United States v. Jesenik, 3:20-cr-00228

Four defendants (Jesenik, Gillis, MacRitchie, Rice) indicted for a multi-count fraud and money-laundering scheme centered on Aequitas entities; alleged scheme ran June 2014–February 2016 and lost investors >$400M (company owed >$600M at collapse).
Allegations: soliciting investments purportedly to buy receivables while using funds to pay earlier investors and operating expenses; use of an under-collateralized intercompany loan to conceal insolvency.
Defendants’ roles summarized: Jesenik (CEO/founder, ultimate control), MacRitchie (EVP/Chief Compliance), Gillis (COO/CFO), Rice (EVP, managed RIA solicitations).
Government produced voluminous electronic discovery (millions of documents) and court-ordered early disclosure deadlines for trial exhibits and witness lists; Receiver in related SEC civil case issued detailed forensic report concluding insolvency and describing Ponzi-like operations.
Defendants sought a bill of particulars claiming inadequate notice as to (a) which specific investments/wire counts are implicated and (b) what affirmative duty to disclose existed to various recipient groups; motion filed over a year after arraignment.
Court denied the motion for a bill of particulars, finding the indictment plus extensive discovery and scheduled disclosures sufficiently precise to prepare for trial, avoid unfair surprise, and guard against double jeopardy.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of notice as to specific investments implicated in wire-fraud counts	Govt: indictment and discovery identify scheme and specific transfers into ACF Private Note and IOF II and communications about uses	Defs: indictment merely lists “various” investments (21 offerings); need identification to prepare defense	Denied — indictment + discovery + ordered exhibit/witness disclosures provide sufficient notice
Request to identify all overt acts in furtherance of conspiracy	Govt: not required; theory of case is sufficient	Defs: need details of overt acts to prepare defense given complexity	Denied — bill of particulars need not enumerate every overt act; that would duplicate discovery
Requirement to specify duty to disclose for omissions-based fraud allegations	Govt: theory involves affirmative misrepresentations and half-truths; duty arises from half-truths, so independent duty need not be pled	Defs: cannot defend omission-based fraud without knowing asserted legal/factual duty to speak to various groups (investors, RIAs, public, lawyers, auditors)	Denied — where scheme includes misrepresentations/half-truths, indictment and discovery suffice to inform duty allegations
Timeliness of bill-of-particulars motion	Govt: motion filed >1 year after arraignment and outside Rule 7(f) window	Defs: ask court to consider merits despite delay	Court did not decide timeliness because it rejected the motion on merits

United States v. Long, 706 F.2d 1044 (9th Cir.) (bill of particulars appropriate when defendant needs clarification to prepare a defense)
United States v. Ayers, 924 F.2d 1468 (9th Cir.) (bill of particulars purposes: inform defendant, avoid surprise, prevent double jeopardy)
United States v. Giese, 597 F.2d 1170 (9th Cir.) (full discovery can obviate need for bill of particulars)
United States v. Mitchell, 744 F.2d 701 (9th Cir.) (indictment plus full discovery can satisfy notice requirement)
United States v. DiCesare, 765 F.2d 890 (9th Cir.) (request to list all overt acts is inappropriate for bill of particulars)
United States v. Ryland, 806 F.2d 941 (9th Cir.) (defendant entitled to government’s theory, not all evidence, before exhibit/witness disclosure)
United States v. Shields, 844 F.3d 819 (9th Cir.) (omission-based fraud requires proof of an independent duty to disclose)
United States v. Lloyd, 807 F.3d 1128 (9th Cir.) (half-truth theory creates duty to disclose from the misleading half-spoken truth)
United States v. Benny, 786 F.2d 1410 (9th Cir.) (distinguishes misrepresentation and omission theories in fraud prosecutions)
Will v. United States, 389 U.S. 90 (U.S.) (case discussed in context but not dispositive of bill-of-particulars standards)
United States v. Bin Laden, 92 F. Supp. 2d 225 (S.D.N.Y.) (large-scale discovery can factor into bill-of-particulars analysis, though context matters)