United States v. Liburdi
8:24-cr-00564
| M.D. Fla. | Aug 22, 2025Background
- A federal grand jury indicted Daniel Liburdi, Joseph Scotto, Gregory Walker, and Frank Carbone, III, for conspiracy to commit bank fraud, substantive bank fraud, and conspiracy to commit money laundering.
- The scheme allegedly involved using false pretenses to obtain merchant accounts from banks, process high-risk credit card transactions (via shell companies), and launder the resulting proceeds.
- The indictment covers activity from May 2018 to May 2023, involving fraudulent applications using personal information of recruited “independent business owners.”
- Liburdi and Carbone filed motions to dismiss the indictment and the forfeiture allegations, and both requested bills of particulars.
- The United States opposes all motions; discovery had not been produced at the time of the motions.
- The court reviewed the sufficiency of the indictment and the appropriateness of granting a bill of particulars, as well as the legal sufficiency of forfeiture allegations.
Issues
| Issue | Defendants' Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Indictment fails to allege scheme to defraud a bank | Carbone: No scheme to defraud or intent to defraud a bank alleged; insufficient detail on Carbone's participation or venue | Sufficient factual allegations made that mirror statutory language, indictments need not allege detailed proof | Dismissal denied; indictment sufficient |
| Indictment fails to charge traditional property fraud (service vs. property) | Liburdi: Payment processing services are not a traditional property interest under bank fraud statute | Indictment alleges scheme to obtain funds (a property interest) from accounts, not just services | Dismissal denied; obtaining funds qualifies as property |
| Indictment is duplicitous for not specifying § 1344(1) vs (2) | Liburdi: Indictment unclear/duplicitous about statutory subsection charged | Both subsections are alternative methods for same offense, conjunctive pleading is appropriate | Dismissal denied; no duplicity |
| Bill of particulars needed for trial/defense prep | Defendants: Require more details on transactions and individual acts to prepare defense | Indictment/discovery provides sufficient information; requests amount to demands for evidentiary disclosure | Denied without prejudice; premature before discovery |
| Forfeiture allegations are deficient (no nexus pled) | Liburdi: Indictment doesn’t plead nexus between forfeiture and charges | No need to allege nexus at indictment stage; only notice required | Dismissal/striking of forfeiture denied |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Woodruff, 296 F.3d 1041 (11th Cir. 2002) (sets forth the standard for indictment sufficiency)
- United States v. Critzer, 951 F.2d 306 (11th Cir. 1992) (sufficiency of indictment judged on its face)
- United States v. Sharpe, 438 F.3d 1257 (11th Cir. 2006) (indictment viewed in light most favorable to the government)
- United States v. Anderson, 799 F.2d 1438 (11th Cir. 1986) (purpose and standards for bill of particulars)
- United States v. Dennis, 237 F.3d 1295 (11th Cir. 2001) (bank fraud statute has alternative methods for committing offense)
- Shaw v. United States, 580 U.S. 63 (2016) (bank's property interest in depositor's funds)