Opinion
18cr201-01(DLC)
07-13-2022
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. TOUREY AHMED RUFAI, Defendant.
For the United States: Sagar Kananur Ravi Mitzi Steiner U.S. Attorney's Office, Southern District of New York One St. Andrew's Plaza Julia Newcomb Murray U.S. Department of Justice, Criminal Division, Southern District of New York One St. Andrew's Plaza For defendant: Tourey Ahmed Rufai pro se For Murtada Mashud, Hudeiya Adjei, and Hamza Mohammad: Karloff C. Commissiong
For the United States: Sagar Kananur Ravi Mitzi Steiner U.S. Attorney's Office, Southern District of New York One St. Andrew's Plaza
Julia Newcomb Murray U.S. Department of Justice, Criminal Division, Southern District of New York One St. Andrew's Plaza
For defendant: Tourey Ahmed Rufai pro se
For Murtada Mashud, Hudeiya Adjei, and Hamza Mohammad: Karloff C. Commissiong
OPINION AND ORDER
DENISE COTE, District Judge
On May 20, 2022, Tourey Ahmend Rufai moved to recall or cancel a bail bond that he had forfeited when he failed to surrender for his term of imprisonment and instead fled to Ghana. On June 10, 2022, Murtada Mashud, Hudeiya Adjei, and Hamza Mohammed (the “Sureties”) moved to remit their guarantees for Rufai's bail bond. For the following reasons, Rufai's motion is denied, Mashud's surety is remitted, and the judgment against Adjei and Mohammed is reduced to $100,000.
Background
In January of 2018, Rufai was arrested and charged with one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud, wire fraud, conspiracy to receive stolen money, receipt of stolen money, conspiracy to commit money laundering, making false statements to a bank, and marriage fraud. After his arrest, Rufai was released on a $150,000 bond. The bond was co-signed by Mashud, Adjei, and Mohammed. On January 9, 2019, Rufai pled guilty to conspiracy to commit wire fraud. Rufai was sentenced on April 12, 2019 principally to a 48-month term of imprisonment.
Rufai was ordered to surrender for his term of imprisonment by 2:00 pm on May 24, 2019. Instead of surrendering, Rufai fled to Ghana. The Government thereafter filed a motion for judgment of forfeiture of Rufai's bond, which was granted on November 26, 2019. On August 6, 2021, Rufai was arrested in Ghana and extradited to the United States to serve his sentence.
On May 20, 2022, Rufai moved to recall or cancel his bail. The Government opposed Rufai's request on June 10. Additionally, on June 10, the Sureties filed under seal a motion to remit their payment obligation on Rufai's bond. On July 1, the Government filed under a seal a response to the Sureties' motion, opposing it in part. The Government consented to a remission of Mashud's payment obligation for reasons stated in the letter, and consented to reducing the payment obligations of Adjei and Mohammed to $100,000 so as not to increase their share of the judgment. On July 4, the Sureties filed under seal a reply to the Government's opposition of Rufai's motion.
Discussion
Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 46(f)(2) allows a court to “set aside in whole or in part a bail forfeiture upon any condition the court may impose if . . . it appears that justice does not require bail forfeiture.” In determining whether forfeiture should be remitted, a court must consider:
[1] whether the defendant's breach of the bond conditions was willful; [2] the cost, inconvenience and prejudice suffered by the government as a result of the breach; [3] any explanation or mitigating factors presented by the defendant; [4] whether the surety has assisted in the apprehension of the defendant; and [5] whether the surety is a professional or a friend or member of the defendant's family.United States v. Brooks, 872 F.3d 78, 92 (2d Cir. 2017). A court must also consider “the deterrence value of total forfeiture.” United States v. Gambino, 17 F.3d 572, 575 (2d Cir. 1994). “The burden of establishing grounds for remission is on the party challenging the forfeiture.” Id. at 574.
Neither Rufai nor the Sureties have shown that justice does not require forfeiture of Rufai's bond. A few factors favor remission: the Sureties are members of the defendant's family and community, and the defendant has not committed the kind of “high-profile” crime for which deterrence is “especially important.” Id. at 575.
Rufai has provided no argument that his payment obligation should be remitted, requesting only that the Sureties' payment obligations be remitted. The Government contests Rufai's standing to challenge the judgment against the Sureties. This contention need not be addressed, however, as the Sureties have standing to challenge the judgment against them, and as Rufai and the Sureties seek the same relief. See Centro de la Comunidad Hispana de Locust Valley v. Town of Oyster Bay, 868 F.3d 104, 109 (2d Cir. 2017) (Article III standing).
The preponderance of the six factors, however, favors forfeiture, as do the interests of justice. Rufai's breach of the bond conditions was willful, and he has provided no explanation or mitigating factor to excuse it. Additionally, Rufai's breach resulted in significant prejudice and inconvenience to the Government, which did not successfully apprehend Rufai until more than two years after the date on which he was ordered to surrender.
The Sureties argue that full payment of the bond is unnecessary because Rufai was eventually apprehended. But forfeiture of a bond is required whenever a condition of the bond is breached, whether or not the defendant is eventually apprehended. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 46(f)(1); Brooks, 872 F.3d at 96. The Sureties and the defendant also stress the financial burden that repayment of the bond imposes. But the Sureties have made no voluntary payments toward the bond, and have not had their wages garnished; the only payments they have made toward the bond have been deducted from their tax returns. Regardless, financial hardship alone does not require remission of a surety's payment obligation. United States v. Agueci, 379 F.2d 277, 278 (2d Cir. 1967) (per curiam). Accordingly, considering the six factors applicable to motions under Fed.R.Civ.P. 46(f)(2)(B), the defendant and the Sureties have not shown that forfeiture of the bond should be set aside.
Conclusion
Rufai's May 20, 2022 motion is denied. The judgment against Mashud is remitted in its entirety. The judgment against Mohammed and Adjei is reduced to $100,000.