USA v. Phillips et. al.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
United States of America,
-v-
Philip Priolo.
Defendant.
2:21-cr-566 (NJC)
OPINION AND ORDER
On November 9, 2021, Defendant Philip Priolo was indicted on charges of conspiracy to
commit mail fraud and wire fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341, 1343, and 1349, and four
counts of mail fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 1341 arising out of his alleged involvement
in a fraudulent sweepstakes mailing scheme. (Indictment, ECF No. 1.) During a jury trial in
March 2025, at the close of evidence from both sides and before the case was submitted to the
jury, Priolo’s counsel made an oral motion for judgment of acquittal under Rule 29(a) of the
Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure (“Fed. R. Crim. P.”), which the government opposed. The
Court reserved judgment on the motion pursuant to Rule 29(b). On March 19, 2025, the jury
found Priolo guilty of all five counts. The Court permitted Priolo to brief the Rule 29(a) motion,
which he declined to do. Instead, Priolo made a brief oral motion and the government opposed
orally as well.
For the reasons explained below, Priolo’s Rule 29 motion is denied. The record contains
sufficient evidence for a rational jury to find that the government has proven beyond a
reasonable doubt all of the elements of conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud and the four
substantive mail fraud counts against Priolo.
Case 2:21-cr-00566-NJC Document 205 Filed 11/18/25 Page 1 of 27 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
The charges against Priolo were tried before a jury over the course of a six-day jury trial,
which began with jury selection on March 11, 2025. (Min. Entry, Mar. 11, 2025.) On March 17,
2025, following the close of evidence, Priolo made an oral motion for a judgment of acquittal
under Rule 29(a). (Min. Entry, Mar. 17, 2025; Trial Tr. 884:10–885:19.) I reserved ruling on the
motion in order to permit the parties to brief it. (Trial Tr. 884:12–15.) Priolo’s counsel then had
the following colloquy with the Court:
Priolo’s counsel: Do we have to do a briefing if I ask Your Honor is it required, because I
just make my motion orally. That’s what I normally do. If Your Honor requires it, of
course, we’ll comply.
The Court: Well, you have to state the grounds for the motion.
Priolo’s counsel: I don’t think they made a prima facie case out, Judge. No way. They’ve
called witnesses, first of all, who have never reviewed the documents. Every victim
witness they called, not one of them had reviewed the documents. Every one during
cross-examination admitted that they hadn’t reviewed the documents. Nobody even
bothered to show them to them in the case. They haven’t had one witness who could
stand up and give actually even an articulable reason why they were defrauded.
Again, none of them saw the consumer information. None of them saw anything. I
was actually shocked at the witnesses that came in on the stand.
That’s it. So, I don’t know how they make out a prima facie case that way, Judge.
The Court: Anything further you would like to say?
Priolo’s counsel: No, because nobody else had personal knowledge, so there really is
nothing else I would like to say. That’s their witnesses.
(Trial Tr. 884:19–885:19.)
In response, the government made the following oral opposition:
Government: As you know, on a motion under Rule 29, when reviewing the sufficiency
of the evidence, the Court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the
Government drawing all inferences in the Government’s favor and, of course, the jury
will make any rulings on witness credibility.
Case 2:21-cr-00566-NJC Document 205 Filed 11/18/25 Page 2 of 27 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
In this case, the text of the mailings themselves we submit, Your Honor, presents
prima facie evidence for which the jury could compare the statements on the front of
those mailings with the statements [defense counsel] has highlighted on the back of those
mailings, and a reasonable trier of fact could determine that they were deceptive and he
had the intent to defraud.
In addition to that evidence, we have, of course, presented the evidence of two
witnesses who, themselves, testified they were deceived by the mailings -- Ms. Pamela
Pence and Ms. Marilyn Burks -- who, themselves, testified that they were deceived by the
mailings.
In addition, as Your Honor heard, we had testimony from multiple victim family
members regarding similar types of mailings that their family members received and the
stated beliefs of their family members regarding what those mailings communicated.
In addition to that, we have put in numerous complaint letters received by Mr.
Priolo from state attorneys general as well as other complaints evincing that the recipients
of Mr. Priolo’s mailings believed they had won money. That information is in evidence.
There is the testimony of Ms. Johnson who worked caging for Mr. Priolo that, on
their face, the mailings were deceptive and that non-buyers frequently sent in $20
payment -- or sent in -- I’m sorry, payment coupons with no money and we have seen
multiple examples of recipients of those mailings asking that those payments be taken out
of their winnings.
So on the question of whether there was intent to defraud, the Government has
submitted substantial evidence by which a rational jury could find the defendant guilty.
(Id. 885:23–887:12.) After hearing from both parties, I reserved ruling on the Rule 29(a) motion.
(Id. 887:13–18.)
On March 19, 2025, the final day of trial, after the parties presented their summations and
the jury was charged, the jury returned a verdict of guilty on all counts. (Min. Entry, Mar. 19,
2025; ECF No. 156.) After dismissing the jury, I provided the parties an opportunity to propose a
post-trial briefing schedule. Priolo’s counsel responded: “Judge, I have no plans on making a
post-trial motion. We can just go to right to the Circuit, I think [that] makes the most sense.”
(Trial Tr. 1126:8–15.)
Case 2:21-cr-00566-NJC Document 205 Filed 11/18/25 Page 3 of 27 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
Priolo has not provided any additional briefing or argument in support of the Rule 29(a)
motion made orally at the close of evidence. Nor did he pursue a Rule 29(c) motion for judgment
of acquittal following discharge of the jury. Accordingly, I scheduled sentencing, which was
initially to take place on September 17, 2025 and was subsequently moved to November 18,
2025.1
After trial, on April 7, 2025, attorneys Arthur Aidala and Michael Jaccarino filed notices
of appearance on behalf of Priolo. (ECF Nos. 163–64.) On June 27, 2025, the government filed a
letter with the court providing “additional authority in opposition to . . . Priolo’s oral motion for
judgment of acquittal,” citing the Second Circuit’s decision in United States v. Denkberg, 139
F.4th 147 (2d Cir. 2025), which affirmed the conviction of two of Priolo’s co-conspirators, Sean
Novis and Gary Denkberg. (ECF No. 173.) I ordered Priolo to file a response, if any, to the
government’s June 27, 2025 letter by July 7, 2025. (Elec. Order, June 30, 2025.) Priolo did not
file a response.
On September 17, 2025, I held a telephone conference with the parties concerning the
pending Rule 29(a) motion. (Min. Entry, Sept. 17, 2025.) Counsel for Priolo confirmed that
Priolo wished to have a ruling on the oral motion, but did not request oral argument or the
opportunity to provide any supporting written submissions. (Sept. 17, 2025 Status Conf. Tr.
3:15–24.) I indicated that I would issue an oral ruling. (Id. 3:25–4:2.) Since then, I determined
that a written ruling is appropriate.
1 See Min. Entry, Mar. 19, 2025; Elec. Order, Sept. 11, 2025 (rescheduling sentencing to October
6, 2025); Elec. Order, Sept. 30, 2025 (rescheduling to October 16, 2025); Elec. Order, Oct. 9,
2025 (rescheduling to October 30, 2025), Elec. Order, Oct. 27, 2025 (rescheduling to November
18, 2025).
Case 2:21-cr-00566-NJC Document 205 Filed 11/18/25 Page 4 of 27 PageID #:
<pageID>

5
LEGAL STANDARDS
A. Motion for Judgment of Acquittal
Rule 29(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure provides that after the close of
evidence “the court on the defendant’s motion must enter a judgment of acquittal of any offense
for which the evidence is insufficient to sustain a conviction.” Pursuant to Rule 29(b), the court
may reserve decision on the motion until after the jury returns a verdict of guilty. Fed. R. Civ. P.
29(b). Under Rule 29(c), if the jury returns a guilty verdict, the “court may set aside the verdict
and enter an acquittal” in the event there is insufficient evidence to sustain a conviction. Fed. R.
Civ. P. 29(c).
A defendant challenging the sufficiency of the evidence that was the basis for a
conviction “bears a heavy burden” because the Rule 29 “standard of review is exceedingly
deferential.” United States v. Torres, 124 F.4th 84, 94–95 (2d Cir. 2024).2 “The question is not
whether this Court believes that the evidence at trial established guilt beyond a reasonable
doubt.” United States v. Mi Sun Cho, 713 F.3d 716, 720 (2d Cir. 2013). Rather, it is whether
“any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a
reasonable doubt.” United States v. Osuba, 67 F.4th 56, 61 (2d Cir. 2023) (emphasis in original).
Accordingly, a “court may enter a judgment of acquittal only if the evidence that the defendant
committed the crime alleged is nonexistent or so meager that no reasonable jury could find guilt
beyond a reasonable doubt.” United States v. Espaillet, 380 F.3d 713, 718 (2d Cir. 2004).
In considering the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the guilty verdict, the court
“must consider the Government’s case in its totality rather than in its parts,” and the sufficiency
2 Unless otherwise indicated, case quotations omit all internal quotation marks, brackets
alterations, and citations.
Case 2:21-cr-00566-NJC Document 205 Filed 11/18/25 Page 5 of 27 PageID #:
<pageID>

6
test “may be satisfied by circumstantial evidence alone.” United States v. Wexler, 522 F.3d 194,
207 (2d Cir. 2008). The court must also “view the evidence in the light most favorable to the
government, crediting every inference that could have been drawn in the government’s favor,
and deferring to the jury’s assessment of witness credibility and its assessment of the weight of
the evidence.” Torres, 124 F.4th at 94–95; see also Osuba, 67 F.4th at 61 (the court must
“resolve all issues of credibility in favor of the jury’s verdict”). Indeed, “[i]t is the province of
the jury and not of the court to determine whether a witness who may have been inaccurate,
contradictory and even untruthful in some respects was nonetheless entirely credible in the
essentials of his testimony.” United States v. O’Connor, 650 F.3d 839, 855 (2d Cir. 2011). As the
Second Circuit has emphasized, “the proper place for a challenge to a witness’s credibility is in
cross-examination and in subsequent argument to the jury,” not in a motion to the court. United
States v. Roman, 870 F.2d 65, 71 (2d Cir. 1989).
B. Mail and Wire Fraud
The offense of mail fraud is governed by 18 U.S.C. § 1341, whereas wire fraud is
governed by 18 U.S.C. § 1343. In order to sustain a charge of mail fraud or wire fraud, the
government must prove each of the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt with
respect to each count: first, that there was a scheme or artifice to defraud an alleged
victim of money or property by false and fraudulent pretenses, representations, promises, or
omissions as alleged in the indictment; second, that the misrepresentation, promise, or
omission was material; and third, that the defendant knowingly participated in the scheme
or artifice to defraud, with knowledge of its fraudulent nature and with specific intent to
defraud. United States v. Thomas, 377 F.3d 232, 242 & n.7 (2d Cir. 2004); see also United
States v. Moses, 109 F.4th 107, 117 (2d Cir. 2024); United States v. Weaver, 860 F.3d 90,
94 (2d Cir. 2017) (per curium); United States v. Saint Clair, No. 22-2100, 2024 WL
Case 2:21-cr-00566-NJC Document 205 Filed 11/18/25 Page 6 of 27 PageID #:
<pageID>

7
413422, at *4 (2d Cir. Feb. 5, 2024). The government must also prove a fourth element
beyond a reasonable doubt: for a mail fraud charge, that the defendant used or caused the
use of the mails as specified in the indictment; or for a wire fraud charge, that the defendant
used or caused the use of interstate or foreign wires as specified in the indictment. Moses,
109 F.4th at 117; see also Weaver, 860 F.3d at 94; Saint Clair, 2024 WL 413422, at *4.
With respect to the second element of both mail fraud and wire fraud, a statement is
material “if the misinformation or omission would naturally tend to lead or is capable of
leading a reasonable person to change his conduct.” Weaver, 860 F.3d at 94. “In other words,
a lie can support a fraud conviction only if it is material, that is, if it would affect a reasonable
person’s evaluation of a proposal.” Id. “[M]ateriality looks to the effect on the likely or actual
behavior of the recipient of the alleged misrepresentation.” Id.
With respect to the third element of mail fraud and wire fraud, to prove fraudulent
intent, the government must prove that the defendant “either intend[ed] to harm their victim or
contemplate[ed] that their victim may be harmed.” United States v. Gatto, 986 F.3d 104, 113
(2d Cir. 2021). As the Second Circuit has made clear, “[b]ecause an intent to deceive alone is
insufficient to sustain a wire fraud conviction, misrepresentations amounting only to a deceit
must be coupled with a contemplated harm to the victim.” United States v. Jabar, 19 F.4th 66,
76 (2d Cir. 2021). “[F]raudulent intent may be inferred from the scheme itself if the necessary
result of the actor’s scheme is to injure others.” Gatto, 986 F.3d at 113. “Such harm is
apparent where there exists a discrepancy between benefits reasonably anticipated because of
the misleading representations and the actual benefits which the defendant delivered, or
intended to deliver.” Jabar, 19 F.4th at 76–77.
The government may also prove intent to defraud “through circumstantial evidence,
including by showing that [the] defendant made misrepresentations to the victim(s) with
knowledge that the statements were false.” Jabar, 19 F.4th at 76; Saint Clair, 2024 WL
Case 2:21-cr-00566-NJC Document 205 Filed 11/18/25 Page 7 of 27 PageID #:
<pageID>

8
413422, at *4 (same). While the government must prove that a defendant “contemplated some
actual harm or injury to their victims,” and that the defendant’s misrepresentations had “a
natural tendency to influence” the intended victims, the government is not required to “prove
that the victims of the fraud were actually injured.” Weaver, 860 F.3d at 94–95. As the Second
Circuit indicated in Jabar, “[p]roof of actual injury to the victim is not required because the
scheme need not have been successful or completed.” 19 F.4th at 77. “[T]he only significance
in a fraud case of proof of actual harm befalling the victim as a result of the scheme is that it
may serve as circumstantial evidence from which a jury could infer the defendant’s intent to
cause harm.” Weaver, 860 F.3d at 97.
C. Conspiracy to Commit Mail and Wire Fraud
The crime of conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud is governed by 18 U.S.C. § 1349.
The government must establish the following two elements of the crime beyond a reasonable
doubt: first, that two or more persons entered into the particular unlawful agreement charged in
the indictment to commit mail fraud or wire fraud; and second, that the defendant knowingly and
intentionally became a member of the conspiracy. United States v. DiMassa, 117 F.4th 477, 487
(2d Cir. 2024); United States v. Jimenez, 96 F.4th 317, 324 (2d Cir. 2024).
DISCUSSION
A. The Parties’ Arguments
Priolo’s counsel made a brief oral motion for judgment of acquittal under Rule 29
consisting of two sparse arguments. First, Priolo argues that the government has failed to offer
evidence establishing a prima facie case. (Trial Tr. 884:25–885:1.) Although Priolo does not
specify whether this argument concerns any of the four substantive counts of mail fraud or the
count of conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud for which he was convicted, he appears to
make it with respect to all of the charged offenses. I therefore understand this argument to be that
Case 2:21-cr-00566-NJC Document 205 Filed 11/18/25 Page 8 of 27 PageID #:
<pageID>

9
evidence in the record does not establish beyond a reasonable doubt the elements of either the
four substantive mail fraud counts or the single count of conspiracy to commit mail and wire
fraud for which the jury convicted Priolo.
Second, Priolo argues that the government’s witnesses “never reviewed” the disclaimer
information on the mailings prior to testifying at trial and that “nobody else had personal
knowledge.” (Trial Tr. 885:1–9, 17–19.) Although Priolo does not elaborate on this argument, he
appears to argue that none of the government’s witnesses saw the disclaimer located on the back
of the allegedly fraudulent mailings and, accordingly, could not “give actually even an
articulable reason why they were defrauded.” (Id. 885:7–9.)
As noted, Priolo declined the Court’s request for written briefing in support of the Rule
29(a) motion, electing to address the motion only orally and briefly at the close of the submission
of evidence. The government orally opposed the Rule 29(a) motion and filed a letter with
“additional authority in opposition” to Priolo’s oral motion on June 27, 2025. (ECF No. 173.)
B. Analysis
The trial record contains sufficient evidence to support the jury’s finding that Priolo
committed four substantive counts of mail fraud and one count of conspiracy to commit mail
fraud and wire fraud, particularly when viewing the record evidence in the light most favorable
to the government, crediting inferences in the government’s favor, and deferring to the jury’s
assessment of both witness credibility and the weight of the evidence, as the Court must do on a
Rule 29(a) motion.
1. 	Mail Fraud
Priolo does not argue that any particular element of the offense of mail fraud was not met
with respect to any of the specific substantive counts of mail fraud. Instead, he makes a general
Case 2:21-cr-00566-NJC Document 205 Filed 11/18/25 Page 9 of 27 PageID #:
<pageID>

10
argument that the record does not contain evidence to support a prima facie case of mail fraud on
any of the four substantive counts. However, the record contains more than sufficient evidence to
sustain the jury’s finding that all four elements of mail fraud were met with respect to each of the
substantive mail fraud counts set forth in the Indictment.
a. 	Element 1: A Scheme or Artifice to Defraud
The record contains extensive evidence supporting the jury’s finding that there was a
scheme or artifice to defraud an alleged victim of money or property by false and fraudulent
pretenses, representations, promises, or omissions, as required to satisfy the first element of mail
fraud. The jury heard testimony and saw documentary evidence that, between around March
2015 and December 2016, Priolo owned and operated two companies known as “Winners
Circle” and “Feel Lucky Group,” through which he sent hundreds of thousands of mailings to
consumers nationwide, which were designed to deceive recipients into believing that they had
won a large cash prize of more than one million dollars. These mailings are appropriately called
“prize notices” because they are reasonably understood to instruct recipients that they could
claim the promised large cash prize by paying only a small processing fee, typically between $20
and $40. Moreover, the jury heard testimony that Priolo’s direct mail operation never provided
any cash prizes to those who paid the fee and never intended to do so. (Trial Tr. 141:8–14.)
Instead, Priolo only provided these consumers a “sweepstakes report” or “sweeps report”—a
short booklet listing publicly available information about third-party sweepstakes, which anyone
could enter to win cash prizes. (Trial Tr. 140:10–141:14; Gov’t Exs. 134, 137.) Accordingly, a
rational jury could conclude that Priolo’s mailings were fake prize notices mailed to hundreds of
thousands of people nationwide.
Case 2:21-cr-00566-NJC Document 205 Filed 11/18/25 Page 10 of 27 PageID #:
<pageID>

11
The record contains numerous examples of Priolo’s Winners Circle and Feel Lucky
Group fake prize notices, which were personalized to recipients, used fictitious names and
businesses, resembled checks or financial documents, used prominent font and other techniques
to convey that the person had won a significant amount of money, included fictitious seals or
signatures to make them look official, and used confusing language and difficult-to-read text to
obscure disclaimers stating that in exchange for paying a fee of around $20 to $40, the recipient
would receive a report compiling information about third-party sweepstakes. (See, e.g., Gov’t
Exs. 1–15, 21–30.)
Priolo owned and operated Winners Circle with co-conspirator Jeffrey Novis, as shown
by documentary evidence and witness testimony. However, he established Feel Lucky Group on
his own so that he would not have to share any proceeds from the mailings with anyone else.
(See Gov’t Ex 263, 374.) Priolo worked with Sean Novis, Gary Denkburg, Cathy Johnson,
Cheryl Jacquard, Mary Lilienkamp, and others in executing the Winners Circle and Feel Lucky
Group direct mail operations. Jacquard served as a production manager who communicated with
the vendors that printed the mailings, while Lilienkamp performed data processing, “maintaining
databases for the company of names and addresses” to which mailings were sent. (Trial Tr.
77:18–80:12, 82:6–23, 454:18–457:8.).
The record contains numerous documents that, along with witness testimony, explain
how Priolo’s fraudulent prize notice schemes were carried out. Government Exhibit 158 is a
spreadsheet detailing Winners Circle and Feel Lucky Group mailings over certain months in
2016. Jacquard testified that the exhibit identifies the Winners Circle house file, which consists
of the mailing addresses of people who had previously sent money in response to Winners Circle
prize notices. (Trial Tr. 251:6–254:15.) The exhibit also identifies mailing lists used by alleged
Case 2:21-cr-00566-NJC Document 205 Filed 11/18/25 Page 11 of 27 PageID #:
<pageID>

12
co-conspirators, including Sean Novis and Gary Denkburg. Jacquard and Johnson testified that
Priolo and Novis had an agreement to share mailing lists with Sean Novis, Denkburg, and others
in order to target recipients who had paid money in response to prior similar mailings. (Trial Tr.
474:23–475:18, 478:12–479:6.) Government Exhibit 158 shows that Priolo and Novis sent a
March 2016 mailing, known as a “front end” mailing and assigned the acronym “NPF,” to more
than 78,000 people, which generated more than $45,000 from around 2,276 people—around 3%
of all recipients. (Gov’t Ex. 158 at 22–23; see also Trial Tr. 616:13–621:20.) Johnson also
explained that the exhibit details the schedule for mailing follow-up “back end” mailings. (Trial
Tr. 619:8–621:5; Gov’t Ex. 158 at 23.) Lilienkamp testified that according to a back-end
schedule for Winners Circle for July and August of 2016, people who had sent money to Priolo
in response to a front-end mailing in July were sent fourteen back-end mailings over the next
month notifying them that they had won large cash prizes. (Trial Tr. 480:18–481:8.)
b. 	Element 2 - Material Misrepresentation
The record contains voluminous evidence that would permit a rational jury to conclude
that Priolo’s elaborate fake prize notices sent through the Winners Circle and Feel Lucky Group
direct mail operations were designed to convey material misrepresentations, promises, and/or
omissions in an attempt to secure people’s money.
A material misrepresentation is a “misinformation or omission [that] would naturally tend
to lead or is capable of leading a reasonable person to change his conduct.” United States v.
Weaver, 860 F.3d 90, 94 (2d Cir. 2017).3 A material misrepresentation exists where there is a
3 Three months after the jury convicted Priolo, the Supreme Court decided Kousisis v. United
States, 145 S. Ct. 1382 (2025). Prior to the Court’s decision in Kousisis, Second Circuit
precedent drew “a fine line between schemes that do no more than cause their victims to enter
Case 2:21-cr-00566-NJC Document 205 Filed 11/18/25 Page 12 of 27 PageID #:
<pageID>

13
“discrepancy between benefits reasonably anticipated because of the misleading representations
and the actual benefits which the defendant delivered, or intended to deliver.” United States v.
Runner, 143 F.4th 146, 158 (2d Cir. 2025). Here the government presented significant evidence
to support the jury’s findings that Priolo’s prize notices were designed to materially misrepresent
the “benefits reasonably anticipated” from the transaction. Id.
The jury had numerous Winners Circle and Feel Lucky Group mailings, which on their
face convey the material misrepresentation that the recipient had won a large cash prize and was
required to send in a payment of around $20 to $40 to claim it. (See, e.g., Gov’t Exs. 1–15, 21–
30.) They do so using several distinct techniques. The mailings feature fake seals, signatures,
stamps, and company names to create the misimpression that the mailings were from certain
fictitious companies or financial institutions, and never accurately represent Winners Circle, Feel
Lucky Group, Priolo, or any of the other individuals involved in the scheme. Each mailing is
personalized to the recipient, resembles a check or financial document, includes fictitious seals,
signatures, and/or certificates to make it look official, and uses confusing language with
undefined terms, prominent font, and other techniques to convey that the recipient has won a
large sum of money. The back of each prize notice features an obscure disclaimer in grey,
difficult-to-read font, which states that in exchange for paying a $20 to $40 fee, the recipient
into transactions they would otherwise avoid—which do not violate the mail or wire fraud
statutes—and schemes that depend for their completion on a misrepresentation of an essential
element of the bargain—which do violate the mail and wire fraud statutes.” United States v.
Runner, 143 F.4th 146, 154 (2d Cir. 2025). The Supreme Court “erased [that] ‘fine line’” in
Kousisis, and held that “a defendant commits federal fraud whenever he uses a material
misstatement to trick a victim into a contract that requires handing over her money or property.”
Id. at 156 (quoting Kousisis, 145 S. Ct. at 1388). However, the line of cases abrogated by
Kousisis were not at issue here and the jury charge was consistent with the holding in Kousisis.
Case 2:21-cr-00566-NJC Document 205 Filed 11/18/25 Page 13 of 27 PageID #:
<pageID>

14
would receive a report compiling publicly-available information about sweepstakes offered by
third-parties. Buried in the disclaimer is the statement that the recipient has “not won a prize.”
Government Exhibit 1 provides an illustrative example. This mailing, dated September 9,
2016 and addressed to recipient “Andrew Kluczinsky,” advertises a cash prize of
“$1,200,000.00.” (Gov’t Ex. 1.) The text, formatting, and design of the mailing conveys that it is
a prize notification. It features in prominent font across the top: “CHECKS SCHEDULED FOR
RELEASE” and “$1,200,000.” In smaller font at the top left, the mailing states
“GUARANTEED PRIZE NOTIFICATION,” and in similar font on the top right, it states
“CASH & PRIZE ADVISEMENT.” (Id.) The mailing refers to the figure “$1,200,000” in
numbers and text no less the seven times, frequently immediately next to the terms “IN CASH
AWARDS,” “IN PRIZES,” and “CASH AND AWARDS PRIZE-WIN OPPORTUNITY.” (Id.)
The first paragraph of the mailing can be read to convey that Kluczinsky is receiving a formal
letter announcing available sweepstakes prize payments for which his name has been confirmed
on the record and registered. The second paragraph of the mailing refers to “entrant directives”—
an undefined and confusing term. The only references to a “report” on the front of the mailing
are a reference to the “NPF Reports Division” in small font near the top of the page, two
confusing references to “report of entrant directives,” and a reference to a “$20 report fee” buried
in the body of the mailing. The back of the mailing features a disclaimer presented in a large
block of text in small, grey, all caps font that is difficult to read. It states as follows:
NPF IS A RESEARCH AND REPORTING SERVICE. WE SPECIALIZE IN
RESEARCHING SWEEPSTAKES SPONSORED AND CONDUCTED BY
CORPORATE ORGANIZATIONS WITH WHICH NPF IS COMPLETELY
UNAFFILIATED. WE COMPILE THESE SWEEPSTAKES OPPORTUNITIES IN A
REPORT WHICH SETS FORTH ALL NO PURCHASE ENTRY REQUIREMENTS,
BASED ON EXISTING FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL REGULATIONS. YOU
HAVE NOT WON ANY MONEY OR PRIZE. NPF IS NOT LIABLE FOR ANY
ENTRIES MADE OR ATTEMPTED BY READERS OF ITS REPORTS. ALL
Case 2:21-cr-00566-NJC Document 205 Filed 11/18/25 Page 14 of 27 PageID #:
<pageID>

15
SWEEPSTAKES RESEARCHED AND REPORTED ARE FREE TO ENTER, AS
BASED ON THE INFORMATION SUPPLIED BY THE SPONSORS. NPF USES ALL
DUE DILIGENCE TO ACCURATELY REPORT THE ENTRY DETAILS OF EACH
SWEEPSTAKES. NPF IS NOT A LOTTERY COMPANY, AND DOES NOT OFFER
LOTTERY, CONTEST OR SWEEPSTAKES ENTRIES. THIS PROMOTION MAY BE
UNDER DIFFERENT CREATIVE PRESENTATION. VOID WHERE PROHIBITED
BY LAW. RESPONDERS WILL BE REFUNDED THEIR PURCHASE PRICE OF
OUR REPORT IN FULL IF THEY ARE DISSATISFIED WITH THE REPORT.
REFUND CLAIMS MUST BE MADE IN WRITING TO THE ADDRESS ON OR BY
USING THE ENCLOSED REPLY ENVELOPE WITHIN 60 DAYS OF PURCHASE.
IF YOU DO NOT WISH TO RECEIVE FURTHER MAIL SOLICITATIONS FROM
NPF, JUST RETURN THIS ENTIRE LETTER IN THE ENCLOSED ENVELOPE TO
NPF, WITH THE LETTERS "DNM" NEXT TO YOUR NAME/ADDRESS AREA.
PLEASE BE INFORMED THAT YOUR INFORMAITON MAY BE SHARED WITH
A THIRD PARTY. BY PAYING FOR YOUR PURCHASE WITH YOUR CHECK,
YOU ARE ACCEPTING OUR CHECK ACCEPTANCE POLICY. IN THE UNLIKELY
EVENT THAT YOUR CHECK IS RETURNED UNPAID, YOU UNDERSTAND AND
AGREE THAT YOUR CHECK MAY BE ELECTRONICALLY REPRESENTED AND
WE WILL ALSO COLLECT A RETURNED CHECK PROCESSING CHARGE AS
ALLOWED BY STATE LAW. IF YOUR CHECK IS ELECTRONICALLY
REPRESENTED, IT WILL NOT BE PROVIDED TO YOU WITH YOUR BANK
STATEMENT, BUT A COPY CAN BE RETRIEVED BY CONTACTING YOUR
FINANCIAL INSTITUTION. WE ARE COMMITTED TO YOUR PRIVACY AND
WE HAVE A PRIVACY POLICY WHICH IS AVAILABLE UPON REQUEST AT
THE ADDRESS LISTED ON THE OUTER ENVELOPE. THIS COMMUNICATION
IS NOT A SWEEPSTAKES OR AWARD NOTIFICATION AND DOES NOT
GUARANTEE THAT YOU WILL WIN ANY SWEEPSTAKES. FOR SPECIFIC
ODDS OF WINNING, ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS, END DATES AND OTHER
TERMS AND CONDITIONS IN CONNECTION WITH A SWEEPSTAKES, YOU
MUST REFER TO THE SPECIFIC RULES FOR THAT SWEEPSTAKES. YOU DO
NOT NEED TO PURCHASE THE REPORT TO ENTER ANY SWEEPSTAKES. ALL
CUSTOMER SERVICE ISSUES SHOULD BE IN WRITING TO THE ADDRESS ON
THE ENCLOSED ENVELOPE.
(Gov’t Ex. 1.) Buried in the middle of this hard-to-read block of grey text on the back of the
mailing is the statement, “THIS COMMUNICATION IS NOT A SWEEPSTAKES OR
AWARD NOTIFICATION AND DOES NOT GUARANTEE THAT YOU WILL WIN ANY
SWEEPSTAKES.” Notably, the front and back of the mailing refer repeatedly to “NPF,” which
Jacquard testified is not a real entity, but an acronym used to describe this direct mail piece.
(Trial Tr. 101:3–13.)
Case 2:21-cr-00566-NJC Document 205 Filed 11/18/25 Page 15 of 27 PageID #:
<pageID>

16
A rational jury could view Government Exhibit 1, in its entirety, as conveying the
material misrepresentation that Andrew Kluczinzky was the recipient of a cash prize of
$1,200,000, which he could claim by paying a $20 fee. A reasonable jury could also conclude
that the disclaimer on the back of the mailing was intentionally obscure and confusing in order to
cover up the fact that payment of the fee would not secure any cash prize for Kluczinzky.
Similarly, other prize notice mailings sent by Priolo to consumers nationwide used fake
signatures, fake seals, and fake certificates that a reasonable jury could conclude were intended
to make somebody think that they were going to receive a large sum of money, not a request to
purchase a report about sweepstakes hosted by third parties. (See, e.g., Gov’t Exs. 9–10.) Other
mailings were formatted such that they appeared to be from a “trust,” which fraudulently
conveyed that the mailer was a financial institution, like a bank. (See, e.g., Gov’t Ex. 7.)
Although some of the mailings listed a post office box address, none of them provide a phone
number, street or web address, or email to which the recipient could reach out and ask questions
about the terms of the advertised transaction. (See, e.g., Gov’t Ex. 1, 7, 9–10.)
c. 	Element 3: Intent to Defraud
The record includes ample evidence to support the jury’s conclusion that Priolo
knowingly participated in the scheme to defraud consumers through fraudulent mailings, with
knowledge of its fraudulent nature and with specific intent to defraud, as required for a mail
fraud conviction. The jury had Priolo’s Winners Circle and Feel Lucky Group mailings and
documentary evidence that Priolo was aware of the contents of the mailings. (See, e.g., Gov’t
Exs. 180, 303; Trial Tr. 482:16–483:12.) Lilienkamp testified that Priolo received a copy of
every single Winners Circle mailing as of at least July 2016. (Trial Tr. 472:22–474:22; Gov’t Ex.
309; see also Trial Tr. 676:19–22 (Johnson testimony about her email to Lilienkamp requesting
Case 2:21-cr-00566-NJC Document 205 Filed 11/18/25 Page 16 of 27 PageID #:
<pageID>

17
that Priolo’s name and address be added to all mailing files for Winners Circle).) The jury also
heard testimony by Jacquard, Johnson, and Lilienkamp that, in return for paying the requested
fees, recipients were mailed only a third-party sweepstakes report. (Trial Tr. 140:10–141:2,
144:17–146:12, 481:14–482:1, 687:13–21.) Based on this evidence, the jury could reasonably
conclude that through his mailings, Priolo intended to deceive recipients into believing they had
won large cash prizes that could be obtained only by paying a fee, even though he only ever
intended to provide them with a short document containing publicly-available information in
exchange for their money. See Gatto, 986 F.3d at 113 (“[F]raudulent intent may be inferred from
the scheme itself if the necessary result of the actor’s scheme is to injure others”); Jabar, 19
F.4th at 76–77 (recognizing that “a discrepancy between benefits reasonably anticipated because
of the misleading representations and the actual benefits which the defendant delivered, or
intended to deliver” can demonstrate harm supporting demonstration of fraudulent intent).
The jury saw evidence and heard testimony concerning Johnson’s role in processing the
mail received in response to the direct mailings sent by Priolo and co-conspirators, a process
known as “caging.” (See, e.g., Trial Tr. 530:7–13.) She testified that she received packages via
express mail, priority mail, and sometimes even Federal Express from prize notice recipients
who sought to claim the cash prizes referenced in the mailings. (Trial Tr. 564:8–565:3, 595:13–
605:24.) In evidence are photographs of large bins of mail received by Johnson in response to
Winners Circle and Feel Lucky Group mailings, which include packages sent through these
priority and express forms of mail. (Gov’t Ex. 394.) Johnson also testified that Priolo picked up
the mail five days a week and saw these priority and express mail packages. (Id.; Trial Tr. 564:8–
565:3, 595:13–605:24.) Also in evidence are text messages between Priolo and Johnson
concerning Priolo’s handling of the mail, including a text from Priolo to Johnon showing a
Case 2:21-cr-00566-NJC Document 205 Filed 11/18/25 Page 17 of 27 PageID #:
<pageID>

18
photograph of express mail parcels. (Gov’t Ex. 394.) The jury could reasonably conclude from
this evidence that recipients of Priolo’s mailings believed that the mailings were promising them
something important and life-changing, and that Priolo was aware of this perception.
The jury heard evidence that Priolo received numerous responses and complaints from
mailing recipients indicating their belief that the mailings conveyed that they had won a large
cash prize. For example, the record includes documentary evidence and testimony that Priolo
was aware that mailing recipients sent in notes in which they asked for the $20 to $40 fee to be
deducted from their prize money, which placed Priolo on notice that these recipients did not have
the money to pay the fee, but believed they were being promised a large cash sum. (Trial Tr.
658:11–667:21) Based on such evidence, a reasonable jury could conclude that Priolo knew that
the disclaimers on the back of the mailings failed to inform recipients that all they were being
offered for their $20 to $40 fee was a booklet advertising sweepstakes by third parties.
The record also includes numerous photographs of return envelopes sent by recipients of
Priolo’s mailings, on the front of which were notations indicating that the recipients believed the
mailings were a “scam” or a “fraud,” or consisted of lies. (See, e.g., Gov’t Ex. 160.) The jury
heard testimony and saw documentary evidence indicating that Priolo was aware of these
markings on the return envelopes, and that nevertheless, he did not change the content or nature
of the mailings to eliminate the deception. (Trial Tr. 658:19–667:21.) A reasonable jury could
conclude that these complaints put Priolo on notice of the deceptive nature of the mailings.
The record includes numerous examples of letters sent with Priolo’s authorization to
people who wrote to inquire about the status of their prize money in response to a fake prize
notice from Winners Circle or Feel Lucky Group. (Gov’t Ex. 162.) Johnson testified that Priolo
instructed her to respond to these inquiries with “customer service letters” signed with fake
Case 2:21-cr-00566-NJC Document 205 Filed 11/18/25 Page 18 of 27 PageID #:
<pageID>

19
names—such as “Christine Peters.” (Trial Tr. 622:18–623:18, 633:9–18, 645:18–647:3.) Johnson
testified that if an inquiry indicated that the consumer believed they had won a prize, she would
send a letter restating information from the disclaimer on the back of the mailing, and that she
would only provide a refund if the consumer explicitly asked for a refund of a specific payment
made in response to the mailing. (Trial Tr. 631:9–634:21; see, e.g., Gov’t Ex. 162.) The jury saw
documentary evidence showing that Johnson sent such response letters to consumers in response
to the NPF promotion, which was a mailing sent through Priolo’s Winners Circle direct mail
operation. (Trial Tr. 632:21–633:8; Gov’t Ex. 162.) This evidence further supports a reasonable
conclusion that Priolo was fully aware of the deceptive nature of his mailings.
The jury also saw evidence and heard Johnson’s testimony about letters from state
attorneys general and county consumer protection authorities, which the jury could reasonably
conclude placed Priolo on notice that his mailings were fraudulent and violated the law. Johnson
testified that she gave the attorney general and county consumer protection complaints regarding
Winners Circle mailings to Priolo. (Trial Tr. 598, 605, 622, 631–40.) Her testimony and emails
and letters in the record support the conclusion that Priolo was aware that Pinellas County
Consumer Protection was concerned about a complaint from an individual named Gerry
Dellavalle that Priolo’s mailings were fraudulent (See Gov’t Exs. 171, 172.) The jury also had
letters from the Minnesota Attorney General’s Office raising similar concerns about a Priolo
mailing (Gov’t Ex. 173) and an email by which Sean Novis forwarded that letter to Priolo (Gov’t
Ex. 364). Johnson testified that Priolo instructed her respond to such correspondence with letters
using a fake name, such as “Christine Peters,” rather than signing the letters with Priolo’s name
or even her own. (Trial Tr. 622:18–623:18, 633:9–18, 645:18–647:3.) The jury reasonably
concluded that these letters from state and local government officials placed Priolo on notice that
Case 2:21-cr-00566-NJC Document 205 Filed 11/18/25 Page 19 of 27 PageID #:
<pageID>

20
his mailings were deceptive and fraudulent, and that Priolo instructed Johnson to respond in a
way that would permit him to conceal that Winners Circle and Feel Lucky Group were shell
companies engaging in fraud, rather than legitimate businesses.
The jury also heard testimony about the victims’ understanding that the mailings entitled
them to large cash prizes. For example, Marilyn Burks and Pamela Pence testified that when they
received the mailings, they understood them to convey that they had won money. (Trial Tr. at
314–15 (Burks: “Because I thought I was going to win some money and I thought that if I sent
the $20, like they asked me, then I would win some money.”); Gov’t Ex. 62 (NPF mailing to
Marilyn Burks requesting her “attention” in order to “release the entire $1,200,000.00 IN CASH
AWARDS PRIZE OPPORTUNITY”); Trial Tr. at 186 (Question: “How did you interpret this
letter? What did you think it meant?” Pence: “Well, they didn’t send me a check and they didn’t
put the money in the bank.”); Gov’t Ex. 63 (NPF mailing to Pamela Pence “FOR RELEASE” of
$1,200,000); Gov’t Ex 63-OE).
Both Burks and Pence testified that they could not remember whether they viewed the
disclaimer on the back of the mailings before sending in the requested fees. (Trial Tr. 203:12–
204:5 (Pence); id. 319:10–13 (Burk).) However, based on witness testimony and the mailings
themselves, a reasonable jury could conclude that Priolo authorized mailings intentionally
designed so that recipients, including Burks and Pence, focused on the front of the mailings,
which fraudulently promised large cash prizes, rather than the disclaimer buried on the back and
presented in small difficult-to-read font. In addition, the jury also heard testimony from the
family members of John Single, Art Montilla, and Wendell Brooks, who testified about similar
types of mailings that their family members received and that their family members had believed
they had won money. (Trial Tr. 46:14–72:13, 288:12–310:15, 419:11–444:10.)
Case 2:21-cr-00566-NJC Document 205 Filed 11/18/25 Page 20 of 27 PageID #:
<pageID>

21
Finally, the jury heard testimony from Postal Inspector Christine Reins Jarins and saw
documentary evidence that can be reasonably understood to show that Priolo did not make
changes to one of his mailings even after the company that he used to process payments, PacNet,
raised concerns that certain text in the mailing “may mislead the consumer into believe he/she
has won a prize,” including the following sentence: “No one else notified. If you wish to keep
any money won secret from your spouse or family, please consult your lawyer.” (Gov’t Ex. 362
at 37; Trial Tr. 825:7–833:12.) Finally, as discussed, the jury saw documentary evidence and
heard testimony showing that Priolo requested that staff add his own name and address to his
mailing lists, so that he received copies of his fake prize notices and was fully aware of their
content. (See Gov’t Ex. 309; Trial Tr. 472:22–474:22; 676:19–22.) A rational jury could thus
conclude that Priolo did not make any meaningful changes to the deceptive nature of the
mailings, even after receiving customer complaints, notices demonstrating that mail recipients
believed they had won a large cash prize, and after receiving inquiries from county consumer
protection officials and state attorneys general. And a rational jury could also reasonably
conclude that Priolo was not only aware of the deceptive nature of his Winners Circle and Feel
Lucky Group mailings, but that he also intentionally continued to send out these mailings in an
effort to secure money from people duped into believing they were winning large cash prizes.
Throughout the trial, the jury heard evidence that Priolo authorized refunds for certain
mailing recipients who wrote to complain that they never received the promised large cash prize.
(Trial Tr. 655:2–658:12, 666:13–667:13, 810:10–813:19.) Based on documents in the record and
Johnson’s testimony, the jury could reasonably conclude that the refund policy was not carried
out in good faith and was instead used to prevent people from escalating their complaints. For
example, the jury saw letters from consumers who asked for a refund and documents showing
Case 2:21-cr-00566-NJC Document 205 Filed 11/18/25 Page 21 of 27 PageID #:
<pageID>

22
that the consumers were refunded for one specific payment. (Gov’t Ex. 174; Trial Tr. 655:5–17,
656:7–657:17.) However, Johnson testified that consumers were not refunded for additional
payments made in response to Priolo’s mailings if they did not specifically request refunds of
those other payments. (Trial Tr. 624:12–625:4, 633:3–634:21.) Inspector Reins-Jarin testified
that she had reviewed bank records for Priolo’s operations and identified around 30 refund
checks, amounting to at most around $2,900 out of $2.6 million in revenue generated through
Priolo’s direct mailings, even though there were dozens, if not hundreds, of notes from victims
conveying some form of belief that Mr. Priolo’s mailings informed them that they had won large
monetary prizes. (See Trial Tr. 812.)
d. 	Element 4 – Use of the Mails
The record is replete with evidence that Priolo used the mails to carry out the scheme to
defraud. All of the fraudulent mailings were sent to recipients through the U.S. mail. (See, e.g.,
Gov’t Exs. 1–15, 21–30.) Additionally, the checks, cash, and complaint letters from recipients
were sent back to Priolo through the U.S. mail, Federal Express, and UPS, and Johnson sent
responses to inquiries from mailing recipients on behalf of Priolo through the U.S. mail. (See,
e.g., Gov’t Exs. 62, 63, 160, 162, 171; Trial Tr. 825:12–827:10.)
The jury also heard testimony and viewed documentary evidence sufficient to sustain the
four specific counts of mail fraud detailed in Counts Three, Four, Five, and Six of the
Indictment. The jury was shown copies of, and Inspector Reins-Jarins testified about, four
specific checks sent by victims to Long Island in response to Priolo’s fraudulent mailings: one
from victim Audrey Gibson mailed on or around November 21, 2026; another from victim
Margaret Tousignant mailed on or around December 11, 2016; another from victim Alemu Kore
mailed on or around December 15, 2016; and another from victim Nuby Green mailed on or
Case 2:21-cr-00566-NJC Document 205 Filed 11/18/25 Page 22 of 27 PageID #:
<pageID>

23
around December 21, 2016. (Trial Tr. 867:10–870:9.) The jury heard testimony that checks from
these victims were deposited directly into the Winners Circle bank account. (Trial Tr. 852:10–
854:22)
Based on other examples of Priolo signatures in the evidence, including two examples of
his notarized signature, a reasonable jury could conclude that Priolo’s signature appears in the
endorsement on the back of each of the checks at issue for the counts of mail fraud set forth in
Counts Three, Four, Five, and Six of the Indictment. (See Gov’t Ex. 355 at 7, 16; Trial Tr.
814:1–9.)
2. 	Conspiracy to Commit Mail and Wire Fraud
a. 	Element One
As discussed, the first element of the conspiracy charge requires the government to
prove that Priolo entered into the unlawful agreement to commit mail or wire fraud charged in
Count Two of the Indictment with at least one other person. Viewing the record evidence in
the light most favorable to the government, there is ample evidence to support the jury’s
finding that Priolo engaged in a conspiracy to conduct mail and wire fraud with Jeffrey Novis,
Sean Novis, and potentially others as charged in Count Two.
As already explained, voluminous documentary evidence and witness testimony
support the conclusion that between around March 2015 and December 2016, Priolo owned
and operated the Winners Circle direct mail operation through which he sent to consumers
nationwide hundreds of thousands of mailings, which were designed to convince people that
they had won a large cash prize of more than one million dollars that could be obtained upon
payment of a fee. See supra Discussion § B.1.a. The record includes evidence showing that
Priolo and Novis jointly owned and operated Winners Circle and were fully aware of the
Case 2:21-cr-00566-NJC Document 205 Filed 11/18/25 Page 23 of 27 PageID #:
<pageID>

24
contents of the fraudulent mailings sent through the operation. According to documentary
evidence, Priolo and Jeffrey Novis were both on the same bank account for Winners Circle as
of November 13, 2024, with Novis as “corporate secretary or authorized signer” and with
Priolo as “president and authorized signer.” (Trial Tr. 805:8–19.) The jury saw evidence that
both Jeffrey Nois and Priolo were associated with the Winners Circle Gmail account and acted
together to carry out the operation to mail fraudulent prize notifications in order to secure
payments from people duped into thinking they had won large cash prizes. (See, e.g., Trial Tr.
816:2–14, 823:22–825:6.) Documentary evidence and witness testimony indicate that Priolo
and Jeffrey Novis worked with Jacquard, Lilienkamp, and Johnson on different aspects of the
operations including: to develop and mail the prize notices to mailing lists purchased from co-
conspirators and other sources, receive payments in the mail, deposit payments into bank
accounts, and to respond to customer inquiries and complaints with letters from fake
companies and fake officials with letters stating information from the disclaimers buried in
hard-to-read text on the back of the prize notices.
For example, Johnson testified that she had a signed service agreement with Priolo
regarding Winners Circle, by which they agreed that she would respond to people who mailed
money and/or the return form after receipt of a Winners Circle mailing. (See Gov’t Ex. 156.)
The record also includes evidence of a similar signed agreement between Johnson and Priolo
regarding her role in responding to inquiries and complaints relating to Feel Lucky Group
mailings. (Gov’t Ex. 157.) Johnson also testified that she understood Winners Circle to be
owned by both Priolo and Novis, and that she would send both of them a summary of the mail
received in response to Winners Circle mailings. (Trial Tr. 568:20–69:15, 616:19–619:11.)
Case 2:21-cr-00566-NJC Document 205 Filed 11/18/25 Page 24 of 27 PageID #:
<pageID>

25
Additionally, documents and testimony in the record reasonably support the
conclusion that Priolo and Jeffrey Novis had an agreement with Sean Novis that Jacquard,
Lilienkamp, and Johnson, all of whom worked for Sean Novis at various times, would
perform services for the Winners Circle direct mail operation, including working with letter
shops to print mailings and process the address files. For example, the jury also saw evidence
and heard testimony that Sean Novis’s bookkeeper, Ellen McDevitt, transmitted invoices to
Priolo and Jeffrey Novis for caging services and for the creation of sweeps reports as
fulfillment for the Winners Circle’s mailings. (Gov’t Exs. 358, 360; Trial Tr. 822:3–823:12.)
Accordingly, based on the evidence in the record, a reasonable jury could conclude that Priolo
had an agreement with Jeffrey Novis and Sean Novis to use the mail to send hundreds of
thousands of fake prize notices to consumers nationwide as part of the Winners Circle direct
mail operation between around March 2015 and December 2016.
Finally, concerning use of the wires, Johnson testified that she sent checks received in
response to Winners Circle and Feel Lucky Group mailings to PacNet, a company located in
British Columbia, Canada, for processing. (Trial Tr. 613:16–21.) Based on her testimony and
other evidence, including the testimony of Inspector Reins Jarins, PacNet wired money from
its bank in Chicago to Priolo and Jeffrey Novis’s accounts at Empire Bank in Islandia, New
York. (See Gov’t Ex. 351V; Trial Tr. 863:9–864:3.)
b. 	Element Two
There is ample evidence to support the jury’s determination that the government
proved the second element of conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud: that Priolo
knowingly and intentionally became a member of the charged fake prize notice conspiracy.
As discussed at length, the jury saw documents and heard testimony showing that
Case 2:21-cr-00566-NJC Document 205 Filed 11/18/25 Page 25 of 27 PageID #:
<pageID>

26
Priolo knowingly established and operated Winners Circle with Jeffrey Novis, including by
creating the corporate entity, opening joint bank accounts, creating a Gmail account they both
used to conduct company business, and working with PacNet. (See, e.g., Gov’t Exs. 351, 354
at 9; Trial Tr. 568:20–69:15.)
Evidence in the record also supports the conclusion that Priolo intentionally authorized
Winners Circle and Feel Lucky Group mailings, that he received these mailings after they
were sent out, and that despite his awareness of inquiries and complaints indicating that
recipients understood the mailings to convey that they had won a large monetary prize and
numerous complaints from state attorneys general and county consumer protection officials
that the mailings were fraudulent, Priolo did not change the mailings to cure the deception.
See supra Discussion § B.1.c. Moreover, the jury also saw evidence and heard testimony that
after PacNet recommended that Priolo remove from a mailing misleading information
suggesting that the recipient had won money that needed to be hidden from others, Priolo did
not make any changes. See id. The jury also saw evidence and heard testimony showing that
even after being on notice of these complaints about Winners Circle mailings, rather than
changing his conduct, Priolo founded Feel Lucky Group in order to keep a greater share of
proceeds from these mailings for himself. (Gov’t Exs. 263, 374; Trial Tr. 570:2–6.) And, as
previously discussed, the jury also heard testimony from witnesses about how once Priolo
learned that a victim paid money in response to a front-end mailing, Priolo and his co-
conspirators targeted the same person with even more back end mailings, which also promised
large cash prizes upon the recipient of a fee ranging from $20 to $40. See supra Discussion §
B.1.a.
Case 2:21-cr-00566-NJC Document 205 Filed 11/18/25 Page 26 of 27 PageID #:
<pageID>

27
In summary, the jury heard testimony and saw evidence showing that, even after
receiving complaints, inquiries from county consumer protection officials and state attorneys
general, and inquiries demonstrating that the mailings convinced recipients that they had won
a large cash prize, Priolo made no changes to address the deceptive and fraudulent nature of
his Winners Circle and Feel Lucky Group mailings. Viewed in its totality, the record was
more than sufficient to permit a rational jury to conclude that Priolo was not only aware of the
deceptive nature of his mailings, but that he knowingly and intentionally became a member of
the charged conspiracy with Jeffrey Novis and Sean Novis to mail hundreds of thousands of
fraudulent prize notices to secure money from people duped into believing they had won large
cash prizes when in fact the only product they would receive was a short report listing
publicly-available third-party sweepstakes. Accordingly, sufficient evidence supports Priolo’s
conviction for conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud as charged in the Indictment.
CONCLUSION
For all of the reasons set forth in this Opinion and Order, sufficient evidence supports
Priolo’s conviction on four substantive counts of mail fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1341 and one
count of conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1349. This Court therefore
denies Priolo’s oral motion for judgment of acquittal made under Rule 29, Fed. R. Civ. P., at the
close of evidence and before the case was submitted to the jury.
Dated: Central Islip, New York
November 18, 2025
/s/ Nusrat J. Choudhury
NUSRAT J. CHOUDHURY
United States District Judge
Case 2:21-cr-00566-NJC Document 205 Filed 11/18/25 Page 27 of 27 PageID #:
<pageID>