USA v. Faria

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Plaintiff
v.
MYRNA FARIA
Defendant
Criminal No. 24-84 (GMM)
OPINION AND ORDER
Pending before the Court is Defendant Myrna Faria’s
(“Defendant”) Motion to Dismiss. (Docket No. 93). For the reasons
stated herein, the motion is DENIED.
I. BACKGROUND
On March 6, 2024, Defendant was indicted by a Grand Jury for
one count of Theft of Government Property, under 18 U.S.C. § 641;
eight counts of Mail Fraud, under 18 U.S.C. § 1341; four counts of
Misuse of Social Security Number, under 42 U.S.C. § 408(a)(8); and
four counts of Aggravated Identity Theft, under 18 U.S.C. § 1028A.
(Docket No. 3).
On September 11, 2025, a Superseding Indictment was returned
by another Grand Jury, charging Defendant with the same counts,
along with an additional six counts of Wire Fraud, under 18 U.S.C.
§ 1343. (Docket No. 81). Therein, the Government claims that
Case 3:24-cr-00084-GMM Document 101 Filed 01/15/26 Page 1 of 7

2 | Criminal No. 24-84 (GMM)
Defendant’s “recei[pt] and withdraw[al] [of] money from accounts
that fraudulently received [Social Security Administration] funds
from the false claims” which occurred years after the creation and
approval of fraudulent Social Security accounts - supports the
“furtherance” element of mail and wire fraud. (Id. at 3-5).
On October 27, 2025, Defendant filed a pretrial Motion to
Dismiss the Superseding Indictment in accordance with Federal
Rules of Criminal Procedure 12(b)(2) and 12(b)(3)(B)(v). She
alleged lack of jurisdiction on the basis that the Superseding
Indictment fails to state an offense as to the mail fraud and wire
fraud counts. (Docket No. 93).
The Government filed its United States’ Response in
Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Indictment on November
11, 2025. It argued that the Superseding Indictment appropriately
states the offenses of mail and wire fraud, along with their
requisite elements and the facts supporting each element. (Docket
No. 95). Defendant filed a Reply on December 1, 2025. It emphasized
that the “furtherance” element of mail and wire fraud is not met
and asserting that such charges are barred by the statute of
limitations. (Docket No. 98).
II. LEGAL STANDARD
Rule 12(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure
permits a defendant to file a motion to dismiss for lack of
Case 3:24-cr-00084-GMM Document 101 Filed 01/15/26 Page 2 of 7

3 | Criminal No. 24-84 (GMM)
jurisdiction “at any time while the case is pending”. Fed. R. Crim.
P. 12(b)(2).
Rule 12(b)(3)(B)(v) allows a defendant to move pretrial for
dismissal if the indictment fails to state an offense. Such motions
may be decided without a trial on the merits. Fed. R. Crim. P.
12(b)(3)(B)(v).
An indictment “must be a plain, concise, and definite written
statement of the essential facts constituting the offense
charged.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 7(c)(1). “[A]n indictment is sufficient
if it, first, contains the elements of the offense charged and
fairly informs a defendant of the charge against which he must
defend, and, second, enables him to plead an acquittal or
conviction in bar of future prosecutions for the same offense.”
Hamling v. United States, 418 U.S. 87, 117-18 (1974); see also
United States v. Berk, 652 F.3d 132, 137 (1st Cir. 2011). It is
generally sufficient for an indictment to track the language of
the statute itself, provided the statute is not vague Id.
When considering a motion to dismiss, courts accept the facts
alleged in the indictment as true and do not assess the sufficiency
of evidence. United States v. Ngige, 780 F.3d 497, 502 (1st Cir.
2015) (citing United States v. Savarese, 686 F.3d 1, 7 (1st Cir.
2012)). Motions to dismiss that rely on disputed facts must be
denied. United States v. Stepanets, 879 F.3d 367, 372 (1st Cir.
2018).
Case 3:24-cr-00084-GMM Document 101 Filed 01/15/26 Page 3 of 7

4 | Criminal No. 24-84 (GMM)
III. APPLICABLE LAW AND ANALYSIS
Defendant allegedly created and approved thirteen fraudulent
Social Security benefits applications between 2012 and 2019.
(Docket No. 81 at 3-5). Between 2020 and 2023, she allegedly made
eight mailings and six wire transfers to secure and obtain monetary
benefits from the applications she had created. (Id. at 5-7, 9-
10). These actions allegedly involved misuse of Social Security
numbers of other individuals. (Id. at 7-9).
Defendant challenges only the mail and wire fraud counts.
(Docket No. 93 at 1). The Court must therefore address: (a) whether
the indictment fails to state an offense because the mailings and
wire transfers do not satisfy the statutory “furtherance” element;
and (b) whether these charges are barred by the statute of
limitations.
A. Failure to State an Offense
The mail fraud statute criminalizes the use of the mails to
further a “scheme or artifice to defraud” or “for obtaining money
or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses,
representations, or promises.” 18 U.S.C. § 1341. The crime has
three elements: (1) a scheme to defraud; (2) knowing and willing
participation with the intent to defraud; and (3) use of interstate
Case 3:24-cr-00084-GMM Document 101 Filed 01/15/26 Page 4 of 7

5 | Criminal No. 24-84 (GMM)
mail in furtherance of the scheme. United States v. Hebshie, 549
F.3d 30, 35-36 (1st Cir 2008).
Wire fraud mirrors these elements but requires use of an
interstate wire communication. 18 U.S.C. § 1343; see United States
v. Cassiere, 4 F.3d 1006, 1011 (1st Cir. 1993); United States v.
Fermin Castillo, 829 F.2d 1194, 1198.
1. The Superseding Indictment supports the “in furtherance”
element
Defendant argues that the mailings and wire transfers are too
far removed in time from the creation of the fraudulent
applications to satisfy the “furtherance” requirement. (Docket No.
93 at 7–13). Courts interpret “furtherance” generously. United
States v. Cacho-Bonilla, 404 F.3d 84, 91 (1st Cir. 2005). The mails
need not be essential to the scheme; a connection or relationship
is sufficient. United States v. Hebshie, 549 F.3d at 36.
Specifically, each mailing and wire transfer listed in the
Superseding Indictment was undertaken to execute, maintain, or
conceal the fraudulent scheme. The Superseding Indictment
identifies eight mailings between December 31, 2020, and August 8,
2023, and six wire transfers between October 14, 2020, and June
14, 2023, which directly delivered or redirected misappropriated
Social Security funds into accounts controlled by the Defendant.
Each of these acts was deliberately executed to obtain the proceeds
of the scheme, maintain the appearance of legitimacy, and prevent
Case 3:24-cr-00084-GMM Document 101 Filed 01/15/26 Page 5 of 7

6 | Criminal No. 24-84 (GMM)
detection, thereby satisfying the “in furtherance” element for
mail and wire fraud. 549 F.3d at 36; Keleher, 505 F. Supp. 3d at
56–57.
The timing of the transfers does not undermine furtherance.
The indictment alleges that the transfers were necessary to obtain,
maintain, and conceal the proceeds of the fraudulent applications,
satisfying First Circuit precedent. Keleher, 505 F. Supp. 3d at
56; Tavares, 844 F.3d at 59.
2. Notice/Sufficiency of Superseding Indictment
The Superseding Indictment tracks each element of mail and
wire fraud, identifies the scheme, Defendant’s knowledge and
intent, and the use of interstate communications. Each mailing and
wire transfer is detailed with dates, amounts, bank accounts, and
victim initials. This provides Defendant complete and unambiguous
notice of the charges. United States v. Brown, 295 F.3d 152, 154
(1st Cir. 2002); United States v. Cianci, 378 F.3d 71, 81 (1st
Cir. 2004).
B. Statute of Limitations
The limitations period for mail and wire fraud is five years.
18 U.S.C. § 3282(a). The period begins on the date of the mailing
or wire transfer. United States v. Yejo, 634 F. Supp. 630, 631
(D.P.R. 1986); United States v. Prosperi, 573 F. Supp. 2d 436, 440
(D. Mass. 2008); United States v. McGowan, 590 F.3d 446, 457 (7th
Cir. 2009).
Case 3:24-cr-00084-GMM Document 101 Filed 01/15/26 Page 6 of 7

7 | Criminal No. 24-84 (GMM)
Defendant contends that the underlying scheme occurred
outside the five-year limitations period. This argument is
immaterial. Under § 3282(a), it is sufficient that at least one
overt act in furtherance of the offense occurs within the five
year period. Here, the eight mailings and six wire transfers, which
occurred within five years of the Superseding Indictment’s filing,
satisfy this requirement. See United States v. Andreas, 458 F.2d
491, 491 (8th Cir. 1972); United States v. Wellman, 830 F.2d 1453,
1464 (7th Cir. 1987); United States v. Stewart, 744 F.3d 17, 21
(1st Cir. 2014).
IV. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Defendant’s
Motion to Dismiss.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
In San Juan, Puerto Rico, on January 15, 2025
/s/Gina R. Méndez-Miró
GINA R. MÉNDEZ-MIRÓ
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 3:24-cr-00084-GMM Document 101 Filed 01/15/26 Page 7 of 7