USA v. Karony et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
-----------------------------------x
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
-against-
BRADEN J. KARONY,
Defendant.
-----------------------------------x
MEMORANDUM & ORDER
23-CR-433(EK)
ERIC KOMITEE, United States District Judge:
Sentencing in this case is set for January 16,
2026. 	The government seeks an order of forfeiture including a
forfeiture money judgment in the amount of $7,571,699, as well
as the forfeiture of specific assets as to which the jury
returned a special verdict. 	Proposed Prelim. Order of
Forfeiture, ECF No. 247-1. 	The government contends that the
amount of the proposed forfeiture money judgment is supported by
the evidence adduced at trial. 	Letter in Supp. of Proposed
Prelim. Order of Forfeiture 4-6, ECF No. 252.
The defendant disputes the government’s arguments
concerning the forfeiture amount. 	He contests, among other
things, the “dates of the ‘gains’ that the government
calculated” in GX 6006, a series of slides prepared by its
asset tracing witness, Special Agent Petrower. 	Letter Regarding
Objections to Prelim. Order of Forfeiture 2, ECF No. 251. 	He
also argues that the government “inaccurately classified”
Case 1:23-cr-00433-EK Document 258 Filed 12/21/25 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
certain “Safemoon business costs” as personal expenses. 	Id.
Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.2(b)(1)(B) provides that when
forfeiture is contested, “on either party’s request the court
must conduct a hearing after the verdict or finding of guilty.”
Given that requirement, the Court scheduled a forfeiture hearing
for January 7.
To obtain an order of forfeiture, the government must
demonstrate by “a preponderance of the evidence,” United States
v. Capoccia, 503 F.3d 103, 116 (2d Cir. 2007), that the property
“constitutes or is derived from proceeds traceable to” a
specified offense, including securities fraud conspiracy and
wire fraud conspiracy. 	See 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(C).1
Forfeiture is mandatory “[i]f the defendant is convicted of the
offense giving rise to the forfeiture . . . .” 	See 28 U.S.C.
§ 2461(c). 	In making its forfeiture calculation, the court “may
use general points of reference as a starting point,” United
States v. Roberts, 660 F.3d 149, 166 (2d Cir. 2011), and “need
only make a reasonable estimate . . . given the available
information.” 	United States v. Treacy, 639 F.3d 32, 48 (2d Cir.
2011). 	The government can carry its burden by pointing to
“evidence already in the record” or “any additional evidence or
information submitted by the parties and accepted by the court
1 Unless otherwise noted, when quoting judicial decisions this order
accepts all alterations and omits all citations, footnotes, and internal
quotation marks.
Case 1:23-cr-00433-EK Document 258 Filed 12/21/25 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
as relevant and reliable.” 	Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.2(b)(1)(B).
Here, the government has pointed to evidence and
testimony introduced at trial. 	Letter in Supp. of Proposed
Prelim. Order of Forfeiture 4-6. 	The government asserts that
this evidence is sufficient, as it stands, to carry its burden.
Letter in Resp. to Forfeiture Hearing Request 1, ECF No. 255.
At this point, the Court expresses no view on the correctness of
that assertion. 	The decision of whether it wants to adduce
additional testimony at the hearing falls to the government.
If the defense wishes to present evidence at the
hearing, it should advise the Court no later than December 30 of
any intention to call witness(es) at that hearing, including by
identifying the witnesses and the specific subject matter of
their testimony. 	No such testimony should be duplicative of
testimony adduced at trial.
SO ORDERED.
/s/ Eric Komitee
ERIC KOMITEE
United States District Judge
Dated: 	December 21, 2025
Brooklyn, New York
Case 1:23-cr-00433-EK Document 258 Filed 12/21/25 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>