USA v. Sparrow

Filing 8

ORDER granting 7 Motion for Modification of Restraining Order. Signed by Magistrate Judge David S. Cayer on 10/26/15. (tob)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
DOCKET NO. 3:13MC138-RJC-DSC
IN RE : ALL ASSETS RELATED TO
FABIAN SPARROW AND MARIA
CAMILA ALEMAN ARAOZ AS
ATTORNEY-IN-FACT FOR FABIAN
SPARROW.

)
)
)
)

ORDER MODIFYING
RESTRAINING ORDER

THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Government’s Motion for Modification of
Restraining Order (document #7).

Fabian Sparrow has not responded to the Motion in the time

allowed for responses to be filed.

For good cause, the Court will GRANT the Motion.

THE COURT FINDS that the following record supports granting the Motion:
On August 23, 2013, on Application (Doc. 3) of the United States, this Court issued the
Restraining Order, restraining withdrawals or transfers of assets held in the name of, by, on
behalf of, or for the benefit of Fabian Sparrow or Maria Camila Aleman Araoz as attorney-infact for Fabian Sparrow.

The Government had requested issuance of the Restraining Order

following an investigation of Sparrow’s foreign travel and asset transfers around the time of plea
negotiations.
On June 6, 2014, on the day of trial on charges in a Fourth Superseding Indictment (Case
5:13CR22), Sparrow pled guilty to conspiracy as charged in Count One.

Although the

Government represents that disputes remain between Sparrow and the Government about the
scope of Sparrow’s criminal activity, the charges are generally related to Sparrow’s participation
in a conspiracy to execute a fraud scheme related to the sales and financing of manufactured and
modular homes. The charges that formed the basis of the plea are generally the same as the
allegations that formed the basis for the Restraining Order. Sparrow is still awaiting sentencing

and the Government represents that it anticipates requesting issuance of a restitution order, as
well as a forfeiture money judgment at sentencing.
The Government represents that, while the Restraining Order has been pending, one of
Sparrow’s former business partners, James Lamm, has contacted the United States about the
Restraining Order. Lamm advises through counsel that he was a majority shareholder in Dream
Land Homes, Inc. (“Dream Land”) and that Sparrow previously owned a forty-nine per cent
interest in Dream Land.

Lamm’s counsel advises that, during the pendency of this case, Lamm

has followed appropriate procedures under state law to dissolve Dream Land, including
providing notice to Sparrow of the proposed dissolution—notice that was not met with a
response from Sparrow.

Lamm now wishes to make a final distribution of $2,996.48 in cash

for Sparrow’s share in the dissolution of Dream Land and then carry on the business of Dream
Land without Sparrow. Lamm advises that he wishes to pay the $2,996.48 to the United States
Marshals Service. However, Lamm acknowledges that the Restraining Order affects his ability
to make the distribution, as well as continue the business of Dream Land.
The Government represents that Lamm requests modification of the Restraining Order to
allow him to continue the business of Dream Land unfettered by the Restraining Order and to
pay the $2,996.48 to the Marshals.

The Government also asserts that there is good cause for the

Marshals to hold the $2,996.48 pending further order of the Court.
Based upon the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Restraining Order shall
remain in effect but shall be modified to allow Lamm to continue the business of Dream Land
unfettered by the Restraining Order and in compliance with state law, provided, however, that
Lamm or his counsel shall immediately tender $2,996.48 to the United States Marshals Service

2

and that the Marshals shall accept deposit of the $2,996.48 and hold the $2,996.48 pending
further order of the Court in a related forfeiture or restitution action or at sentencing, which is
currently set for December 1, 2015.
SO ORDERED.

Signed: October 26, 2015

3