ct information, including but not limited to addresses and telephone numbers, existing, stored, or maintained for the account associated with telephone number for SUBJECT CELLPHONES l-10. f. Any and all communications constituting violations and evidence of causing the death of a person through the use of a firearm, in violation ofUnited States'Code, Section 9240), interference with commerce by threats or violence, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 195 I (a), the use of a frrearm in furtherance of a crime of violence, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 924(c), the possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section Case 3:13-xr-90556-LB Document 1 Filed 06/27/13 Page 51 of 55 922(g)( 1 ), and obstruction, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1512 and for aiding and abetting these crimes and serving as an accessory after the act for these crimes, in violation ofTitle 18 United States Code Section 2. t l:1 £uis*ing p i&:tc&G Hbiil bttglll&l sts g sf the iafehaYtbt dcscii~M IT!

S. Case 3:12-cr-00238-JBA Document 161 Filed 08/29/14 Page 54 of 60 46 Rep. No. 105-277 at 5; H.R. Report No. 105-802 at 23 (emphasis added). Thus, more than merely leaving undisturbed the general principle that 18 U.S.C. §§ 2 and 371 shall apply to those statutes enacted in their wake, Congress provided an unambiguous statement that it intended them to apply in cases just such as this. See also Bodmer, 342 F.Supp.2d at 188-89 (holding that Congress, through the 1998 amendments, “clarified that the FCPA’s criminal penalties apply to any natural person who is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States courts”).

Because Singh willfully caused the campaign to falsify a record of campaign donations (by concealing and covering up his funding of Singh’s work), he “is punishable as a principal for the offense.” 18 U.S.C. § 2(b). Nor may Singh challenge the counts for failure to allege “that Singh acted with the requisite intent to impede a federal investigation.”

See United States v. BetOnSports Plc, 2006 WL 3257797, at *2 (E.D. Mo. Nov. 9, 2006); C. Doyle, Internet Gambling: Overview of Federal Criminal Law, Congressional Research Service (Updated February 27, 2006) at Ex. A. Case 1:11-cv-07957-TPG Document 60 Filed 10/09/12 Page 17 of 59 9 Fund’s violation of § 1955 and conspired to do so, Defendants are individually liable as aiders and abettors, 18 U.S.C. § 2, and co-conspirators. Pinkerton v. United States, 328 U.S. 640 (1946) Defendants Violated RICO By causing the Fund to violate the Gambling Act repeatedly, Defendants conducted the affairs of the Fund through a “pattern of racketeering activity” in violation of RICO.

6. False Statements to Auditors (Count Seven) Count Seven of the Indictment charges Dr. Tomasetta with making false statements to auditors in violation of 15 U.S.C. §78ff, 17 C.F.R. § 240.13b2-2, and 18 U.S.C. § 2. On this charge, venue is proper only “in the district where the allegedly false or misleading statements were made to the auditors.”

Plaintiff appears to be improperly alleging criminal conduct as the basis for his Negligence claim. As with his other claims, under the “Fifth Claim for Relief: Negligence,” Plaintiff cites “18 U.S.C. § 2, 3, 4, 241, 371, 1001, 1016, 1018, 1341, 1346, 1349” apparently as the basis for his negligence claim. (ECF No. 1. At p. 27).

In order to be liable under these Private Action Statutes, a plaintiff must prove that the defendant Case: 4:10-cv-01740-TCM Doc. #: 33 Filed: 01/24/11 Page: 7 of 30 PageID #: 143 8 violated any of the Sections referenced therein, directly or as aider and abettor under Section 18 USC 2. A crime must be committed by defendant.

N/A N/A Original Original 0 7 - 0 6 5- .TUAN JA1MEMONTOYA- fp_ ES A, a "Julian," B: Unknown - POB: Unknown Trial Attorney: Paul Layinon 202-514-1286 18 U.S.C. §2 (Aiding and Abetting) 21 U.S.C. §853 21 U_S.C. §970 (Forfeiture) 7- N/A N/A Case 1:14-cv-00229-RDM Document 40-1 Filed 06/09/17 Page 31 of 74 Exhibit 3 Case 1:14-cv-00229-RDM Document 40-1 Filed 06/09/17 Page 32 of 74 Very truly yours, torney U.S. Department of Justice Criminal Division OEO/FOIA/PA Unit 1301 New York Ave., N.W. Washington, D.C. 20530 U.S. Department of Justice Criminal Division Office of Enforcement Operations Washington, D.C. 20530 December 18, 2015 Mr. Christian F. Borda Federal Correctional Institution Post Office Box 1000 Cumberland, MD 21501 Re: CHRISTIAN BORDA v. EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF UNITED STATES ATTORNEYS, Case No. 14-0229 (JDB) (D.D.C.) Dear Mr. Borda: In connection with the above-entitled matter and, more specifically, your FOIA request seeking records related to your criminal conviction in case number CR-07-065 (GK), we have located the following responsive document: 1) PLEA AGREEMENT in United States v. Hugo Barr

17 D. 18 EXECUTION OF THE FRAUDULENT SCHEME 5. On or about the following dates, within the Central 19 District of California, defendant MOHSEN KIKALAYE submitted and 20 willfully caused others.to submit the following loan 21 applications, each of which constituted an execution of the 22 fraudulent scheme: 23 COUNT 24 ONE 25 TWO 26 27 28 DATE 7/26/00 5/13/02 ACT Loan application for property located at 2314 Oceanfront, Newport Beach, California Loan application to re-finance property located at 2314 Oceanfront, Newport Beach, California 2 Case 8:07-cv-00397-AG-AN Document 96-3 Filed 12/16/16 Page 3 of 5 Page ID #:643 J Case 8:07-cr-00052-CJC Document 98 Filed 03/03/10 Page 3 of 4 Page ID #:294 1 2 3 A. 4 INTRODUCTION COUNTS THREE THROUGH FOUR [18 u.s.c. §§ 2, 1344(2)] 6. Paragraph one of this first superseding information is 5 incorporated herein by this reference.

Because Azano willfully caused the campaign to falsify a record of campaign donations (by concealing and covering up his funding of Singh’s work), he “is punishable as a principal for the offense.” 18 U.S.C. § 2(b). 24 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 14CR0388-MMA These conclusions are not a result of any “ever-expanding theory of criminal liability under section 1519,” but a result of the plain text of the statute and well- established law regarding § 2(b) liability as a principal.