail and wire fraud, theft of government funds, aggravated identity theft, and health care fraud arising out of schemes to receive (1) rental payments, (2) broker’s fees, and (3) Medicaid benefits. Fishbein’s “rental payment scheme” is at issue now. Fishbein used two steps to execute that scheme: first, he would wrongfully acquire title to properties; then, he would rent the properties to individuals participating in New York City rental assistance programs while holding himself out as the landlord to the Agencies1 responsible for administering those programs. As the “landlord,” the City paid a rental subsidy directly to Fishbein to cover rent for tenants participating in the programs. However, because Fishbein never owned the properties, he was not entitled to rent them out or collect subsidies from the City. At trial, the Government illustrated how Fishbein executed the rental payment scheme using three properties, and the jury found Fishbein guilty based on that evidence. The Government now asserts that Fishbein executed that same scheme by wrongfully obtaining title of fifteen additional properties and using the fraudulent deeds of those properties to trick the Agencies. As such, the Government moves for $1,894,644.01 in both forfeiture and restitution. That amount covers the rental payments Fishbein received for all eighteen properties ($1,789,116.41), in addition to the broker’s fee payments ($56,002.80) and Medicaid benefits ($49,524.80) that Fishbein wrongfully received from his other schemes. Fishbein partially opposes the Government’s motion and there are two issues before the Court. First, the Court must determine whether Fishbein’s receipt of rental subsidies for the additional properties constitutes additional executions of the same rental payment scheme proven at trial and are thus subject to forfeiture. Second, the Court must determine whether a reduction in the amount Fishbein must pay in restitution is warranted to account for the “value” Fishbein provided to tenants who rented the apartments. Having carefully reviewed the parties’ written submissions, the underlying record, and the evidence and arguments presented during the post-trial proceedings, including closely reviewing each property’s transfer paperwork and deed relevant to the Court’s decision, the Court finds in the Government’s favor on both issues. First, the evidence supports that Fishbein knew or should have known that he did not actually own the additional properties but nevertheless sought rental subsidies from the Agencies in violation of the terms of the programs. Second, the full amount of the payments must be returned to the Agencies in restitution because Fishbein improperly diverted government funds regardless of any “value” the tenants separately received. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the Government’s motion and PRELIMINARILY ORDERS that Fishbein pay forfeiture and restitution in the full amounts requested with the final order to take effect at sentencing. BACKGROUND I. Procedural History In May 2021, Fishbein was charged in a four-count indictment. Indictment, ECF No. 11. On March 10, 2023, Fishbein was charged in a superseding indictment (“Superseding Indictment”) on five counts: (1) wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§1343 and 2 (“Count One”); (2) mail fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§1341 and 2 (“Count Two”); (3) theft of government funds, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§641 and 2 (“Count Three”); (4) aggravated identity theft, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§1028A and 2 (“Count Four”); and (5) health care fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§1347 and 2 (“Count Five”). Superseding Indictment, ECF No. 77. The Government provided notice that it planned to seek forfeiture for Counts One, Two, Three, and Five. Id.
