United States v. American Premium Water Corporation
1:23-cr-00144
N.D. OhioApr 29, 2025Background
- The indictment charges American Premium Water Corporation and several individuals, including former executives and stock promoters, with conspiracy to commit securities fraud, as well as substantive counts of securities and wire fraud.
- The alleged conspiracy involved issuing millions of nearly cost-free company shares to insiders, inflating share prices, and selling stock for personal profit, allegedly harming outside investors.
- The indictment details eight specific securities fraud transactions in 2018 and four wire fraud transactions, citing a period of alleged wrongful conduct between October 2013 and October 2019.
- Five of the individual defendants moved for bills of particulars seeking more detailed information about the government's allegations to help prepare their defenses.
- The government opposed, arguing the indictment plus full discovery sufficiently informed defendants of the charges.
- The court addressed the motions following briefing and an oral argument in April 2025.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a bill of particulars should disclose names of witnesses/co-conspirators | Not required, overly broad | Entitled to co-conspirator and witness names for preparation | Denied; not required under law |
| Whether additional detail on overt acts, dates, and methods is needed | Indictment & discovery suffice | Indictment too vague, need specifics | Denied; indictment is sufficiently detailed |
| Whether bill of particulars must supply info aiding statute-of-limitations defenses | Info not necessary; not in scope of indictment | Needed for limitations defense | Denied; not required to anticipate affirmative defenses |
| Whether the U.S. must confirm non-involvement with certain recordings | Moot; already confirmed in discovery | Needed for defense prep | Denied; issue moot and bill of particulars not for evidence disclosure |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Salisbury, 983 F.2d 1369 (6th Cir. 1993) (bill of particulars is not for obtaining government’s trial evidence)
- United States v. Crayton, 357 F.3d 560 (6th Cir. 2004) (government not required to name all co-conspirators)
- United States v. Birmley, 529 F.2d 103 (6th Cir. 1976) (defining purposes for a bill of particulars)
- United States v. Craft, 105 F.3d 1123 (6th Cir. 1997) (statute of limitations as affirmative defense)