United States v. SAMUEL SALMAN EL REDA, Southern District of New York (Dec. 20, 2023) — Indictment

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 
--------X 
SEALED INDICTMENT 
-    v. -
SAMUEL SALMAN EL REDA, 
a/k/a "Samuel Salman El Reda El Reda," 
a/k/a "Salman Raouf Salman," 
a/k/a "Sulayman Ramrnal," 
a/k/a "Salman Ramal," 
19 Cr. 
a/k/a "Salman Raouf Salman," cn·m 
a/k/a "Hajj," 1 9, ~I\, 
Defendant. 
----X 
COUNT ONE 
(Provision of Material Support to Hizballah) 
The Grand Jury charges: 
OVERVIEW 
1. Hizballah i s   a Shia Islamic terrorist organization, 
backed by Iran since its inception, which is responsible for 
violent attacks and hundreds of murders dating back to the 1980s. 
The Islamic Jihad Organization ("IJO") is t h e component of 
Hizballah 
principally 
responsible 
for the 
planning and 
coordination of Hizballah's terrorist activities and related 
intelligence and counterintelligence operations. 
2 . 
Beginning in or about 1993, SAMUEL SALMAN EL REDA, 
a/k/a "Samuel Salman El Reda El Reda," a/k/a "Salman Raouf Salman," 

a/k/a "Sulayman Rammal," a/k/a "Salman Ramal," a/k/a "Salman Raouf 
Salman," a/k/a "Hajj," the defendant, was a member of Hizballah 
and the IJO who participated in terrorist operations in, among 
other places, South America, Asia, and Lebanon. 
3. SAMUEL SALMAN EL REDA, a/k/a "Samuel Salman El Reda 
El Reda," a/k/a "Salman Raouf Salman," a/k/a "Sulayman Rammal," 
a/k/ a "Salman Ramal," a/k/a "Salman Raouf Salman," a/k/a "Hajj," 
the defendant, helped Hizballah plan and execute the July 18, 1994 
bombing of the Asociaci6n Mutual Israelita Argentina ("AMIA'') 
building in Buenos Aires, Argentina, which killed 85 people and 
injured hundreds more. 
4. Between at least in or about 2007 and in or about 
2015, SAMUEL SALMAN EL REDA, a/k/a "Salman Raouf Salman," a/k/a 
"Sulayman Rammal," a/k/a "Salman Ramal," a/k/a "Salman Raouf 
Salman," a/k/a "Hajj," the defendant, helped recruit, train, and 
manage IJO operatives. Acting principally from Lebanon, EL REDA 
deployed IJO operatives to Thailand, Panama, and Peru, among other 
places, to conduct pre-operational surveillance in support of 
attack planning and to assist in stockpiling explosive precursor 
chemicals such as ammonium nitrate. 
2 

Hizballah and Iran 
5 . Hizballah was founded in the early 1980s with 
support from Iran after the 1982 military conflict between Lebanon 
and Israel. Hizballah'  s mission includes establishing 
a 
fundamentalist Islamic state pursuant to principles articulated in 
1979 by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini in connection with the Iranian 
Revolution. 
6. Since Hizballah'  s formation , the organization has 
been responsibl e for numerous terrorist attacks that have killed 
hundreds, including the 1983 bombing of the United States Marine 
barracks in Lebanon, which killed 241 Marines; the 1983 bombing of 
the United States Embassy in Beirut, which killed 24 people; and 
the 1985 hijacking of TWA Flight 847, which killed one U. S . 
citizen. 
7 . 
In 1985, Hizballah issued an open letter embracing 
jihad and quoting Ayatollah Khomeini'  s view that the United States 
is the "root of all evil." Hizballah also declared in ~he 1985 
letter that its priorities included removing Israel from South 
Lebanon "as a first step towards its total annihilation. " 
8 . 
Consistent with Hizballah'  s 1985 declaration, Iran 
has supported Hizballah since Hizballah was established. In the 
early 1980s, Iran sent approximately 1 ,500 officers from its Quds 
Force, which is part of Iran'  s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps 
3 

("IRGC"), to support Hizballah and train its military in South 
Lebanon in connection with the ongoing conflict with Israel. Iran 
has also provided hundreds of millions of dollars in financial 
support to Hizballah on an annual basis. 
9 . In 1997, the U. S . Secretary of State designated 
Hizballah as a foreign terrorist organization pursuant to Section 
219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act ("INA"), and Hizballah 
remains so designated. In 2010, State Department officials 
described Hizballah as the most technically capable terrorist 
group in the world, and a continued security threat to the United 
States. 
Terrorist Activity by Hizballah's Islamic Jihad Organization 
10. The IJO, which is also known as the "External 
Security Organization," "ESO," and "Unit 910," is the component of 
Hizballah that focuses on terrorism and intelligence-collection 
activities outside of Lebanon. Imad Mughniyeh was the IJO'  s first 
and longest-serving leader. 
Like SAMUEL SALMAN EL REDA, a/k/a 
"Samuel Salman El Reda El Reda," a/k/a "Salman Raouf Salman," a/k/a 
"Sulayman Ramrnal," a/k/a "Salman Ramal," a/k/a "Salman Raouf 
Salman," a/k/a "Hajj," the defendant, Mughniyeh has been charged 
by Argentine authorities for participating in the 1994 AMIA 
bombing. 
4 

11. Imad Mughniyeh was killed in Syria in 2008. 
Following Mughniyeh's death, Hizballah Secretary General Hassan 
Nasrallah declared "open war" on behalf of Hizballah. Following 
Nasrallah's declaration, Hizballah and the IJO, including SAMUEL 
SALMAN EL REDA, a/k/a "Samuel Salman El Reda El Reda, 
11 
a/k/a 
"Salman Raouf Salman," a/k/a "Sulayrnan Rarnrnal," a/k/a "Salman 
Ramal," a/k/a "Salman Raouf Salman," a/k/a "Hajj," the defendant, 
increased recruiting, training, and attack-planning efforts. In 
connection with those efforts, the IJO commenced a campaign of 
terrorist activities outside of Lebanon, some of which were 
successful and some of which were thwarted. 
12. In January 2012, IJO operative Hussein Atris was 
detained in Thailand as he tried to board a flight at a Bangkok 
airport. Atris subsequently led law enforcement personnel to a 
commercial building near Bangkok that housed a cache of nearly 
10,000 pounds of urea-based fertilizer and 10 gallons of ammonium 
nitrate, chemicals that can be used to construct explosives. The 
ammonium nitrate was stored in First Aid ice packs manufactured by 
a company in Guangzhou, China ("Guangzhou Company-1"). 
13. In July 2012, 
IJO operative Mouhamad Hassan 
Mouhamad El Husseini detonated explosives on a bus transporting 
Israeli tourists in the vicinity of an airport in Burgas, Bulgaria. 
Six people were killed and 32 others were injured. Law enforcement 
5 

authorities recovered three fraudulent, purportedly U. S .--based, 
driver's licenses during the investigation, subsequently linked 
the attack to the IJO, and determined that ammonium nitrate was an 
active ingredient in the explosives. 
14. 
Also in July 2012, IJO operative Hossam Taleb 
Yaacoub was arrested after conducting surveillance of Israeli 
tourists in the vicinity of an airport in Larnaca, Cyprus. Law 
enforcement a uthorities seized from Yaacoub a notebook containing 
coded entries relating to, among other things, Israeli tour busses. 
15. In May 2015, IJO operative Hussein Bassam Abdallah 
was arrested in Cyprus after Cypriot authorities seized from his 
apartment approximately 8 . 2 tons of ammonium nitrate, some of which 
was stored in First Aid ice packs manufactured by Guangzhou 
Company- 1 , the manufacturer of the First Aid ice packs seized in 
Thailand in January 2012. 
16. In the fall of 2015, according to public reports, 
British authorities seized approximately three tons of ammonium 
nitrate linked to Hizballah from a location in London. 
17. In June 2017, the Federal Bureau of Investigation 
arrested IJO operatives Ali Kourani and Samer El Debek based on 
their activities on behalf of Hizballah in the United States and 
elsewhere, including April 2009 travel by Kourani to Guangzhou, 
China, the location of Guangzhou Company-1; pre-operational 
6 

surveillance by Kourani of U. S . government facilities and 
international airports in the United States and Canada; and similar 
surveillance and explosives-related activities by El Debek in 
Central America and elsewhere. 
El Recta'  s IJO Activities 
18. SAMUEL SALMAN EL REDA, a/k/a "Samuel Salman El Reda 
El Reda," a/k/a "Salman Raouf Salman," a/k/a "Sulayman Rarnmal," 
a/k/a "Salman Ramal," a/k/a "Salman Raouf Salman, " a/k/a "Hajj," 
the defendant, was born in Colombia and is a dual Colombian-
Lebanese citizen. 
19. Beginning in or about 1987, SAMUEL SALMAN EL REDA, 
a / k / a "Samuel Salman El Reda El Reda, " a/k/a "Salman Raouf Salman," 
a/k/a "Sul
9
yman Ramrnal," a/k/a "Salman Ramal," a/k/a "Salman Raouf 
Salman," a / k / a " Hajj," t h e defendant, established roots in Buenos 
Aires as well as South America's Tri-Border Area ("TBA"), 
consisting of Ciudad del Este, Paraguay, Puerto Iguazu, Argentina, 
and Foz do Igua9u, Brazil. 
20. Between in or about 1987 and in or about 1994, 
SAMUEL SALMAN EL REDA, a/k/a "Samuel Salman El Reda El Reda, " a/k/a 
"Salman Raouf Salman," a/k/a "Sulayman Rarnmal," a/k/a "Salman 
Ramal, " a/k/a "Salman Raouf Salman," a/k/a "Hajj, " the defendant, 
developed connections to, among others; Mohsen Rabbani, prominent 
Shia cleric and Iranian diplomat, a n d Assad Ahmad Barakat, a 
7 

Hizballah financier operating in the TBA with ties to Hizballah 
Secretary General Hassan Nasrallah. 
21. In or about July 1994, SAMUEL SALMAN EL REDA, a/k/a 
"Samuel Salman El Reda El Reda," a/k/a "Salman Raouf Salman," a/k/a 
" Sulayman Rammal," a/k/a "Salman Ramal," a/k/a "Salman Raou f 
Salman," a/k/a "Hajj," the defendant, helped coordinate the July 
18, 1994 bombing of the AMIA building by carrying out IJO attack-
planning operations in Buenos Aires and relaying information to 
IJO operatives, among others, in the TBA. 
F
or example, between 
July 1   and July 18, 1994 --the day of the bombing --EL REDA 
placed a series of calls from payphones in Buenos Aires to a 
cellphone subscribed in the name "Andr~ Marques" with an account 
in the TBA (the "Marques Phone" ) . 
22. Beginning at least in or about 2007, SAMUEL SALMAN 
EL REDA, a/k/a "Samuel Salman El Reda El Reda," a/k/a "Salman Raouf 
Salman," a/k/a " Sulayman Rammal," a/k/a "Salman Ramal," a /k/a 
"Salman Raouf Salman," a/k/a "Hajj," the defendant, helped the IJO 
recruit, train, and deploy IJO operatives from Lebanon in 
connection with IJO attack-planning and intelligence-gathering 
operations. 
23. In 2014, IJO operative Mohammed Ghaleb Hamdar was 
arrested in Peru. Peruvian authorities found traces of explosive 
chemicals on Hamdar' s hands and in his apartment  , and also seized 
8 

from the apartment photographs of Peruvian landmarks and 
buildings. 
In a post-arrest statement, Hamdar iqentified SAMUEL 
SALMAN EL REDA,· a/k/a "Samuel Salman El Reda El Reda," a/k/a 
"Salman Raouf Salman," a/k/a "Sulayman Rammal," a/k/a "Salman 
Ramal, " a/k/a "Salman Raouf Salman," a/k/a "Hajj," the defendant, 
as his IJO handler. 
STATUTORY ALLEGATIONS 
24. From at least in or about 1993, up to and including 
in or about 2015, in Lebanon, Argentina, Panama, Thailand, and 
elsewhere, and in an offense begun and committed out of the 
jurisdiction of any particular State or district of the United 
States, SAMUEL SALMAN EL REDA, a/k/a "Samuel Salman El Reda El 
Reda," a/k/a "Salman Raouf Salman," a/k/a "Sulayman Rammal," a/k/a 
"Salman Ramal," a/k/a "Salman Raouf Salman," a/k/a "Hajj, " the 
defendant, who is expected to be first brought to and arrested in 
the Southern District of New York, knowingly provided and attempted 
to provide, and aided and abetted the provision of, "material 
support or resources," as that term is defined in Title 18, United 
States Code, Section 2339A(b) --to wit, tangible and intangible 
property, training, services, expert advice and assistance, and 
personnel 
(including himself) 
to a foreign terrorist 
organization, to wit, Hizballah, which at all relevant times was 
designated by the Secretary of State as a foreign terrorist 
9 

organization since 1997, pursuant to Section 219 of the INA, and 
is currently designated as such as of the date of the filing of 
this Indictment, knowing that Hizballah was a designated foreign 
terrorist organization (as defined in Title 18, United States Code, 
Section 2339B(g) (6)), that Hizballah engages and has engaged in 
terrorist activity (as defined in section 212(a) (3) (B) of the INA), 
and that Hizballah engages and has engaged in terrorism (as defined 
in section 140(d) (2) of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, 
Fiscal Years 1988 and 1989). 
{Title 18, United States Code, Sections 2339B, 3238,.  and 2 . ) 
COUNT TWO 
(Conspiracy to Provide Material Support to Hizballah). 
The Grand Jury further charges: 
25. The allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 
23 of this Indictment are hereby repeated, realleged, and 
incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein. 
26. From at least in or about 1993, up to and including 
in or about 2015, in Lebanon, Argentina, Panama, Thailand, and 
elsewhere, and in an offense begun and committed out of the 
jurisdiction of any particular State or district of the United 
States, SAMUEL SALMAN EL REDA, a/k/a "Samuel Salman El Reda El 
Reda, " a/k/a "Salman Raouf Salman," a/k/a "Sulayman Rammal," a/k/a 
"Salman Ramal," a/k/a "Salman Raouf Salman," a/k/a "Hajj," the 
10 

defendant, who is expected to be f irst brought to and arrested in 
the Southern District of New York, and others known and unknown, 
knowingly and intentionally combined, conspired, confederated, and 
agreed together and wit h each other to provide "material support 
or resources, " as that term is defined in Title 18, United States 
Code, Section 2339A(b) --to wit, tangible and intangible property, 
training, services, expert advice and assistance, and personnel 
(including himself) --to a foreign terrorist organization, to 
wit, Hizballah, which at all relevant times was designated by the 
Secretary of State as a foreign terrorist organization since 1997, 
pursuant to Section 219 of the INA, and is currently designated as 
such as of the date of the filing of this Indictment. 
27. It was a part and an object of the conspiracy that 
SAMUEL SALMAN EL REDA, a/k/a "Samuel Salman El Reda El Reda, " a/k/a 
"Salman Raouf Salman," a/k/a "Sulayman Rammal," a/k/a "Salman 
Ramal," a/k/a "Salman Raouf Salman," a/k/a "Hajj," the defendant, 
and others known and unknown, would and did knowingly agree to 
provide Hizballah with material support and resources, including 
tangible and intangible property, training, services, expert 
advice and assistance, and personnel (including EL REDA), knowing 
that Hizballah was a designated foreign terrorist organization (as 
defined in Title 18,    United States Code, Section 2339B (g) (6)), 
that Hizballah engages and has engaged in terrorist activity (as 
11 

defined in section 212 (a) (3) (B) of the INA), and that Hizballah 
engages and has engaged in terrorism (as defined in section 
140(d) (2) of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 
1988 and 1989), in violation of Title 18, United States Code, 
Section 2339B. 
Overt Acts 
28. In furtherance of the conspiracy and to effect the 
illegal object thereof, SAMUEL SALMAN EL REDA, a/k/a "Samuel Salman 
El Reda El Reda," a/k/a "Salman Raouf Salman," a/k/a· "Sulayman 
Rammal," a/k/a "Salman Ramal," a/k/a "Salman Raouf Salman," a/k/a 
"Hajj," the defendant, and his co-conspirators committed the overt 
acts set forth below, among others: 
a . 
In or about December 1993, Mohsen Rabbani 
opened an account at a local branch of an international bank 
( "Bank-1,,) in Buenos Aires. 
b . 
Between in or about April 1994 and in or about 
July 1994, approximately $150,000 was transferred to Mohsen 
Rabbani's account at Bank-1, including three transfers f rom Bank 
Melli Iran, which was subsequently designated for sanctions by the 
U. S . 
Department of the Treasury based on efforts to provide support 
to the IRGC and other entities involved in Iran' s nuclear and 
missile programs. 
c. On or about July 1 , 1994, SAMUEL SALMAN EL 
12 

REDA, a/k/ a "Samuel Salman El Reda El Reda," a /k/a "Salman Raouf 
Salman, " a/k/a "Sulayman Rammal, " a/k/a "Salman Ramal, " a/k/a 
"Salman Raouf Salman," a/k/a "Hajj, " the defendant, placed a call 
from Ezeiza International Airport to the TBA-based Marques Phon e . 
d . 
On or about July 1 5 , 1994, Mohs en Rabbani 
placed a call from the vicinity of the AMIA building to the At-
Tauhid mosque in the Floresta neighborhood of Buenos Aires . 
e . 
On or about July 15, 1994, following pre-
attack surveillance by Rabbani in the vicini~y of the AMIA building 
on the same day, EL REDA placed a call from t h e Florest a 
neighborhood of Buenos Aires to the Marques Phone. 
f . 
On or about July 18, 1994, EL REDA placed a 
call from Aeroparque Jorge Newbery to the Marques Phone. 
g . 
In or about May 2009, EL REDA instructed an 
IJO operative to travel to Thailand, to help destroy a cache of 
ammonium nitrate and other explosive materi a l s that the I JO 
believed law enforcement was surveilling. 
h . 
In or about February 2011, EL REDA instructed 
an IJO operative to travel to Panama to conduct surveillance o f 
the Panama Canal and Embassies maintained by the United States and 
Israel. 
i  . 
In o r about January 2012, EL REDA instructe d 
an IJO operative to travel to Panama to conduct additional 
13 

surveillance of the Panama Canal. 
(Title 18, United States Code, Sections 2339B and 3238. ) 
COUNT THREE 
(Aiding and Abetting the Receipt of 
Military-Type Training from Hizballah) 
The Grand Jury further charges: 
29. The allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 
23 and paragraph 28 of thi s Indictment are hereby repeated, 
realleged, and incorporated by reference as if fully set forth 
herein. 
30. From at least in or about 2007, up to and including 
in or about 2008, in Lebanon and elsewhere, and in an offense begun 
and committed out of the jurisdiction of any particular State or 
district of the United States, SAMUEL SALMAN EL REDA, a/k/a "Samuel 
Salman El Reda El Reda," a/k/a "Salman Raouf Salman," a/k/a 
"Sulayman Rammal," a/k/a "Salman Ramal," a/k/a "Salman Raouf 
Salman," a/k/a "Hajj, " the defendant, who is expected to be first 
brought to and arrested in the Southern District of New York, 
knowingly aided and abetted the receipt of military-type training 
by another from and on behalf of Hizballah, which at all relevant 
times was designated by the Secretary of State as a foreign 
terrorist organization pursuant to Section 219 of the INA, and is 
currently designated as such as of the date of the filing of this 
Indictment, knowing that Hizballah was a designated foreign 
14 

terrorist organization (as defined in Titl e 18, United States Code, 
Section 2339D(c) (4)), that Hizballah engages and has engaged in 
terrorist activity (as defined in section 212 of the INA), and 
that Hizballah engages and has engaged in terrorism (as defined in 
section 140 (d)  (2) of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, 
Fiscal Years 1988 and 1989), to wit, EL REDA caused one or more 
IJO operatives to receive training in the use of weapons and 
military tactics from other members of Hizballah. 
(Title 18, United States Code, Sections 2339D, 3238, and 2 . ) 
COUNT FOUR 
(Conspiracy to Receive Military-type Training from Hizballah) 
The Grand Jury further charges: 
31. The allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 
23 and paragraph 28 of this Indictment are hereby repeated, 
realleged, and incorporated by reference as i f fully set forth 
herein. 
32. From at least in or about 2007, up to and including 
in or about 2008, in Lebanon and elsewhere, and in an offense begun 
a n d committed out of the jurisdiction of any particular State or 
district of the United States, SAMUEL SALMAN EL REDA, a/k/a "Samuel 
Salman El Reda El Reda," a/k/a "Salman Raouf Salman," a/k/a 
"Sulayman Rammal," a/k/a "Salman Ramal, " a/k/a "Salman Raouf 
Salman, " a/k/a "Hajj," the defendant, who is expected to be first 
15 

brought to and arrested in the Southern District of New York, and 
others known and unknown, knowingly and intentionally combined, 
conspired, confederated, and agreed together and with each other 
to receive military-type training from and on behalf of Hizballah, 
which at all relevant times was designated by the Secretary of 
State as a foreign terrorist organization since 1997, pursuant to 
Section 219 of t h e INA, and is currently designated as such as of 
the date of the filing of this Indictment. 
33. It was a part and an object of the conspiracy that 
SAMUEL SALMAN EL REDA, a/k/a "Samuel Salman El Reda El Reda, " a/k/a 
"Salman Raouf Salman," a/k/a "Sulayman Rammal," a/k/a "Salman 
Ramal, " a/k/a "Salman Raouf Salman, " a/k/a "Hajj," the defendant, 
and others known and unknown, would and did knowingly receive 
military-type training from a n d on behalf of Hizballah, knowing 
that Hizballah was a designated foreign terrorist organization (as 
defined i n Titl e 18, United States Code, Section 2339D(c)(4)), 
that Hizballah engages and has engaged in terrorist activity (as 
defined in section 212 of the INA), and that Hizballah engages and 
has engaged in terrorism (as defined in section 140(d) (2) of the 
Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1988 and 1989), 
in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 2339D. 
16 

Overt Act 
34. In furtherance of the conspiracy and to effect the 
illegal object thereof, SAMUEL SALMAN EL REDA, a/k/a "Samuel Salman 
El Reda El Reda," a/k/a "Salman Raouf Salman, 
11 
a/k/a "Sulayman 
Rammal,
11 
a/k/a "Salman Ramal," a/k/a "Salman Raouf Salman," a/k/a 
"Hajj,
11 
the defendant, and his co-conspirators committed the overt 
act set forth below, among others: 
a . 
In or about 2008, EL REDA trained, and caused 
others to train, an IJO operative to use military-grade weapons, 
such as an AK-47 assault rifle and a Russian belt-fed machine gun, 
and destructive devices, including rocket-propelled grenade 
launchers ("RPGs
11
) and explosives. 
(Title 18, United States Cod e , Sections 371, 2339D, and 3238. ) 
FORFEITURE 
ALLEGATION 
35. As a result of planning and perpetrating Federal 
crimes of terrorism against t h e United States, a s defined in Titl e 
18, United States Code, Section 2332b(g) (5), as alleged in Counts 
One, Two, Three, and Four of this Indictment, SAMUEL SALMAN EL 
REDA, a/k/a "Samuel Salman El Reda El Reda," a/k/a "Salman Raouf 
Salman," a/k/a "Sulayman Rammal," a/k/a "Salman Ramal, " a/k/a 
"Salman Raouf Salman," a/k/a "Hajj," the defendant, shall forfeit 
to the United States, pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, 
17 

Section 981(a) (1) (G) and Title 28, United States Code, Section 
246l(c), any    and all assets, foreign and domestic, of the 
defendant; any and all assets, foreign and domestic, affording the 
defendant a source of influence over any entity or organization 
engaged in planning or perpetrating said offense; any   and all 
assets, foreign and domestic, acquired or maintained with the 
intent and for the purpose of supporting, planning, conducting or 
concealing said offenses; any and all assets, foreign and domestic, 
derived from, involved in, or used or intended to be used to commit 
said offenses, including but not limited to a sum of money in 
United States currency representing_ the total amount of the 
defendant'  s assets. 
Substitute Assets Provision 
36. If any of the above-described forfeitable property, 
as a result of any act or omission of SAMUEL SALMAN EL REDA, a/k/a 
"Samuel Salman El Reda El Reda, 
11 
a/k/ a "Salman Raouf Salman, 
11 
a/k/a 
"Sulayman Rammal," a/k/a "Salman Ram_al, 
11 
a/k/a "Salman Raouf 
Salman," a/k/a "Hajj," the defendant: 
a . cannot be located upon the exercise of due 
diligence; 
b. has been transferred or sold to, or 
deposited with, a third person; 
c . 
has been placed beyond the jurisdiction of the 
18 

Court; 
d . 
has been substantially diminished in value; or 
e . has been commingled with other property which 
cannot b e subdivided without difficulty, 
it is the intent of the United States, pursuant to Title 2 1 , United 
States Code, Section 853 (p), and Title 28, United States Code, 
Section 246l(c), to seek forfeiture of any other property of the 
defendant up to the value of the above forfeitable property. 
(Title 18, United States Code, Section 982(a); 
Title 21, United States Code, Section 853; and 
Title 28, United States Code, Section 2461(c) . ) 
19 
d-AI J, ~ 
GE~ BERMAN s·',c 
United States Attorney 

·  UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 
-V. -
SAMUEL SALMAN EL REDA, 
a/k/a "Samuel Salman El Reda El Reda, " 
a/k/a "Salman Raouf Salman," 
a/k/a "Sulayman Rammal," 
a/k/a "Salman Ramal," 
a/k/a "Salman Raouf Salman," 
a/k/a "Hajj," 
Defendant. 
SEALED INDICTMENT 
19 Cr. 
(18 U. S . C. §§ 371, 2339B, 2339D, 
and 2 . ) 
GEOFFREY S . BERMAN 
Un
ited States Attorney. 
A TRUE BILL 
Foreperson. 

DAMIAN WILLIAMS  
United States Attorney 
Southern District of New York 
By:  PIERRE G. ARMAND 
Assistant United States Attorney 
86 Chambers Street, 3rd Floor 
New York, New York 10007 
Telephone: (212) 637-2724 
Email: [email protected]  
 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT  
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 

 
 
 
 
 
 

18 Civ. 9160 (VEC) 
 
 
 
COMPLAINT-IN-
INTERVENTION OF THE 
UNITED STATES OF 
AMERICA 
 
 
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 

 

 
 

The United States of America, by its attorney, Damian Williams, United States 

Attorney for the Southern District of New York, alleges for its complaint-in-intervention as 

follows: 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ex rel. CABOT SQUARE 
LLC, 
 

Plaintiff, 
 

v. 
 
FULCRUM CAPITAL HOLDINGS LLC, MATTHEW 
HAMILTON, TIMOTHY HORRIGAN, FONDACO 
SGR S.P.A., COMPAGNIA DI SAN PAOLO, and 
CARAC, 

                                     Defendants. 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 
 

Plaintiff-Intervenor, 
 
                              v. 
 
FULCRUM CAPITAL HOLDINGS LLC, 

 
 Defendant. 



 

2 

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 

1. This is a civil fraud action brought by plaintiff-intervenor the United States of 

America (the “United States” or the “Government”) against defendant Fulcrum Capital 

Holdings LLC (“Fulcrum” or “Defendant”), an investment firm based in Austin, Texas, to 

recover damages and civil penalties arising from Fulcrum’s violations of the False Claims 

Act (the “FCA”), 31 U.S.C. § 3729 et seq., in connection with fraudulently obtaining 

remission payments from the Madoff Victim Fund (the “MVF”). 

2. The MVF was created by the United States Department of Justice (“DOJ” or the 

“Department”) to compensate victims of the massive Ponzi scheme perpetrated by Bernard 

L. Madoff through a process called remission.  The United States Attorney’s Office for the 

Southern District of New York (the “SDNY”) has provided funds to the MVF through civil 

and criminal asset forfeiture recoveries for pro rata distribution to Madoff fraud victims.  

To ensure equitable distribution of MVF funds, all claimants are required to disclose to the 

MVF any Madoff-related collateral recoveries they have obtained, meaning any monies 

received from sources other than the MVF, such as insurance, private lawsuits or 

settlements, the court-supervised liquidation of Madoff’s firm, or proceeds from selling 

their Madoff-related investments and/or recovery rights to another party.  To prevent MVF 

claimants from receiving duplicative recoveries, the MVF is required to reduce remission 

payments paid to claimants by the amount of any collateral recoveries they received. 

3. Fulcrum purchased from multiple third parties who had submitted remission claims 

to the MVF their shares in Madoff feeder funds,  as well as the claimants’ rights to receive 

remission payments from the MVF.  Because claims for remission cannot legally be 

assigned, these victims outwardly retained their status as MVF claimants, but privately 

agreed to promptly pass on any distributions they received from the MVF to Fulcrum. 



 

3 

4. When the MVF sent notices to the claimants requiring them to disclose, under 

penalty of perjury, any collateral recoveries they had received, Fulcrum directed the 

claimants to submit false collateral recovery update documentation to the MVF concealing 

the vast majority of the amounts that Fulcrum had previously paid them for the Madoff 

feeder fund shares and attendant rights and remission claims.  As a result of this deception, 

the MVF paid the claimants larger recoveries than they should have received.  The 

claimants then passed most of these amounts on to Fulcrum.   

5. As a result of the foregoing conduct, Fulcrum violated the FCA, and submitted or 

caused to be submitted false claims for payment to the MVF. 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE 

6. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the Government’s claims under the 

FCA pursuant to 31 U.S.C. § 3730(a) and 28 U.S.C §§ 1331 and 1345.  

7. This Court may exercise personal jurisdiction over Fulcrum pursuant to  

31 U.S.C. § 3732(a), which provides for nationwide service of process.  Further, because 

Fulcrum transacts business in this District and, in furtherance of the fraud alleged, caused 

false claims or statements to be submitted to the MVF in this District, venue is proper in 

this District pursuant to 31 U.S.C. § 3732(a) as well as 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b) and 1391(c). 

PARTIES 

8. Plaintiff is the United States of America.  Through DOJ, the United States 

administers the MVF.   

9. Defendant Fulcrum, a Delaware limited liability company, is an investment firm  

with its principal place of business in Austin, Texas. 

BACKGROUND 

A.  The False Claims Act 



 

4 

10. The False Claims Act was originally enacted in 1863 to address fraud on the 

Government in the midst of the Civil War, and it reflects Congress’s objective to “enhance 

the Government’s ability to recover losses sustained as a result of fraud against the 

Government.” See S. Rep. No. 99-345, at 1 (1986), reprinted in 1986 U.S.C.C.A.N. 5266.  

11. As relevant here, the FCA establishes treble damages liability to the Government 

where an individual or entity:  

(A) “knowingly presents, or causes to be presented, a false or fraudulent claim for 
payment or approval,” 31 U.S.C. § 3729(a)(1)(A); or 

(B) “knowingly makes, uses, or causes to be made or used, a false record or statement 
material to a false or fraudulent claim, id. § 3729(a)(1)(B). 

In addition to treble damages, the FCA also provides for assessment of a civil 

penalty for each violation or each false claim.  “Knowing,” within the meaning of the FCA, 

is defined to include a defendant acting in reckless disregard or deliberate indifference of 

the truth or falsity of information, as well as actual knowledge of such falsity by defendant.  

See id. § 3729(b)(1).  

B.  The Madoff Fraud, the Madoff Victim Fund, and the Remission Process 

13. From as early as the 1970s through December 2008, Bernard L. Madoff perpetrated 

the largest Ponzi scheme in history, defrauding thousands of direct and indirect investors in 

Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC (“Madoff Securities”) of billions of dollars 

(the  “Madoff Fraud”).  In March 2009, Madoff pleaded guilty to eleven federal felonies, 

including securities, mail, and wire fraud, and in June 2009, Madoff was sentenced to serve 

150 years in prison and forfeit over $170 billion.    

14. The SDNY has recovered over $9 billion related to the Madoff Fraud through civil 

and criminal asset forfeiture proceedings.  



 

5 

15. In 2013, DOJ created the MVF to distribute certain funds forfeited to the United 

States related to the Madoff Fraud to victims pursuant to DOJ remission regulations, 28 

C.F.R §§ 9.1-9.9 (the  “Regulations”), and appointed Richard Breeden as special master to 

oversee the MVF and assist DOJ in connection with remission proceedings for victims of 

the Madoff Fraud.    

16. From November 2013 through April 2014, the MVF received remission claims 

from tens of thousands of victims of the Madoff Fraud, and in November 2017, the MVF 

began making distributions to victims whose claims were approved by DOJ.  To date, the 

MVF has made eight distributions to more than 40,000 approved claimants.  

17. The MVF remission process is governed by the Regulations and the Plan of 

Distribution for the MVF approved by DOJ.  The MVF has published the Plan of 

Distribution on its website in the form of answers to frequently asked questions since 

November 2013. 

18. The Plan of Distribution and Regulations provide, among other things, that only 

victims of the Madoff Fraud are eligible to receive remission payments from the MVF, 

meaning that claimants must have lost their own money through the Madoff Fraud.  

Specifically, the Plan of Distribution states: 

a. To be eligible to participate in payments from the MVF, a person must be a 
“victim” of the fraud perpetrated through Madoff Securities. Any person who is not a 
victim of the Madoff fraud is not eligible to receive a payment of remission. 
 

b. Federal law defines a “victim” as “any person” who suffered a “pecuniary 
loss” as a “direct result” of crime. For purposes of the MVF, you qualify as a victim if 
you lost your own money as a direct result of investments that were rendered worthless 
by the Madoff fraud. 
 

19. The Plan of Distribution further states: “A victim is the person or entity that 

suffered a pecuniary loss as a direct result of the criminality that gave rise to the forfeiture 



 

6 

of assets in this case. That status cannot be purchased or transferred; indeed, the forfeiture 

laws and regulations forbid it. You are either a victim or you are not.”  The Regulations 

similarly provide that purchasers of remission rights are not eligible victims.  See 28 C.F.R. 

§ 9.2 (a victim for purposes of remission is “a person who has incurred a pecuniary loss as a 

direct result of the commission of the offense underlying a forfeiture” and generally “does 

not include one who acquires a right to sue the perpetrator of the criminal offense for any 

loss by assignment, subrogation, inheritance, or otherwise from the actual victim”). 

20. The Plan of Distribution and Regulations further provide that victims may recover 

only their pro rata share of the net losses they incurred as a result of the Madoff Fraud, 

calculated on a cash-in, cash-out basis, and that any collateral recoveries the victim has 

received from any source other than the MVF must be deducted from the net loss amount.  

Specifically, the Plan of Distribution states: 

a. It is your responsibility to establish to the satisfaction of the Ruling Official 
within the Department that you suffered a specific, net loss. 
 

b. There is a limited amount of money to compensate an enormous group of 
victims, some of whom have not yet received a penny. So, no double dipping will be 
allowed, and no one is eligible to recover more than his or her actual “net loss” on a cash-
in, cash-out basis.  
 

c. The starting point in measuring your loss is all the cash you invested in 
Madoff Securities, less any cash you received back. This establishes the cash that was 
taken from you, less your recoveries during the years of the fraud. 
 

d. Once your original “net loss” is known, the Department’s regulations require 
all “collateral recoveries” you have already received, or that you will receive in the future, 
to be deducted from a claim for remission.  
 
21. The Regulations generally require remission to be granted  “on a pro rata basis … 

when petitions cannot be granted in full due to the limited value of the forfeited property,” 

28 C.F.R. § 9.8(f), and prohibit remission where the victim already has been “compensated 

for the wrongful loss” or has “recourse reasonably available to other assets from which to 



 

7 

obtain compensation for the wrongful loss,” id. §§ 9.8(b)(4), 9.2(b)(5).  The Regulations 

further require any victim receiving remission payments to reimburse the United States “to 

the extent the individual later receives compensation for the loss … from any other source.”  

Id. § 9.8(g). 

22. The Plan of Distribution defines “collateral recoveries” broadly to cover any 

compensation a victim may receive from any source.  Specifically, the Plan provides: 

a. Collateral recoveries include any payments you received from the [Securities 
Investors Protection Corporation], all bankruptcy distributions (directly or through an 
intermediary) on all accounts you held, insurance or class action recoveries, or any other 
form of compensation you have received. You will have to certify under penalties of 
perjury the completeness and the accuracy of the disclosure of your recoveries to date.  
 
23. The MVF has issued Collateral Recovery Update (“CRU”) Notices to all eligible 

claimants in advance of each of its distributions.  Completion of the CRU form attached to 

the Notice or other updated collateral recovery disclosure is a condition precedent for being 

considered for a MVF distribution.  The CRU  Notices make clear that all collateral 

recoveries must be disclosed and that collateral recoveries include compensation from any 

source, including proceeds from the sale of claims for Madoff recoveries.  For example, the 

CRU Notices provide the following: 

a. [I]f you HAVE received payment relating to your Madoff losses from your 
investment fund, from class action litigation, from bankruptcy distributions, from the sale 
of your claim, or from any other source, then you must update us on your recoveries.   
 

b. The reason MVF needs this information is simple. Federal law prohibits MVF 
from paying anyone more than their actual losses. In addition, the amount of your next 
payment will be a specific percentage of your eligible Madoff fraud loss LESS all prior 
recoveries. Without knowing your prior recoveries, we can’t determine how much you 
should be paid. 
 

c. As with all prior MVF payouts, in order to be eligible for a payment you must 
complete a collateral recovery update.  If you are eligible for a … payment, the amount of 
your payment will be the distribution target recovery percentage of your approved fraud 
loss amount, less all prior recoveries from any source and previous MVF distributions.  
Therefore, MVF must ask you to update information on your total recoveries in order to 
calculate your potential payment.  



 

8 

 
24. From 2013 through the present, the MVF posted multiple notices on its website 

providing further clarification on what constitutes a collateral recovery and further 

explaining the importance of disclosing collateral recoveries to permit the MVF to properly 

calculate remission payments.  For example: 

a. August-December 2017 Update:  MVF previously sent you a collateral 
recovery update request explaining that: “Collateral recoveries include bankruptcy 
distributions, litigation recoveries, settlement proceeds, insurance recoveries, or any other 
compensation received for your Madoff losses.” Essentially, anything you received from 
anyone due to your Madoff loss is a collateral recovery. In particular, you need to report 
to MVF all payouts from the Madoff bankruptcy, as well as any proceeds you received as 
a result of the sale or assignment of your claim in either the bankruptcy or MVF 
proceedings.  
 

b. Spring 2018 Update:  MVF calculates individual victim payments based on 
what amount is required to bring an individual victim to a total percentage recovery of 
their eligible fraud loss, including all prior recoveries from other sources (sometimes 
called “collateral recoveries”). We describe that payout percentage… as the baseline 
recovery percentage, and it is likely to go up with each MVF distribution. Because the 
amount of recoveries from all sources received by a victim is part of the payment 
computation, every victim has been asked to provide periodic updates on their own 
recoveries from sources other than MVF.  Absent disclosure of outside recoveries, some 
investors would be paid more than the recovery percentage being paid to everyone else. 
 

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 
 

Fulcrum Engaged in a Scheme to Fraudulently Obtain  
Inflated Remission Payments From the MVF 

 
25. From at least October 2016 through October 2022, Fulcrum violated the FCA by 

fraudulently obtaining, as a non-victim of the Madoff Fraud, remission payments from the 

MVF to which it was not entitled.  Specifically, Fulcrum purchased recovery rights from 

various Madoff Fraud victims who had submitted remission claims to the MVF and 

compelled them to transfer any remission payments they received from the MVF to 

Fulcrum.   

26. Fulcrum also fraudulently compelled the claimants whose Madoff recovery rights it 

had purchased to submit false disclosures to the MVF, concealing the amounts Fulcrum 



 

9 

paid for those recovery rights.   As explained above, to prevent MVF claimants from 

receiving duplicative recoveries, the Regulations and MVF Plan of Distribution require (i) 

MVF claimants to report all collateral recoveries received, including proceeds from the sale 

of any Madoff recovery rights or MVF claims, and (ii) the MVF to reduce remission 

payments by the amount of such  collateral recoveries.  Compliance with these 

requirements would have resulted in Fulcrum obtaining substantially smaller remission 

payments from the MVF.  Therefore, as a result of Fulcrum’s fraudulent concealment of 

these collateral recoveries, the MVF made inflated remission payments to the victims, 

which they in turn paid over to Fulcrum. 

A.  Fulcrum Purchased Madoff Recovery Rights From MVF Claimants 

27. Through a number of transactions during 2014-2019, Fulcrum purchased Madoff 

claims and MVF recovery rights from multiple victims of the Madoff Fraud. 

28. Luxalpha SICAV (“Luxalpha”) was a Luxembourg-based investment fund that 

operated as a Madoff Securities feeder fund, and its underlying investors suffered losses as 

a result of the Madoff Fraud.   

29. Among the persons and entities who were beneficial owners of Luxalpha shares 

were:  (i) Carac, a public pension fund based in Paris, France; (ii) a group of investors in a 

fund called “Fondaco Absolute Return,” which was managed by Fondaco SGR S.p.A. 

(“Fondaco”), an institutional asset management company based in Torino, Italy (the 

“Fondaco Investors”), including Compagnia di San Paolo (“CSP”), a foundation based in 

Torino, Italy; and  (iii) a group of individuals located in France, named Bruno Plancke, 

Michel Plancke, Olivier Plancke, Thierry Plancke, and Virginie Reant Plancke (the 

“Planckes”). 



 

10 

30. In February, March and April 2014, Carac, the Fondaco Investors, and the Planckes 

(the “Claimants”) each filed claims with the MVF seeking remission payments for losses 

they claimed to have incurred as a result of their investments in Madoff Securities through 

Luxalpha.  

31. Fulcrum subsequently purchased the Claimants’ Luxalpha shares and attendant 

rights and MVF claims.  Specifically, Fulcrum purchased Fondaco’s Luxalpha shares in 

July 2014, Carac’s Luxalpha shares in October 2014, and the Planckes’ Luxalpha shares in 

January 2019.  Fulcrum immediately resold the Fondaco and Carac shares to third parties, 

but purported to retain rights to most of the Claimants’ MVF remission payments.  In 

particular, Fulcrum entered into Purchase and Sale Agreements (“PSAs”) with Carac, CSP, 

and the Planckes pursuant to which Fulcrum purported to acquire their rights to receive 

remission payments from the MVF.    

32. Fulcrum knew that, pursuant to the Regulations and the Plan of Distribution, 

Fulcrum was not eligible to receive remission payments directly from the MVF because 

Fulcrum was not a Madoff Fraud victim and had merely purchased the Claimants’ 

Luxalpha shares and attendant rights and MVF remission claims.  Accordingly, as part of 

the PSAs, Fulcrum required Carac, CSP, and the Planckes to transfer any amounts they 

received from the MVF to Fulcrum.  Specifically, as part of the PSAs, Carac, CSP, and the 

Planckes agreed that they would retain no beneficial interest in any distributions they 

received from the MVF, that they would hold any such distributions as agents of Fulcrum, 

and that they would deliver any such distributions to Fulcrum within five days of receipt.   

B.  Fulcrum Fraudulently Directed the Claimants to Submit False Claims or 
      Statements to the MVF in Order to Obtain Inflated Remission Payments 
 
33. Fulcrum knew that, pursuant to the Regulations and Plan of Distribution, the 

Claimants were required to report to the MVF all collateral recoveries they received, 



 

11 

including proceeds from the sale of their Luxalpha shares and MVF remission claims, and 

that the MVF would reduce any remission payments to the Claimants by the amount of the 

collateral recoveries they reported.   

34. For example, in internal emails in or about August 2017, Fulcrum representatives 

circulated and discussed the MVF’s August-December 2017 Update reiterating that 

collateral recoveries, which reduce remission payments, include “any proceeds [claimants] 

received as a result of the sale or assignment of [their] claim in either the bankruptcy or 

MVF proceedings.”   

35. To ensure that the MVF would not reduce the Claimants’ remission payments by 

the amounts Fulcrum had paid the Claimants for their Luxalpha shares and attendant rights 

and MVF remission claims, Fulcrum acquired the right to control Carac’s, CSP’s, and the 

Planckes’ communications with the MVF and fraudulently required them to conceal this 

collateral recovery information from the MVF. 

36. Specifically, under the PSAs, Carac, CSP, and the Planckes granted Fulcrum 

irrevocable power of attorney with respect to the remission claims and authorized Fulcrum 

to act in each of their names, places, and steads with respect to those claims.  Further, 

Carac, CSP, and the Planckes agreed to deliver all correspondence they received from the 

MVF to Fulcrum and take all actions requested by Fulcrum to effectuate the terms of the 

PSAs. 

37. From October 2016 through October 2022, the MVF sent multiple CRU Notices to 

the Claimants requesting that they identify all compensation received from any source 

other than the MVF, including proceeds from the sale of Madoff claims.  Pursuant to the 

PSAs, Fulcrum received Claimants’ copies of the CRU Notices, and fraudulently instructed 

or otherwise caused the Claimants to submit false CRU responses to the MVF that failed 



 

12 

fully to disclose the amounts the Claimants had received from selling their Luxalpha shares 

and related rights and remission claims to Fulcrum.      

38. For example, in September 2017 and May 2019 pursuant to the PSA and at 

Fulcrum’s behest, Carac submitted two CRU responses to the MVF that falsely represented 

that Carac had received no collateral recoveries, when in fact it had received significant 

sales proceeds from Fulcrum.  

39. Similarly, from February 2017 through July 2019, pursuant to the PSA and at 

Fulcrum’s behest, CSP submitted four CRU responses to the MVF that falsely failed to 

disclose the full amount that CSP had received from Fulcrum for its Luxalpha shares and 

related rights.  CSP stated that it had sold its remission claim to an unidentified secondary 

market player for a specified amount, but this amount reflected only the smaller amount 

CSP received from Fulcrum for the purported sale of its remission rights, rather than the 

total proceeds CSP received from Fulcrum for the sale of its Luxalpha shares and related 

rights.   

40. In or about August 2017, representatives of CSP encouraged Fulcrum to reach out 

to the MVF to confirm whether the sales proceeds Fulcrum had received constituted 

collateral recoveries, but Fulcrum refused to do so, and instead insisted that CSP submit 

false disclosures to the MVF concealing the Fondaco Investors’ sale of their Luxalpha 

shares and attendant rights to Fulcrum. 

41. From February 2017 through July 2019, the Fondaco Investors other than CSP 

likewise submitted twenty-eight CRU responses to the MVF that falsely represented that 

these investors had received no collateral recoveries, when in fact they had received 

significant sales proceeds from Fulcrum.  



 

13 

42. From August 2019 through October 2020, pursuant to the PSA, and at Fulcrum’s 

behest, the Planckes submitted twenty CRU responses to the MVF that falsely represented 

that the Planckes had received no collateral recoveries other than those they received from 

a financial intermediary in connection with a litigation settlement, when in fact they had 

received significant additional proceeds from Fulcrum for the sale of their Luxalpha shares 

and attendant rights and MVF remission claims.   

43. Fulcrum knew that the aforementioned CRU responses that the Claimants submitted 

to the MVF were false.  

44. Fulcrum’s misrepresentations concerning collateral recoveries were material to the 

MVF’s and DOJ’s remission payment decisions.  As noted above, prior to each MVF 

distribution, MVF claimants have been required to certify under penalty of perjury to the 

truthfulness and accuracy of their CRU responses as a condition precedent to receiving a 

remission payment.  Had Fulcrum disclosed, or caused the Claimants to disclose, the 

amounts the Claimants had received from Fulcrum for the sale of their Luxalpha shares and 

attendant rights and MVF remission claims, the MVF would have reduced the Claimants’ 

respective remission payments by the amount of those sales proceeds. 

45.  As a result of Fulcrum instructing or otherwise causing the Claimants to submit 

false collateral recovery information as described above, the MVF distributed remission 

payments to the Claimants that they were not entitled to receive.  Pursuant to the PSAs, 

Carac, CSP, and the Planckes then transferred the amounts they had improperly received 

from the MVF to Fulcrum. 

 

 

 



 

14 

CLAIMS FOR RELIEF 

FIRST CLAIM 

Violations of the False Claims Act: Presenting False Claims for Payment 
31 U.S.C. § 3729(a)(1)(A) 

 
46. The Government incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 45 above as if 

fully set forth in this paragraph. 

47. The Government asserts claims against Fulcrum under 31 U.S.C. § 3729(a)(1)(A). 

48. Fulcrum knowingly, or acting with deliberate ignorance or reckless disregard for 

the truth, presented, or caused to be presented, false or fraudulent claims for payment or 

approval to the MVF in violation of 31 U.S.C. § 3729(a)(1)(A).  Specifically, Fulcrum 

fraudulently instructed or otherwise caused the Claimants to submit false claims to the 

MVF that failed to identify collateral recoveries the Claimants had received from Fulcrum 

for the sale of their Luxalpha shares and attendant rights and remission claims to the MVF. 

49. As a result of these false or fraudulent claims, the MVF made inflated remission 

payments to the Claimants to which they were not entitled.  Carac, CSP, and the Planckes 

then transferred these amounts they had unlawfully received from the MVF to Fulcrum. 

50. By reason of the false or fraudulent claims or statements that Fulcrum knowingly 

presented, or caused to be presented, for payment or approval, the Government has been 

damaged in a substantial amount to be determined at trial, and is entitled to recover treble 

damages plus a civil monetary penalty for each false claim. 

SECOND CLAIM 
  

Violations of the False Claims Act: Use of False Statements 
31 U.S.C. § 3729(a)(1)(B) 

 
51. The Government incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 50 above as if 

fully set forth in this paragraph. 



 

15 

52. The Government asserts claims against Fulcrum under 31 U.S.C. § 3729(a)(1)(B). 

53. Fulcrum knowingly, or acting with deliberate ignorance or reckless disregard for 

the truth, made, used, or caused to be made or used, false records or statements that were 

material to false or fraudulent claims for payment submitted to the MVF.  Specifically, 

Fulcrum fraudulently instructed or otherwise caused the Claimants to submit false 

disclosures to the MVF that concealed collateral recoveries the Claimants had received 

from Fulcrum for the sale of their Luxalpha shares and attendant rights and  remission 

claims to the MVF. 

54. As a result of these false or fraudulent disclosures, the MVF made inflated 

remission payments to the Claimants to which they were not entitled.  Carac, CSP, and the 

Planckes then transferred these amounts they had unlawfully received from the MVF to 

Fulcrum. 

55. By reason of these false records or statements, the Government has been damaged 

in a substantial amount to be determined at trial and is entitled to recover treble damages 

plus a civil monetary penalty for each false record or statement. 

PRAYER FOR RELIEF 

 WHEREFORE, plaintiff, the Government, requests that judgment be entered in its 

favor as follows: 

1. On the First and Second Claims for relief (violations of the FCA, 31 U.S.C. §§ 

3729(a)(1)(A) and 3729(a)(1)(B)), a judgment against Fulcrum for treble the 

Government’s damages, in an amount to be determined at trial, plus a civil penalty in the 

maximum applicable amount for each violation of the FCA by Fulcrum; 

2. An award of costs incurred by the Government pursuant to 31 U.S.C. § 

3729(a)(3); and  



 

16 

3. Such further relief as is proper. 

Dated: New York, New York 
 September __, 2023 
      DAMIAN WILLIAMS 

United States Attorney for the 
Southern District of New York 
       

     By:  /s/  Pierre G. Armand   
PIERRE G. ARMAND 
Assistant United States Attorney 
United States Attorney’s Office 
86 Chambers Street, 3rd Floor 
New York, NY 10007 
Tel: (212) 637-2724 
Email:  [email protected] 
Attorney for the United States of America