In June 2023, the DOJ announced an enforcement action against Amadou Kane Diallo (pictured – a Senegalese national and California resident who was the CEO of two California-based companies: Virtual Advisors LLC and Liquide Inc).
As stated in the DOJ release:
“Diallo allegedly solicited investments in his companies from at least 11 individuals for purported business opportunities in technology, health care, real estate, home ownership, and service to the African diaspora. Diallo allegedly made various false representations, including that investor funds would be spent to further investors’ interests, or not be spent at all, and instead used as “skin in the game” to attract institutional investors. Diallo is also alleged to have lied to potential investors, claiming that he had raised hundreds of millions of dollars for another investment firm and its real estate investment fund when, in fact, he had never raised any such funds.
Diallo allegedly caused at least 11 victim-investors to pay him, Virtual Advisors, and Liquide, more than $1.8 million. Contrary to his representations to investors, Diallo allegedly used their money to fund his own extravagant lifestyle, including making rent payments on his home; paying for luxury vehicles; buying clothes and fancy dinners; joining fitness clubs and spas; and hosting lavish events for foreign government officials.
Diallo was charged with 19 counts of wire fraud and two counts of money laundering.
In September 2023, the DOJ filed this superseding indictment adding an FCPA anti-bribery charge.
According to the superseding indictment:
“In addition to, and in connection with, defendant DIALLO’s fraudulent scheme… defendant DIALLO corruptly sought a grant of land in Senegal from Senegalese government officials, from which defendant DIALLO intended to extract value by taking a loan on the property that defendant DIALLO sought to corruptly obtain, or by other means. Defendant DIALLO’s corrupt efforts included the following, among others:
a. In or around November 2018, and in furtherance of his corrupt efforts to obtain a grant of land in Senegal from government officials, defendant DIALLO hosted Official 1 (described as an official in the government of Senegal with responsibilities related to real estate development, investment, and government contracting) in Orange County, California and provided him with luxury accommodations, transportation, and lavish entertainment. Among other things, defendant DIALLO chartered a helicopter for Official 1 to attend a Los Angeles Lakers basketball game.
b. In or around December 2018, after receiving an invitation from Official 2 (also described as an official in the government of Senegal with responsibilities related to real estate development, investment, and government contracting) to visit Senegal, defendant DIALLO, accompanied by other victim-investors, traveled to Senegal. In Senegal, defendant DIALLO attended a meeting with Official 2 on or about December 31, 2018, and in an effort to induce Official 2 to authorize the land-grant that defendant DIALLO sought, defendant DIALLO corruptly offered to provide five vehicles to Official 2 to assist with a political campaign.”
With trial approaching, Diallo’s counsel recently filed a motion to dismiss. It states in pertinent part:
“Mr. Diallo made his initial appearance in this matter on June 1, 2023. He was ordered detained and, despite his best efforts to obtain bond, has remained in detention since. Following appointment of current counsel, the Court eventually set a trial date of October 30, 2025. In June 2025, the Court ran out of money with which to pay appointed counsel and ancillary defense services.
Mr. Diallo’s court-appointed counsel went without access to investigators, experts, and other basic defense resources for an extended period. While counsel continued to work, the lack of funding affected that work, for example, by increasing the workload in other appointed cases because many CJA [Criminal Justice Act] counsel refused to accept new cases during the funding lapse. Moreover, between the funding lapse and the corresponding increased workload from other matters, among other reasons, payment vouchers were not submitted as they otherwise would have been. Ancillary services were not available at all during the funding lapse. The deprivation has not been momentary or speculative — it has structurally disabled the defense, while the government’s prosecution has proceeded unabated.
[…]
Even after CJA funding was set to resume on October 1, 2025, funding remained frozen through an additional month because of the government shutdown. Throughout the funding lapse, the parties’ positions diverged in a manner that fundamentally undermined the adversarial process. While the government continued full trial preparation without interruption, the defense was functionally unable to move forward due to the absence of funding and resources. While the defense attorneys agreed to continue to work without assurance of payment, the continued funding lapse effectively prevented the ability to consult with potential experts, hire an investigator, etc.”
The DOJ has responded as follows:
“This prosecution began with defendant’s arrest and detention in June 2023. Thus far, defendant has fired his counsel five times, and sought and obtained six continuances of the trial date to accommodate his ever-shifting attorneys and their need to prepare for trial. The government has not requested a single continuance in this case and has consistently emphasized the urgency of resolving the matter given the interests of nearly a dozen victims of defendant’s fraud. Now, on the heels of his most recent continuance request——which defendant requested for multiple reasons other than availability of CJA funds——and against a wave of developing law against his position, defendant cites a single, non-binding, and readily distinguishable decision from outside this district, to request dismissal due to a now-resolved lapse in attorney funding under the Criminal Justice Act (“CJA”).
[…]
To be clear, the government takes seriously defendant’s right to counsel and the substantial efforts that all prior and current attorneys have invested in his defense over the last several years. Defendant cannot, however, properly obtain dismissal of the charges against him based on a previous lapse in CJA funding——particularly where he has caused years of delay by his own conduct in hiring and firing attorneys.”
