Federal prosecutors have filed a motion in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi opposing Antwann Richardson’s request to be tried separately from Jabari Edwards in the federal case against them.
Last month Richardson’s attorney, Victor Fleitas of Tupelo, asked the court to try Richardson separately from Edwards because Edwards was “deflecting culpability” onto Richardson. That deflection would result in Richardson being unable to get a fair trial, he argued.
Both men were indicted in June for allegedly misusing more than $2 million in Paycheck Protection Plan and Economic Injury Disaster Loan Program funding.
They allegedly fraudulently applied for coronavirus relief funds for North Atlantic Security, which Edwards owned at the time the funds were applied for but later sold, and Edwards Enterprises, a company listing Edwards as its sole member. Edwards also owns J5, with Richardson serving as president.
Both are charged with 17 counts, including multiple charges of conspiracy to commit wire fraud, wire fraud and money laundering.
Prosecutors argue that the business partners fraudulently received PPP and EIDL money that was then commingled with funds from Edwards’ other companies. The money was used to prop up those other businesses, pay their taxes and, in some cases, to buy real property, including Court Square Tower in downtown Columbus.
Edwards and Richardson both knew about and benefitted from the fraud, so both should be tried together, prosecutors argue. Specifically, Edwards claimed Richardson completed the PPP and EIDL applications and said Edwards was responsible for the finances of his companies.
“Nevertheless, Edwards admitted he knew about Richardson’s conduct and certified the loan applications,” the prosecutors argue. “This statement confirmed … that Edwards and Richardson were co-conspirators in a scheme to commit wire fraud.”
One of Richardson’s arguments centered on a statement Edwards gave to federal agents on the day of his arrest, in which he tried to “deflect culpability” away from himself while incriminating Richardson. Because of this, the two men would effectively end up testifying against one another at trial.
Prosecutors argue that will not be the case.
“At trial, the government intends to ask agents whether Edwards admitted to his fraudulent conduct and limit agents’ response to Edwards’ own conduct,” the prosecutors wrote. The statement Richardson is worried about will not be admitted into evidence.
Prosecutors also argue that evidence at trial will show that “some, if not all, of the approximately $1 million in EIDL funds were moved into other business accounts that both Edwards and Richardson controlled.”
It is also too early to tell what Edwards’ defense will be, the government argues.
“… Presumably, he will not admit that he was aware of and involved in fraudulent activity, which was the predicate admission for blaming Richardson,” the prosecutors wrote. “Regardless, the government does not need either defendant to testify against the other.”
The government will show at trial that Edwards owned the businesses and Richardson “had significant control over the business as manager,” prosecutors wrote. “Both defendants knew that the businesses applied for and received CARES Act funds … knowing that the funds would be used for their personal expenses and other businesses.”
Richardson can’t ask for a separate trial just because it would be easier to win, the government argues.
“The defendant must show something more than the fact that a separate trial might offer him a better chance of acquittal,” the prosecutors write.
Joint trials are better trials, the government argues.
“Joint trials promote economy and efficiency and ‘serve the interests of justice by avoiding the scandal and inequity of inconsistent verdicts,” the prosecutors wrote. “Such interests are obviously served in having a joint trial of defendants who are indicted together and are alleged to have participated mutually in the charged offense. … Those indicted together, especially co-conspirators, should be tried together.”
Edwards and Richardson were indicted in June after the Federal Bureau of Investigation, along with other law enforcement agencies, raided J5’s Columbus headquarters. Earlier this month prosecutors filed additional charges against both men.
The two have a motion to dismiss charges against them pending before the court, and have tried unsuccessfully to get freezes on business and property assets lifted.
In an unrelated motion, the trial was continued from Jan. 23 to April 10. It has been continued multiple times.
Brian Jones is the local government reporter for Columbus and Lowndes County.
You can help your community
Quality, in-depth journalism is essential to a healthy community. The Dispatch brings you the most complete reporting and insightful commentary in the Golden Triangle, but we need your help to continue our efforts. In the past week, our reporters have posted 30 articles to cdispatch.com. Please consider subscribing to our website for only $2.30 per week to help support local journalism and our community.
You can help your community
Quality, in-depth journalism is essential to a healthy community. The Dispatch brings you the most complete reporting and insightful commentary in the Golden Triangle, but we need your help to continue our efforts. In the past week, our reporters have posted 30 articles to cdispatch.com. Please consider subscribing to our website for only $2.30 per week to help support local journalism and our community.
Join the Discussion