JG/JNM/USAO2005R01185

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA : Hon.
:
v. : Criminal No. 09-
:
PAUL BERGRIN, :
YOLANDA JAUREGUI, :
a/k/a “Yolanda Bracero,” : 18 U.S.C. §§ 1962,
THOMAS MORAN, : 1512, 1952, 1349
VICENTE ESTEVES, : 1343, 371 and 2
a/k/a “Vinny,” and :
SUNDIATA KOONTZ :
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X

I N D I C T M E N T

COUNT ONE
(Racketeering)
(Defendant Bergrin)

The Grand Jury in and for the District of New Jersey,

sitting in Newark, charges:

The Enterprise

1. At various times relevant to this Indictment, in

the District of New Jersey and elsewhere, defendant PAUL BERGRIN,

and others known and unknown, were members and associates of The

Bergrin Law Enterprise, a criminal organization that operated

principally in Essex County, New Jersey.

2. The Bergrin Law Enterprise operated primarily as a

law firm that provided both legal and illegal services to various

criminals, criminal organizations and members of criminal

organizations who hired the enterprise ("Client Criminals").

Defendant PAUL BERGRIN was the leader and principal lawyer in The
Bergrin Law Enterprise. Members and associates of The Bergrin

Law Enterprise assisted defendant PAUL BERGRIN in rendering legal

and illegal services to the Client Criminals. In addition to

providing the Client Criminals with services normally rendered by

practicing lawyers, The Bergrin Law Enterprise also provided a

number of illegal services, such as assisting the Client

Criminals in fraudulently obtaining loans in connection with real

estate transactions, witness tampering, conspiracy to commit

murder, murder, traveling in aid of racketeering enterprises,

wire fraud, money laundering and drug trafficking.

3. The Bergrin Law Enterprise, including its

leadership, membership and associates, constituted an

"enterprise," as defined by Title 18, United States Code, Section

1961(4) (hereinafter "the Enterprise"), that is, a group of

individuals and legal entities associated in fact. The

Enterprise constituted an ongoing organization whose members

functioned as a continuing unit for a common purpose of achieving

the objectives of the Enterprise. The Enterprise was engaged in,

and its activities affected, interstate and foreign commerce.

Purposes of the Enterprise

4. The purposes of the Enterprise included the

following:

a. Providing the Enterprise and its leaders,

members and associates with an expanding base of clients for

2
legal and illegal services;

b. Generating, preserving and protecting the

Enterprise’s profits and client base through acts of, among other

things, witness tampering, conspiracy to commit murder, murder,

traveling in aid of racketeering enterprises, wire fraud, money

laundering and drug trafficking;

c. Protecting and preserving defendant PAUL

BERGRIN’s status as a licensed lawyer;

d. Promoting and enhancing the Enterprise and

its leaders’, members’ and associates' activities;

e. Enriching the leaders, members and associates

of the Enterprise; and

f. Concealing and otherwise protecting the

criminal activities of the Enterprise and its participants from

detection and prosecution.

Role of the Defendant PAUL BERGRIN

5. Defendant PAUL BERGRIN participated in the

operation and management of the Enterprise. Defendant PAUL

BERGRIN was the leader of the Enterprise who, among other things,

directed other members and associates of the Enterprise in

carrying out unlawful and other activities in furtherance of the

conduct of the Enterprise’s affairs.

3
 Roles of Other Members and Associates of the Enterprise

6. The members and associates of the Enterprise

included both corporations and persons. Under the direction of

defendant PAUL BERGRIN, Enterprise members and associates,

including, Law Office of Paul W. Bergrin P.C., P.B.& V., P.A.,

Premium Realty Investment Corp., Yolanda Jauregui, a/k/a "Yolanda

Bracero," Thomas Moran, Vicente Esteves, a/k/a “Vinny,” and

Sundiata Koontz, participated in unlawful and other activities in

furtherance of the conduct of the Enterprise's affairs, as

further described below:

a. Law Office of Paul W. Bergrin was a

corporation owned by defendant PAUL BERGRIN that engaged in the

business of providing attorney services. Law Office of Paul W.

Bergrin conducted the affairs of the Enterprise by, among other

things, assisting the Enterprise in witness tampering, conspiracy

to commit murder, traveling in aid of racketeering enterprises,

wire fraud and drug trafficking.

b. P.B.& V., P.A. was a corporation that engaged

in the business of providing attorney services. Defendant PAUL

BERGRIN was fifty percent (50%) owner of P.B.& V., P.A. P.B. &

V., P.A. conducted the affairs of the Enterprise by, among other

things, assisting the Enterprise in witness tampering, conspiracy

to commit murder, murder and wire fraud.

c. Premium Realty Investment Corp. was a

4
corporation owned by defendant PAUL BERGRIN and Enterprise

associate Yolanda Jauregui, a/k/a "Yolanda Bracero," which

purported to engage in the real estate investment business.

Premium Realty Investment Corp. conducted the affairs of the

Enterprise by, among other things, assisting the Enterprise in

wire fraud.

d. Yolanda Jauregui, a/k/a "Yolanda Bracero,"

conducted the affairs of the enterprise by, among other things,

engaging in wire fraud.

e. Thomas Moran conducted the affairs of the

enterprise by, among other things, engaging in traveling in aid

of racketeering enterprises.

f. Vicente Esteves, a/k/a “Vinny,” conducted the

affairs of the enterprise by, among other things, engaging in

traveling in aid of racketeering enterprises.

g. Sundiata Koontz conducted the affairs of the

enterprise by, among other things, engaging in wire fraud.

Means and Methods of the Enterprise

7. Among the means and methods by which defendant

PAUL BERGRIN, and other members and associates of the Enterprise

conducted and participated in the conduct of the affairs of the

Enterprise were the following:

a. Defendant PAUL BERGRIN and other members and

associates of the Enterprise provided illegal services to Client

5
Criminals.

b. Defendant PAUL BERGRIN and other members and

associates of the Enterprise facilitated the Client Criminals’

unlawful activities, including witness tampering, conspiracy to

commit murder, murder, traveling in aid of racketeering

enterprises, wire fraud, money laundering and drug trafficking.

c. Defendant PAUL BERGRIN and other members and

associates of the Enterprise committed and assisted in the

commission of various schemes designed to fraudulently obtain

loan proceeds for Client Criminals and leaders, members and

associates of the Enterprise.

d. Defendant PAUL BERGRIN and other members and

associates of the Enterprise counseled and otherwise assisted

Client Criminals in conducting illegal activities in a manner

designed to avoid law enforcement scrutiny or otherwise thwart

potential law enforcement investigations and criminal

prosecutions.

e. Defendant PAUL BERGRIN and other members and

associates of the Enterprise devised, executed and assisted in

devising and executing schemes to thwart criminal prosecution of

Client Criminals and members and associates of the Enterprise by,

among other things: bribing, intimidating and otherwise causing

witnesses to offer perjured testimony at court proceedings;

bribing, intimidating and otherwise causing witnesses to absent

6
themselves from offering testimony at court proceedings; and

murdering and conspiring to murder witnesses to prevent their

testimony at court proceedings.

The Racketeering Violation

8. From in or about November 2003 through in or about

December 2008, in the counties of Essex, Hudson and Monmouth, in

the District of New Jersey and elsewhere, defendant

PAUL BERGRIN

together with others known and unknown, being persons employed by

and associated with The Bergrin Law Enterprise described above,

an enterprise engaged in, and the activities of which affected,

interstate and foreign commerce, unlawfully and knowingly

conducted and participated, directly and indirectly, in the

conduct of the affairs of that enterprise through a pattern of

racketeering activity, that is, through the commission of the

following acts: Racketeering Acts One through Seven, as set forth

in paragraphs nine through sixteen below.

The Pattern of Racketeering Activity

9. The pattern of racketeering activity as defined in

Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1961(1) and 1961(5),

consisted of the following acts:

10. Racketeering Act One:

Defendant PAUL BERGRIN committed the following acts,

any one of which alone constitutes the commission of Racketeering

7
Act One:

a. Conspiracy to Tamper with a Witness (Murder

From on or about November 25, 2003 through on or

about March 2, 2004, in the counties of Hudson and Essex, in the

District of New Jersey and elsewhere, defendant PAUL BERGRIN did

knowingly and intentionally conspire and agree with others to

kill another person, namely, K.D.M., with malice aforethought and

with intent to prevent the attendance and testimony of K.D.M. in

an official proceeding, which killing is a murder as defined in

Title 18, United States Code, Section 1111(a), in that in

furtherance of the conspiracy a co-conspirator did unlawfully

kill K.D.M. willfully, deliberately, maliciously, and with

premeditation, contrary to Title 18, United States Code, Sections

1512(a)(1)(A) and (a)(3)(A). In violation of Title 18, United

States Code, Section 1512(k).

b. Tampering with a Witness (Murder of K.D.M.)

On or about March 2, 2004, in the county of Essex,

in the District of New Jersey and elsewhere, defendant PAUL

BERGRIN did knowingly and intentionally aid, abet, counsel and

induce others to kill another person, namely, K.D.M., with malice

aforethought and with intent to prevent the attendance and

testimony of K.D.M. in an official proceeding, which killing is a

murder as defined in Title 18, United States Code, Section

8
1111(a), in that such killing was done unlawfully, willfully,

deliberately, maliciously, and with premeditation. In violation

of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1512(a)(1)(A) and

(a)(3)(A) and Section 2.

c. Conspiracy to Murder K.D.M.

From on or about November 25, 2003 through on or

about March 2, 2004, in the counties of Hudson and Essex, in the

District of New Jersey and elsewhere, defendant PAUL BERGRIN did

knowingly and intentionally conspire and agree with others known

and unknown, to cause the death and serious bodily injury

resulting in death of another person, namely, K.D.M., contrary to

N.J.S.A Sections 2C:11-3 (1) &(2), in violation of N.J.S.A

Section 2C:5-2.

d. Murder of K.D.M.

On or about March 2, 2004, in the county of Essex,

in the District of New Jersey and elsewhere, defendant PAUL

BERGRIN did purposely and knowingly cause the death and serious

bodily injury resulting in death of another person, namely,

K.D.M., in violation of N.J.S.A. Sections 2C:2-6 and 2C:11-3(1) &

(2).

11. Racketeering Act Two:

From in or about June 2008 through in or about December

2008, in the Counties of Monmouth and Essex, in the District of

9
New Jersey and elsewhere, defendant PAUL BERGRIN did knowingly

and intentionally conspire and agree with others known and

unknown, to cause the death and serious bodily injury resulting

in death of another person, namely, D.C. contrary to N.J.S.A

Sections 2C:11-3(1)&(2), in violation of N.J.S.A Section 2C:5-2.

12. Racketeering Act Three:

Defendant PAUL BERGRIN committed the following acts,

any one of which alone constitutes the commission of Racketeering

Act Three:

a. The August 5, 2008 Travel

On or about August 5, 2008, in the District of New

Jersey, and elsewhere, defendant PAUL BERGRIN and others known

and unknown did knowingly and intentionally travel in and use

facilities in interstate commerce and cause the travel in and use

of facilities in interstate commerce, with the intent to promote,

manage, establish, carry on, and facilitate the promotion,

management, establishment and carrying on of an unlawful

activity, that is, the distribution of a controlled substance,

contrary to Title 21, United States Code, Sections 841 and 846,

and thereafter, did perform and attempt to perform an act to

promote, manage, establish, carry on and facilitate the

promotion, management, establishment, and carrying on of such

unlawful activity. In violation of Title 18, United States Code,

10
Section 1952(a)(3) and Section 2.

b. The September 5, 2008 Telephone Conversation

On or about September 5, 2008, in the District of

New Jersey, and elsewhere, defendant PAUL BERGRIN and others

known and unknown did knowingly and intentionally use and cause

the use of facilities in interstate commerce with the intent to

commit a crime of violence to further an unlawful activity, that

is, the distribution of a controlled substance, contrary to Title

21, United States Code, Sections 841 and 846, and thereafter, did

perform and attempt to perform an act to commit a crime of

violence to further such unlawful activity. In violation of

Title 18, United States Code, Section 1952(a)(2) and Section 2.

c. The December 8, 2008 Travel

On or about December 8, 2008, in the District of

New Jersey, and elsewhere, defendant PAUL BERGRIN and others

known and unknown did knowingly and intentionally travel in and

use facilities in interstate commerce, and cause the travel in

and the use of facilities in interstate commerce, with the intent

to commit a crime of violence to further an unlawful activity,

namely, the distribution of a controlled substance, contrary to

Title 21, United States Code, Sections 841 and 846, and

thereafter, did perform and attempt to perform an act to commit a

crime of violence to further such unlawful activity. In

violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1952(a)(2) and

11
Section 2.

13. Racketeering Act Four:

From on or about May 19, 2005 through on or about

October 26, 2005, in Essex County, in the District of New Jersey,

and elsewhere, defendant PAUL BERGRIN and others knowingly and

intentionally devised and intended to devise a scheme and

artifice to defraud, and for obtaining money and property by

means of materially false and fraudulent pretenses,

representations, and promises, and transmitted and caused to be

transmitted by means of wire, radio, or television communication

in interstate or foreign commerce, a writing, sign, signal,

picture, and sound for the purpose of executing such scheme or

artifice. In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section

1343 and Section 2.

14. Racketeering Act Five:

From on or about July 11, 2005 through on or about

August 2, 2005, in Essex County, in the District of New Jersey,

and elsewhere, defendant PAUL BERGRIN and others knowingly and

intentionally devised and intended to devise a scheme and

artifice to defraud, and for obtaining money and property by

means of materially false and fraudulent pretenses,

representations, and promises, and transmitted and caused to be

transmitted by means of wire, radio, or television communication

12
in interstate or foreign commerce, a writing, sign, signal,

picture, and sound for the purpose of executing such scheme or

artifice. In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section

1343 and Section 2.

15. Racketeering Act Six:

From on or about February 10, 2006 through on or about

March 22, 2006, in Essex County, in the District of New Jersey,

and elsewhere, defendant PAUL BERGRIN and others knowingly and

intentionally devised and intended to devise a scheme and

artifice to defraud, and for obtaining money and property by

means of materially false and fraudulent pretenses,

representations, and promises, and transmitted and caused to be

transmitted by means of wire, radio, or television communication

in interstate or foreign commerce, a writing, sign, signal,

picture, and sound for the purpose of executing such scheme or

artifice. In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section

1343 and Section 2.

16. Racketeering Act Seven:

From on or about February 10, 2006 through on or about

April 6, 2006, in Essex County, in the District of New Jersey,

and elsewhere, defendant PAUL BERGRIN and others knowingly and

intentionally devised and intended to devise a scheme and

artifice to defraud, and for obtaining money and property by

13
means of materially false and fraudulent pretenses,

representations, and promises, and transmitted and caused to be

transmitted by means of wire, radio, or television communication

in interstate or foreign commerce, a writing, sign, signal,

picture, and sound for the purpose of executing such scheme or

artifice. In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section

1343 and Section 2.

All in violation of Title 18, United States Code,

Section 1962(c) and Section 2.

14
 COUNT TWO
(Racketeering Conspiracy)
(Defendant Bergrin)

1. Paragraphs one through seven and nine through

sixteen of Count One of this Indictment are hereby realleged and

incorporated as if fully set forth herein.

2. From in or about November 2003 through in or about

December 2008 in the counties of Essex, Hudson and Monmouth, in

the District of New Jersey and elsewhere, defendant

PAUL BERGRIN

together with other persons known and unknown, being persons

employed by and associated with The Bergrin Law Enterprise

described above, an enterprise, which engaged in, and the

activities of which affected, interstate commerce, knowingly and

intentionally conspired to violate Title 18, United States Code,

Section 1962(c), that is, to conduct and participate, directly

and indirectly, in the conduct of the affairs of that enterprise

through a pattern of racketeering activity, as that term is

defined by Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1961(1) and

(5). The pattern of racketeering activity through which

defendant PAUL BERGRIN agreed to conduct the affairs of the

enterprise consisted of the acts set forth in paragraphs nine

through sixteen of Count One of this Indictment, which are

realleged and incorporated as if fully set forth herein.

3. It was a part of the conspiracy that defendant

15
PAUL BERGRIN agreed that a conspirator would commit at least two

acts of racketeering activity in the conduct of the affairs of

the enterprise.

All in violation of Title 18, United States Code,

Section 1962(d).

16
 COUNT THREE
(Conspiracy to Murder a Witness)
(Defendant Bergrin)

1. From in or about January 2003 through in or about

November 2003, Federal law enforcement agents conducted an

investigation into the drug trafficking activities of a

co-conspirator, William Baskerville, who is not named as a

defendant herein.

2. An individual hereinafter referred to as "K.D.M."

provided information and assistance to Federal law enforcement

agents in connection with the investigation into the drug

trafficking activities of William Baskerville. As part of the

investigation, K.D.M., under the supervision and surveillance of

Federal law enforcement agents, purchased cocaine base from

William Baskerville on six separate occasions.

3. On or about November 18, 2003, a United States

Magistrate Judge for the District of New Jersey signed a criminal

complaint and issued an arrest warrant charging William

Baskerville with distributing five grams or more of a substance

containing cocaine base in violation of Federal law ("the Federal

Drug Case").

4. The affidavit of a Federal law enforcement agent

(the "Agent's Affidavit") submitted in support of the criminal

complaint and arrest warrant set forth, in part, that K.D.M.,

identified in the Agent's Affidavit only as the "confidential

17
witness," assisted law enforcement by making purchases of cocaine

base from William Baskerville.

5. On or about November 25, 2003, William Baskerville

was arrested on the above-described arrest warrant and appeared

in United States Court for the District of New Jersey. Defendant

PAUL BERGRIN appeared as defense counsel for William Baskerville

in connection with the Federal Drug Case. At that Court

proceeding, William Baskerville and defendant PAUL BERGRIN were

informed of the crime with which William Baskerville was charged

and received a copy of the criminal complaint and the Agent's

Affidavit related to the Federal Drug Case.

6. On that same day, after learning of the

allegations in the criminal complaint and the Agent's Affidavit,

William Baskerville determined that K.D.M. was the individual

identified in the Agent's Affidavit as the "confidential

witness."

The Conspiracy

7. From on or about November 25, 2003 through on or

about March 2, 2004, in the counties of Hudson and Essex, in the

District of New Jersey and elsewhere, defendant

PAUL BERGRIN

did knowingly and intentionally conspire and agree with others to

kill another person, namely, K.D.M., with malice aforethought and

with intent to prevent the attendance and testimony of K.D.M. in

18
an official proceeding, which killing is a murder as defined in

Title 18, United States Code, Section 1111(a), in that in

furtherance of the conspiracy, a co-conspirator did unlawfully

kill K.D.M. willfully, deliberately, maliciously, and with

premeditation, contrary to Title 18, United States Code, Sections

1512(a)(1)(A) and (a)(3)(A).

The Object of the Conspiracy

8. It was the object of the conspiracy to kill K.D.M.

to prevent his attendance and testimony at official proceedings

pertaining to the Federal Drug Case against William Baskerville.

Manner and Means of the Conspiracy

9. It was part of the conspiracy that after William

Baskerville determined the identity of the "confidential

witness," William Baskerville informed defendant PAUL BERGRIN

that the identity of the "confidential witness" was K.D.M.

10. It was further part of the conspiracy that

defendant PAUL BERGRIN thereafter told other co-conspirators,

including a co-conspirator herein referred to as H.C., that the

identity of the "confidential witness" was K.D.M.

11. It was further part of the conspiracy that

defendant PAUL BERGRIN met with other co-conspirators, including

H.C., and those herein referred to as R.B. and A.Y., reiterated

to them that the identity of the “confidential witness” was

K.D.M., stressed to the co-conspirators that the only way William

19
Baskerville could win the Federal Drug Case was if K.D.M. were

killed, and told the co-conspirators that he would win the

Federal Drug Case for William Baskerville if the co-conspirators

killed K.D.M.

12. It was a further part of the conspiracy that on or

about March 2, 2004, A.Y., a co-conspirator, shot K.D.M. and

caused the death of K.D.M.

In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section

1512(k).

20
 COUNT FOUR
(Murder of a Witness)
(Defendant Bergrin)

1. Paragraphs one through six and nine through twelve

of Count Three of this Indictment are hereby realleged and

incorporated as though set forth in full herein.

2. On or about March 2, 2004, in the county of Essex,

in the District of New Jersey and elsewhere, defendant

PAUL BERGRIN

did knowingly and intentionally aid, abet, counsel and induce

others to kill another person, namely, K.D.M., with malice

aforethought and with intent to prevent the attendance and

testimony of K.D.M. in an official proceeding, which killing is a

murder as defined in Title 18, United States Code, Section

1111(a), in that such killing was done unlawfully, willfully,

deliberately, maliciously, and with premeditation.

In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections

1512(a)(1)(A) and (a)(3)(A) and Section 2.

21
 COUNT FIVE
(Conspiracy to Travel in Aid of Racketeering Enterprise)
(Defendants Bergrin, Moran and Esteves)

1. At all times relevant to Count Five of this

Indictment:

a. Defendant VICENTE ESTEVES was charged in

Superior Court in Monmouth County, New Jersey with cocaine

trafficking in violation of New Jersey State criminal law

(hereinafter, "the Monmouth County Case").

b. Defendant PAUL BERGRIN was a lawyer who

represented defendant VICENTE ESTEVES in the Monmouth County

Case.

c. Defendant THOMAS MORAN was a lawyer who

assisted PAUL BERGRIN in the Monmouth County Case.

d. Defendant VICENTE ESTEVES was detained in the

Monmouth County Correctional Institution pending trial on the

Monmouth County Case, and thus, was unable to carry on his

cocaine trafficking business.

The Conspiracy

2. From in or about June 2008 through on or about

December 9, 2008, in the District of New Jersey, and elsewhere,

defendants

PAUL BERGRIN,
THOMAS MORAN, and
VICENTE ESTEVES, a/k/a “Vinny”

did knowingly and intentionally conspire and agree with each

22
other and with others to travel in and use facilities in

interstate commerce, and to cause the travel in and the use of

facilities in interstate commerce with the intent: (a) to

promote, manage, establish, carry on, and facilitate the

promotion, management, establishment and carrying on of an

unlawful activity, that is, the distribution of a controlled

substance, contrary to Title 21, United States Code, Sections 841

and 846, and to thereafter, perform and attempt to perform acts

to promote, manage, establish, carry on and facilitate the

promotion, management, establishment, and carrying on of such

unlawful activity, contrary to Title 18, United States Code,

Section 1952(a)(3); and (b) to commit a crime of violence to

further an unlawful activity, that is, the distribution of a

controlled substance, and to thereafter, perform an act to commit

a crime of violence to further such unlawful activity, contrary

to Title 18, United States Code, Section 1952(a)(2).

Object of the Conspiracy

3. It was the object of the conspiracy for the

defendants to prevent witnesses in the Monmouth County Case from

testifying against VICENTE ESTEVES, a/k/a “Vinny,” so that

VICENTE ESTEVES, a/k/a “Vinny,” could thwart the prosecution of

the Monmouth County Case, secure his release from the Monmouth

County Correctional Institution and resume his drug trafficking

business.

23
 Manner and Means of the Conspiracy

4. Beginning in or about June 2008, defendants PAUL

BERGRIN and VICENTE ESTEVES, a/k/a “Vinny,” identified persons

whom they believed were cooperating with law enforcement and

would be witnesses for the prosecution against VICENTE ESTEVES,

a/k/a “Vinny,” in the Monmouth County Case (hereinafter, “the

Monmouth County Witnesses”).

5. Beginning in or about June 2008, defendants PAUL

BERGRIN and VICENTE ESTEVES, a/k/a “Vinny,” devised a plan to

ensure that the Monmouth County Witnesses did not cooperate with

law enforcement and testify against VICENTE ESTEVES, a/k/a

“Vinny,” in the Monmouth County Case.

6. Beginning in June 2008, defendants VICENTE

ESTEVES, a/k/a “Vinny,” PAUL BERGRIN and THOMAS MORAN solicited

and obtained the services of another individual (hereinafter, the

"Hitman") to kill the Monmouth County Witnesses so that VICENTE

ESTEVES, a/k/a “Vinny,” could thwart the prosecution of the

Monmouth County Case, secure his release from the Monmouth County

Correctional Institution and resume his cocaine trafficking

business.

7. From in or about June 2008 through in or about

December 2008, the defendants traveled in and used facilities in

interstate commerce, and caused others to travel in and use

facilities in interstate commerce, for the purpose of killing or

24
otherwise preventing the Monmouth County Witnesses from

testifying against VICENTE ESTEVES, a/k/a “Vinny.”

Overt Acts

8. In furtherance of the conspiracy and to effect the

illegal object thereof, the defendants, PAUL BERGRIN, THOMAS

MORAN and VICENTE ESTEVES, a/k/a “Vinny,” and others known and

unknown, committed and caused to be committed the following overt

acts, among others, in the District of New Jersey and elsewhere:

a. On or about July 10, 2008, defendant PAUL

BERGRIN met with the Hitman and told the Hitman that defendant

VICENTE ESTEVES, a/k/a “Vinny,” wanted the Hitman to make sure

that the Monmouth County Witnesses did not cooperate with law

enforcement and testify against defendant VICENTE ESTEVES, a/k/a

“Vinny.”

b. On or about August 5, 2008, defendant PAUL

BERGRIN traveled from Newark, New Jersey to Chicago, Illinois to

meet with the Hitman. During that meeting, defendant PAUL

BERGRIN told the Hitman that an individual known as “Junior the

Panamanian,” (herein also referred to as D.C.) among other

persons, was the “f--king rat,” that is a potential witness

against VICENTE ESTEVES, a/k/a “Vinny,” and that defendant PAUL

BERGRIN would provide instructions designed to assist the Hitman

in locating Junior the Panamanian.

c. On or about August 19, 2008, defendant PAUL

25
BERGRIN met with the Hitman and told the Hitman that he would

provide the Hitman with a cellphone to be used exclusively for

the purpose of the Hitman speaking with defendant VICENTE

ESTEVES, a/k/a “Vinny,” regarding the plot to ensure that the

Monmouth County Witnesses did not cooperate with law enforcement

and testify against VICENTE ESTEVES, a/k/a “Vinny.”

d. On or about August 21, 2008, defendant THOMAS

MORAN gave the Hitman a cellphone to be used exclusively to speak

to defendant VICENTE ESTEVES, a/k/a “Vinny,” regarding the plot

to ensure the Monmouth County Witnesses did not cooperate with

law enforcement and testify against VICENTE ESTEVES, a/k/a

“Vinny.”

e. On or about August 21, 2008, defendant

VICENTE ESTEVES, a/k/a “Vinny,” had a telephone conversation with

the Hitman in which defendant VICENTE ESTEVES, a/k/a “Vinny,”

confirmed that he wanted the Hitman to ensure that Junior the

Panamanian and two other persons whom defendant VICENTE ESTEVES,

a/k/a “Vinny,” believed were witnesses against him in the

Monmouth County Case did not cooperate with law enforcement and

testify against defendant VICENTE ESTEVES, a/k/a “Vinny.”

f. On or about September 4, 2008, defendant PAUL

BERGRIN met with the Hitman, told the Hitman that Junior the

Panamanian had been seen in New Jersey and agreed to set up a

meeting between the Hitman and another person, M.L., who

26
defendant PAUL BERGRIN said could provide the Hitman with more

details regarding the location of Junior the Panamanian.

g. On or about September 5, 2008, defendant PAUL

BERGRIN, placed a telephone call to the Hitman and discussed with

the Hitman that the Hitman had met with M.L., but that M.L. did

not provide the Hitman with information regarding the then

current location of Junior the Panamanian.

h. On or about October 2, 2008, defendant PAUL

BERGRIN met with the Hitman and told the Hitman that he would

introduce the Hitman to a second person who would help the Hitman

locate Junior the Panamanian so that the Hitman could kill Junior

the Panamanian.

i. On or about November 17, 2008, defendant PAUL

BERGRIN met with the Hitman and provided the Hitman with the

names of two other persons whom defendant VICENTE ESTEVES, a/k/a

“Vinny,” wanted killed to prevent their testimony against him in

the Monmouth County Case.

j. On or about December 8, 2008, defendant

THOMAS MORAN offered to assist the Hitman in obtaining a gun so

that the Hitman could kill Junior the Panamanian.

k. On or about December 8, 2008, defendant

THOMAS MORAN placed a telephone call to another individual in

order to obtain a gun for the Hitman.

l. On or about December 8, 2008, subsequent to

27
the telephone call described above in paragraph 8(k), defendant

THOMAS MORAN drove the Hitman to a meeting with defendant PAUL

BERGRIN.

m. On or about December 8, 2008, defendant PAUL

BERGRIN met with the Hitman and instructed the Hitman to make the

murder of Junior the Panamanian appear as if it were part of a

home invasion robbery rather than the execution of a witness.

All in violation of Title 18, United States Code,

Section 371.

28
 COUNT SIX
(Travel in Aid of Racketeering Enterprise)
(Defendants Bergrin and Moran)

1. Paragraphs one and four through eight of Count

Five of this Indictment are hereby realleged and incorporated as

though set forth in full herein.

2. On or about August 5, 2008 in the District of New

Jersey, and elsewhere, defendants

PAUL BERGRIN and

did knowingly and intentionally travel in and use facilities in

interstate commerce and cause the travel in and the use of

facilities in interstate commerce, with the intent to promote,

manage, establish, carry on, and facilitate the promotion,

management, establishment and carrying on of an unlawful

activity, that is, the distribution of a controlled substance,

contrary to Title 21, United States Code, Sections 841 and 846,

and thereafter, did perform and attempt to perform an act to

promote manage establish, carry on and facilitate the promotion,

management, establishment, and carrying on of such unlawful

activity, as follows:

a. On or about August 5, 2008, defendant PAUL

BERGRIN traveled from Newark, New Jersey to Chicago, Illinois,

to meet with the Hitman. During that meeting, defendant PAUL

BERGRIN told the Hitman that an individual known as “Junior the

Panamanian,” among other persons, was the “f--king rat,” that is

a potential witness against Vicente Esteves, a/k/a “Vinny,” and

29
that defendant PAUL BERGRIN would provide instructions designed

to assist the Hitman in locating Junior the Panamanian.

b. On or about August 19, 2008, defendant PAUL

BERGRIN met with the Hitman and told the Hitman that he would

provide the Hitman with a cellphone to be used exclusively for

the purpose of the Hitman speaking with Vicente Esteves, a/k/a

“Vinny,” regarding the plot to ensure the Monmouth County

Witnesses did not cooperate with law enforcement and testify

against Vicente Esteves, a/k/a “Vinny.”

c. On or about August 21, 2008, defendant THOMAS

MORAN gave the Hitman a cellphone to be used exclusively to speak

to Vicente Esteves, a/k/a “Vinny,” regarding the plot to ensure

the Monmouth County Witnesses did not cooperate with law

enforcement and testify against Vicente Esteves, a/k/a “Vinny.”

d. On or about August 21, 2008, Vicente Esteves,

a/k/a “Vinny,” had a telephone conversation with the Hitman in

which Vicente Esteves, a/k/a “Vinny,” confirmed that he wanted

the Hitman to ensure that Junior the Panamanian and two other

persons whom Vicente Esteves, a/k/a “Vinny,” believed were

witnesses against him in the Monmouth County Case did not

cooperate with law enforcement and testify against Vicente

Esteves, a/k/a “Vinny.”

In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section

1952(a)(3) and Section 2.

30
 COUNT SEVEN
(Travel in Aid of Racketeering Enterprise)
(Defendant Bergrin)

1. Paragraphs one and four through eight of Count

Five of this Indictment are hereby realleged and incorporated as

though set forth in full herein.

2. On or about September 5, 2008, in the District of

New Jersey, and elsewhere, defendant

PAUL BERGRIN

did knowingly and intentionally use and cause the use of

facilities in interstate commerce with the intent to commit a

crime of violence to further an unlawful activity, namely, the

distribution of a controlled substance, contrary to Title 21,

United States Code, Sections 841 and 846, and thereafter, did

perform and attempt to perform an act to commit a crime of

violence to further such unlawful activity, as follows:

a. On or about September 5, 2008, defendant PAUL

BERGRIN, placed a telephone call to the Hitman and discussed with

the Hitman that the Hitman had met with M.L., but that M.L. did

not provide the Hitman with information regarding the then

current location of Junior the Panamanian.

b. On or about October 2, 2008, defendant PAUL

BERGRIN met with the Hitman and told the Hitman that he would

introduce the Hitman to a second person who would help the Hitman

locate Junior the Panamanian so that the Hitman could kill Junior

the Panamanian.

31
 c. On or about November 17, 2008, defendant PAUL

BERGRIN met with the Hitman and provided the Hitman with the

names of two other persons whom Vicente Esteves, a/k/a “Vinny,”

wanted killed to prevent their testimony against him in the

Monmouth County Case.

In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section

1952(a)(2) and Section 2.

32
 COUNT EIGHT
(Travel in Aid of Racketeering Enterprise)
(Defendants Bergrin and Moran)

1. Paragraphs one and four through eight of Count

Five of this Indictment are hereby realleged and incorporated as

though set forth in full herein.

2. On or about December 8, 2008, in the District of

New Jersey, and elsewhere, defendants

PAUL BERGRIN and

did knowingly and intentionally travel in and use facilities in

interstate commerce, and cause the travel in and the use of

facilities in interstate commerce, with the intent to commit a

crime of violence to further an unlawful activity, namely, the

distribution of a controlled substance, contrary to Title 21,

United States Code, Sections 841 and 846, and thereafter, did

perform and attempt to perform an act to commit a crime of

violence to further such unlawful activity, as follows:

a. On or about December 8, 2008, the Hitman

traveled from Chicago, Illinois, to Newark, New Jersey to meet

with defendants PAUL BERGRIN and THOMAS MORAN.

b. On or about December 8, 2008, defendant

THOMAS MORAN met with the Hitman and offered to assist the Hitman

in obtaining a gun so that the Hitman could kill Junior the

Panamanian.

c. On or about December 8, 2008, defendant

THOMAS MORAN placed a telephone call to another individual in

33
order to obtain a gun for the Hitman.

d. On or about December 8, 2008, subsequent to

the telephone call described above in paragraph 2(c), defendant

THOMAS MORAN drove the Hitman to a meeting with defendant PAUL

BERGRIN.

e. On or about December 8, 2008, defendant PAUL

BERGRIN met with the Hitman and instructed the Hitman to make the

murder of Junior the Panamanian appear as if it were part of a

home invasion robbery rather than the execution of a witness.

In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section

1952(a)(2) and Section 2.

34
 COUNT NINE
(Wire Fraud Conspiracy)
(Defendants Bergrin, Jauregui, Koontz)

1. At all times relevant to Count Nine of this

Indictment:

a. Atlantic Home Loans, J.P. Morgan Chase Bank,

America's Wholesale Lender and Bear Stearns Residential Mortgage

Corporation, were lending institutions that administered mortgage

loan programs which allowed borrowers who could meet income,

credit eligibility, and down payment underwriting requirements,

among other things, to obtain financing secured by real estate.

b. Defendant PAUL BERGRIN was an attorney who

owned properties located in Essex County and elsewhere.

Defendant PAUL BERGRIN acted as a seller or as a closing attorney

in connection with fraudulent real estate transactions.

c. Defendant YOLANDA JAUREGUI, a/k/a "Yolanda

Bracero," owned properties in Essex County and elsewhere with

defendant PAUL BERGRIN, and also participated in fraudulent real

estate transactions.

d. A co-conspirator herein referred to as

"D.D.," facilitated fraudulent real estate transactions on behalf

of and in concert with defendants PAUL BERGRIN, YOLANDA JAUREGUI,

a/k/a “Yolanda Bracero,” SUNDIATA KOONTZ, and others.

e. Defendant SUNDIATA KOONTZ acted as both a

buyer and a seller in connection with fraudulent real estate

transactions in concert with defendants PAUL BERGRIN, YOLANDA

35
JAUREGUI, a/k/a “Yolanda Bracero,” and co-conspirator D.D.

The Conspiracy

2. From on or about May 19, 2005 through on or about

April 6, 2006, in the District of New Jersey and elsewhere,

defendants

PAUL BERGRIN
YOLANDA JAUREGUI, a/k/a "Yolanda Bracero," and
SUNDIATA KOONTZ

did knowingly and intentionally conspire and agree with each

other and others to execute a scheme and artifice to defraud

lending institutions, and to obtain approximately $1,107,000 from

these lending institutions, by means of materially false and

fraudulent pretenses, representations, and promises, and to use

interstate and foreign wire communications for the purpose of

executing such scheme and artifice, contrary to Title 18, United

States Code, Section 1343.

Object of the Conspiracy

3. It was the object of the conspiracy for defendants

PAUL BERGRIN, YOLANDA JAUREGUI, a/k/a “Yolanda Bracero,” SUNDIATA

KOONTZ and others, to obtain money by fraudulently inducing

lending institutions to approve mortgage loans.

Manner and Means of the Conspiracy

4. It was part of the conspiracy that defendants PAUL

BERGRIN and YOLANDA JAUREGUI, a/k/a “Yolanda Bracero,” sought

co-conspirator D.D.’s assistance in acquiring buyers who would

purchase real estate properties owned by defendants PAUL BERGRIN

36
and YOLANDA JAUREGUI, a/k/a “Yolanda Bracero,” at inflated prices

in connection with fraudulent real estate transactions.

5. It was further part of the conspiracy that

co-conspirator D.D. would recruit other co-conspirators,

including defendant SUNDIATA KOONTZ, to purchase properties,

including properties owned by defendants PAUL BERGRIN and YOLANDA

JAUREGUI, a/k/a “Yolanda Bracero,” or companies they owned, at

inflated prices.

6. It was further part of the conspiracy that the

co-conspirator buyers, including defendant SUNDIATA KOONTZ, would

apply for and obtain mortgage loans to purchase real estate

properties by submitting false information and documents to

lending institutions, including false representations about down

payments on the properties which were in fact not made, and false

earnings information.

7. It was further part of the conspiracy that

co-conspirator D.D. would assist the co-conspirator buyers,

including defendant SUNDIATA KOONTZ, with submitting documents

and information to lending institutions that: (a) falsely

inflated the value and purchase price of the properties; and (b)

falsely portrayed the co-conspirator buyer's credit-worthiness.

8. It was further part of the conspiracy that the

conspirators would fraudulently cause the lending institutions to

approve the co-conspirator buyers’ mortgage loan applications and

disburse funds to the conspirators' or their settlement agents.

37
 9. It was further part of the conspiracy that the

conspirators would share the proceeds of the fraudulently

obtained mortgage loans.

10. It was further part of the conspiracy that, in

connection with the fraudulent real estate transactions, co-

conspirators, including defendant PAUL BERGRIN, acted as the

closing attorney for co-conspirator buyers and sellers.

11. It was further part of the conspiracy that, in

connection with some fraudulent real estate transactions,

defendant SUNDIATA KOONTZ acted as the seller.

12. It was further part of the conspiracy that the

defendants and their co-conspirators would use interstate wire

transactions, including the electronic transfers of mortgage

funds, to facilitate the fraudulent real estate transactions.

13. It was further part of the conspiracy that

substantially all of the mortgage loans obtained pursuant to the

scheme described herein resulted in default.

38
 Wire Transfers

14. To effect the object of the conspiracy, defendants

PAUL BERGRIN, YOLANDA JAUREGUI, a/k/a “Yolanda Bracero,” SUNDIATA

KOONTZ, and others used interstate and foreign wire

communications, including the following:

a. On or about September 27, 2005, defendant

SUNDIATA KOONTZ caused a representative of Atlantic Home Loans to

wire transfer approximately $101,500 from the Atlantic Home Loans

account in New Jersey to an account at a bank in Pennsylvania,

which was controlled by L. & C. Search and Abstract, who

disbursed those funds via check to SUNDIATA KOONTZ and other

participants in the conspiracy.

b. On or about October 25, 2005, defendant

SUNDIATA KOONTZ caused a representative of J.P. Morgan Chase Bank

to wire transfer approximately $170,000 from the J.P. Morgan

Chase Bank account located in New York to a Chase account

controlled by KOONTZ and D.D. in New Jersey.

c. On or about July 21, 2005, defendant SUNDIATA

KOONTZ caused a representative of America's Wholesale Lender to

wire transfer approximately $237,500 from America's Wholesale

Lender's account in Florida to an account at a bank in

Pennsylvania controlled by L. & C. Search and Abstract for

ultimate disbursal to defendant YOLANDA JAUREGUI, a/k/a “Yolanda

Bracero,” and other participants in the conspiracy.

d. On or about March 7, 2006, a co-conspirator

39
caused a representative of Bear Stearns Residential Mortgage

Corporation to wire transfer approximately $313,500 from the Bear

Sterns Residential Mortgage Corporation account located in

Pennsylvania to an account controlled by M. S. Title Agency in

New Jersey, for ultimate disbursal to defendant SUNDIATA KOONTZ

and other participants in the conspiracy.

e. On or about March 28, 2006, a co-conspirator

caused a representative of Bear Stearns Residential Mortgage

Corporation to wire transfer approximately $285,000 from the Bear

Sterns Residential Mortgage Corporation account located in

Arizona to an account controlled by A. T. & S. Services in New

Jersey, for ultimate disbursal to defendant SUNDIATA KOONTZ and

other participants in the conspiracy.

All in violation of Title 18, United States Code,

Section 1349.

40
 COUNTS TEN THROUGH FOURTEEN
(Wire Fraud)
(Defendants Bergrin, Jauregui, Koontz)

1. Paragraphs one and four through fourteen of Count

Nine of this Indictment are hereby realleged and reincorporated

as though set forth in full herein.

2. On or about the dates set forth below, in Essex

County, in the District of New Jersey, and elsewhere, the

defendants

PAUL BERGRIN,
YOLANDA JAUREGUI, a/k/a "Yolanda Bracero," and
SUNDIATA KOONTZ,

knowingly and intentionally devised and intended to devise a

scheme and artifice to defraud, and for obtaining money and

property by means of materially false and fraudulent pretenses,

representations, and promises, which scheme is set forth in Count

Nine, and for the purpose of executing and attempting to execute

such scheme and artifice did transmit and cause to be transmitted

by means of wire, radio, or television communication in

interstate or foreign commerce, a writing, sign, signal, picture,

and sound, namely the wire money transfers from the lending

institutions and in the amounts set forth below, each

representing a separate count of this Indictment:

41
COUNT DEFENDANT DATE FROM TO PROPERTY AMOUNT
TEN PAUL BERGRIN, 9/27/05 Atlantic L. & C 46 Eaton $101,500
and SUNDIATA Home Loans, Search Place,
KOONTZ (NJ) and East
Abstract, Orange,
(PA) New Jersey
ELEVEN PAUL BERGRIN, 10/25/05 J.P. Morgan Chase 46 Eaton $170,000
and SUNDIATA Chase Bank, Bank (NJ) Place,
KOONTZ (NY) East
Orange,
New Jersey
TWELVE PAUL BERGRIN, 7/21/05 America’s L. & C. 13 $237,500
YOLANDA Wholesale Search Edgerton
JAUREGUI, a/k/a Lender, and Place,
"Yolanda (FL) Abstract, South
Bracero," and (PA) Orange,
SUNDIATA KOONTZ New Jersey
THIRTEEN PAUL BERGRIN, 3/7/06 Bear M. S. 484 South $313,500
and SUNDIATA Stearns, Title 20th
KOONTZ (PA) Agency, Street,
(NJ) Newark,
New Jersey
FOURTEEN PAUL BERGRIN, 3/28/06 Bear A. T. & 266 $285,000
and SUNDIATA Stearns, S. Wainwright
KOONTZ (AZ) Services, Street,
(NJ) Newark,
New Jersey

42
 All in violation of Title 18, United States Code,

Section 1343 and Section 2.

A TRUE BILL

_________________________

FOREPERSON

_________________________
RALPH J. MARRA, JR.
Acting United States Attorney

43