The David Motovich Prosecution: what happened, the statutes and penalties, and why you want experienced federal defense like Matthew Galluzzo

Short version: In a high-profile federal prosecution out of the Eastern District of New York, David Motovich was tried and convicted by a jury on numerous counts connected to a years-long illegal check-cashing / money-transmitting operation. In November 2025 he was sentenced to 15 years in prison and ordered to forfeit roughly $38 million after a conviction on 16 counts including operating an unlicensed money-transmitting business, bank fraud, money-laundering, aggravated identity theft, and related offenses. Justice.gov

The case in brief

Federal prosecutors charged (and, after trial, convicted) David Motovich for running a sophisticated scheme that used shell accounts and an underground check-cashing network to process tens of millions of dollars in cash receipts from others, while concealing the origins of funds and evading reporting requirements. The government’s evidence at trial traced more than $55 million flowing through the operation, and prosecutors alleged the proceeds funded lavish purchases such as real estate and luxury goods. After a three-week jury trial in July 2024, Motovich was convicted on 16 counts; on November 19, 2025 he was sentenced to 15 years’ imprisonment and ordered to forfeit approximately $38 million in assets. Justice.gov

Key statutes charged (what prosecutors typically use) and what they criminalize

• 18 U.S.C. § 1960 — Operating an unlicensed money-transmitting business. Makes it a federal crime to operate or conspire to operate a money-transmitting business without meeting federal registration and anti-money-laundering requirements. Penalties can include significant prison terms and fines.
• 31 U.S.C. § 5313 / 31 U.S.C. § 5322(b) — Failure to file Currency Transaction Reports (CTRs) and related reporting violations. Financial institutions (and persons operating certain businesses) must report large cash transactions; willful failures to file or structuring to avoid reporting can bring criminal exposure.
• 18 U.S.C. § 1344 — Bank fraud. Criminalizes schemes to defraud banks or obtain funds by false pretenses. Each count can carry heavy prison exposure and fines.
• 18 U.S.C. § 1956 / related money-laundering statutes. Prohibits conducting financial transactions with proceeds of specified unlawful activity with intent to conceal their nature or to promote unlawful activity. Convictions often bring long terms and forfeiture remedies.
• 18 U.S.C. § 1028A — Aggravated identity theft. Applies when a defendant knowingly transfers, possesses, or uses another person’s means of identification in connection with certain felonies; carries a mandatory consecutive prison term.
• 18 U.S.C. § 371 — Conspiracy to commit offense against or to defraud the United States. Frequently used to charge collective planning and coordination to commit federal offenses.

These are the statutes that prosecutors commonly rely on in large illicit check-cashing / money-transmitting prosecutions; the Motovich jury found him guilty on counts tied to several of these provisions. Justice.gov

Typical penalties and collateral consequences

Penalties depend on the specific statute and the facts (amounts, role in the scheme, whether identity theft or a prior record applies). Important elements in cases like Motovich’s:

• Long prison terms: Combined counts and statutory maximums can result in decades behind bars; Motovich received 15 years based on the convictions and guidelines applied in his case. Justice.gov
• Forfeiture: The government sought and the court ordered forfeiture of tens of millions of dollars (approximately $38 million in the Motovich sentence), which can include real estate, vehicles, jewelry, and other assets tied to proceeds. Justice.gov
• Fines and supervised release: Convictions typically carry heavy fines and multi-year supervised release after imprisonment.
• Collateral harm: Beyond criminal penalties, defendants face ruined credit/business reputations, civil suits, immigration exposure for non-citizens, and major professional consequences.

Because sentencing in federal court is determined by the guidelines and by statutory enhancements (role in the offense, amount laundered, identity-theft enhancements, etc.), early investigation and mitigation work can significantly affect final exposure.

Why prosecutors invest heavily in these cases

Illegal check-cashing and underground money-transmitting networks undermine anti-money-laundering safeguards, facilitate tax evasion and identity theft, and allow criminal proceeds to enter the financial system. When an investigation uncovers structured deposits, fake business accounts, fabricated documents, identity theft, and high-value purchases tied to proceeds — as the government alleged here — prosecutors view the matter as both a financial crime and a predicate for money-laundering and forfeiture actions. Those factors make the government pursue aggressive charges, seek asset forfeiture, and push for significant prison terms.

Defense strategy: what an experienced federal lawyer will do

Defending a complex fraud / money-laundering prosecution requires a multi-pronged approach:

1. Deep early discovery review. These cases generate massive discovery (bank records, corporate files, surveillance, witness statements). A defense team must parse that material for holes in the government’s tracing and proof.
2. Challenge causation and attribution. For money-laundering and bank-fraud counts, the government must prove the funds were illicit and that the defendant knowingly engaged to conceal or promote unlawful activity. Defense often attacks tracing and intent.
3. Attack identity-theft and authenticity. Aggravated identity-theft counts require proof of knowing use of another’s ID — proof often depends on document authentication and witness credibility.
4. Forfeiture defense and asset preservation. Parallel civil forfeiture battles require financial experts and tracing work to show legitimate sources or innocent ownership claims.
5. Mitigation for sentencing. If conviction is likely or unavoidable, building a robust mitigation package (family, health, community ties, cooperation possibilities) and negotiating with the government on guideline calculations can materially change the sentence.
6. Coordinate co-defense where multiple defendants exist. Complex conspiracies often create joint-defense and severance issues that experienced counsel must handle tactically.

All of the above requires skilled investigators, forensic accountants, and experience litigating large federal cases.

Why hire Matthew Galluzzo for federal matters like this

When someone faces a major federal financial-crime indictment, the choice of counsel is pivotal. Here’s why a defendant would consider Matthew Galluzzo for cases like Motovich’s:

• Federal litigation experience: A lawyer who knows how EDNY, SDNY, D. Conn. and D.N.J. handle discovery, detention, and sentencing can move the case strategically from day one. That knowledge matters in motions practice and plea/sentencing negotiations. Mr. Galluzzo has earned dismissals and trial acquittals for clients in complicated cases in state and federal courts across New York.
• Sentencing-first perspective: Federal defense isn’t just about trial—it’s about controlling exposure at sentencing. Counsel who calculates guidelines early, anticipates enhancements, and builds mitigation can reduce actual time served. Mr. Galluzzo regularly earns below-Guidelines sentences for his federal clients who elect to plead guilty.
• Forensic and investigative network: Large fraud cases demand accountants, tracing experts, and investigators. Having those resources available immediately strengthens defenses and forfeiture positions. Mr. Galluzzo, with his undergraduate degree in economics (concentration in finance) from Duke University, can work effectively with finance professionals to unravel complicated financial information.
• Record of aggressive motion practice and negotiation: The ability to litigate suppression, authenticity, and chain-of-custody issues, combined with credible trial readiness, often produces better offers or dismissals.
• Client-forward counsel and damage control: Beyond courtrooms, experienced counsel knows how to handle press, protect business interests where possible, and advise clients on preserving assets lawfully while litigation proceeds.

If someone is charged in an EDNY financial-crime prosecution, time is of the essence: subpoenas, asset seizures, and pretrial detention decisions happen quickly. Retaining counsel with federal-court experience and a clear plan is essential.

Bottom line

The David Motovich prosecution illustrates the federal government’s aggressive approach to underground check-cashing, unlicensed money-transmitting businesses, bank fraud, money-laundering, and identity-theft. Convictions in these cases carry long prison terms, massive forfeiture orders, and long-lasting collateral damage. For anyone charged in a similar case, immediate consultation with experienced federal defense counsel is critical — both to evaluate early suppression and discovery strategies and to build the kind of multi-disciplinary defense and mitigation package that can materially affect sentencing and asset outcomes. An experienced federal practitioner such as Matthew Galluzzo brings the procedural knowledge, mitigation focus, and investigative resources that these complex matters demand. Justice.gov+1

Sources

• U.S. Attorney’s Office, EDNY — press release: Brooklyn Business Owner Sentenced to 15 Years in Prison for $55 Million Illegal Check Cashing, Bank Fraud, and Tax Evasion Scheme (Nov. 19, 2025). Justice.gov
• Court filings and opinion (judgment/briefs) in United States v. Motovich, EDNY (conviction July 30, 2024; post-trial filings and sentencing materials). See the govinfo docket documents. GovInfo
• Contemporary reporting summarizing the conviction, sentence, and forfeiture (local outlets). East Side Feed+1