Case 3:08-cr-00230-CSH Document 373 Filed 07/28/10 Page 1 of 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

v. 3:08-cr-00230 (CSH)

JAMES BOTTI,

Defendant.

RULING ON MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME

HAIGHT, Senior District Judge:

Now pending is Defendant James Botti’s Motion for Extension of Time within which to

Deposit Funds to Secure Judgment of Forfeiture. [Doc. 370] For the reasons stated herein, the

motion is DENIED.

On November 10, 2009, James Botti was convicted of structuring and conspiracy to

structure, in violation of 31 U.S.C. § 5324 and 18 U.S.C. § 371, respectively. The jury

determined that Defendant must forfeit $120,500, and on November 30, 2009, this Court entered

a preliminary order of forfeiture in that amount. On April 1, 2010, following a second trial on

other counts, Defendant was also found guilty of honest services mail fraud. On May 27, 2010,

the Court held a status conference, at which it was agreed that Defendant’s sentencing would be

deferred until September 17, 2010, so that the Court would have the benefit of the Supreme

Court decisions regarding honest services, which were to be announced at the end of June, and to

permit time for supplemental briefing on Defendant’s post-trial motions in light of those

decisions. However, the honest services mail fraud decisions have no impact on Defendant’s

structuring convictions or the forfeiture based thereon.

 Case 3:08-cr-00230-CSH Document 373 Filed 07/28/10 Page 2 of 4

At the May 27 hearing, the Government expressed concern that the delay in sentencing,

and the attendant delay in the issuance of a final order of forfeiture, might impair the

Government’s ability to secure the forfeited funds. The Government wanted to begin to seize

Defendant’s assets to avoid dissipation, but noted that Defendant had not yet completed the

financial disclosure report as required. The Government requested that Defendant be ordered to

do so, and that he be ordered to deposit $120,500 with the Clerk of the Court in an interest

bearing account in order to secure the judgment of forfeiture.

In response, Defendant represented that he did not oppose such an order, and suggested a

sixty day period for compliance. As to the financial disclosures, defense counsel represented that

those were his responsibility, that Defendant’s accountant was working on them, and that they

would be completed soon. The Court issued an oral order that the security be deposited and the

forms completed within sixty days, which was July 26, 2010.

On July 20, 2010, Defendant’s counsel filed the instant motion on Defendant’s behalf for

an extension of time, requesting an additional sixty days, or until September 18, 2010, which is

after the sentencing, to comply with the May 27 order. This motion was not accompanied by an

affidavit executed by Defendant. Instead, his counsel stated that Defendant had “arranged to

secure those funds” and just found out that “the commitment to provide those funds would not be

honored.” [Doc. 370, ¶¶ 3, 5] Counsel stated: “Because that commitment fell through, the

defendant is unable to honor his commitment to comply with the Court’s order.” [Doc. 370, ¶ 6]

The Court’s order was not a suggestion, nor was it a request that Defendant deposit the

funds to secure the judgment at his convenience. It is troubling that Defendant has adopted this

casual attitude toward compliance. Even assuming the truth of the extremely vague

2
 Case 3:08-cr-00230-CSH Document 373 Filed 07/28/10 Page 3 of 4

representations in the motion, unsupported by any sworn declaration by the Defendant himself, it

is unclear why Defendant was unable to deposit at least a portion of the security as a show of

good faith. Even more egregious is the fact that, notwithstanding the Court’s order two months

ago, Defendant still has not submitted a financial affidavit to the Probation Office. [See Doc. 372

at 3] Apparently, Defendant intends to keep the location and value of his assets to himself, while

simultaneously declining to deposit money or property to secure the judgment. The fact that

Defendant claims through counsel to be having difficulty in coming up with the funds only

bolsters concerns about Defendant’s potential dissipation of his assets, which, based on the

evidence at trial, were not inconsequential. To the extent that he has assets subject to forfeiture,

Defendant is legally obligated to relinquish them, up to $120,500, regardless of whether doing so

is convenient or requires sacrifice on his part. That money is owed to the Government pursuant

to the jury’s finding that it is the amount for which Defendant is liable on the structuring counts.

Defendant is ordered to complete the financial affidavit, sworn to personally and in a

form and content satisfactory to the Probation Office, or before August 6, 2010. By that date,

Defendant shall deposit with the Clerk of the Court the full $120,500 in cash or its equivalent in

property, such as deeds to real property or title to other assets, along with a valuation from a

licensed appraiser that the posted property is worth at least $120,500. No extensions will be

granted. Should Defendant persist in noncompliance, the Court will conduct a hearing by

telephone conference at 2:00 p.m. on August 10, 2010 to consider the consequences, which may

result in revoking Defendant’s release on bond and remanding him forthwith into custody

pending sentencing.

3
 Case 3:08-cr-00230-CSH Document 373 Filed 07/28/10 Page 4 of 4

It is SO ORDERED.

Dated: New Haven, Connecticut, July 28, 2010.

/s/ Charles S. Haight, Jr.

Senior United States District Judge