Reagor’s defense provides response to prosecution’s forfeiture motion

AMARILLO, Texas (KAMR/KCIT) — After missing the initial deadline in its response to the prosecution’s motion for forfeiture, officials with Bart Reagor’s defense team provided a response stating that the team opposes the forfeiture motion.

According to court documents, Reagor’s team urged the Court to deny the motion and conduct its own forfeiture hearing after both the prosecution and the defense had access to the transcript from the trial “with sufficient time to review it.” This comes after a jury found Reagor guilty on one count of making false statements to a bank along with finding him not guilty on two counts of bank fraud in October.

The prosecution initially made the motion for the forfeiture order Nov. 2, requesting that Reagor forfeit $1,760,000 obtained as a result of the false statement to a bank that led to his guilty verdict. According to previous reports by, the initial indictment included a forfeiture notice advising Reagor that the prosecution would seek forfeiture derived from the proceeds Reagor “obtained directly or indirectly as the result of his (offenses).”


“The notice also advised Reagor that the forfeiture could take the form of a forfeiture ‘money’ judgment, in addition to a specific property forfeiture of $950,951.18 seized from a bank account belonging to Reagor,” the documents outlining the prosecution’s initial motion read.

On Nov. 23, Matthew J. Kacsmaryk, the United States District Judge overseeing the Reagor Case, submitted an order stating that the defendant “failed to file a timely response. Kacsmaryk ordered the defendant to file the response stating if it continued to oppose the prosecution’s motion, “the factual and legal grounds for its opposition, if any” as well as the reasons why the deadline was missed.

In its response, filed Monday, the defendant’s team cited numerous federal rules of criminal procedures citing their belief that the prosecution “failed to meet its burdens… as well as the applicable forfeiture statutes.” According to court documents, the defense states that the prosecution “introduced almost no evidence at trial tracing the proceeds Mr. Reagor actually obtained as a part of his allegedly unlawful conduct.”


“The government focused on proving the elements of False Statement to a Bank, none of which requires it to prove with any specificity the amounts Mr. Reagor obtained through his alleged wrongdoing,” the documents read. “Because of the manner in which the government charged this case, it only needed to prove that a portion of the loan proceeds were used for some purpose other than ‘working capital.’ The government therefore spent little effort in proving where these funds went – or in what quantities.”

Officials from the defense also state their belief that Kacsmaryk should deny the motion because of it being an excessive fine in violation of the eighth amendment, stating that “the restitution sought by the government is nearly twice (the amount) authorized by statute.”

In regards to its untimely filing, the defense stated that it believed that the court’s enlargement of time for filing post-trial motions included the forfeiture. The defense also continues to request that the court hosts a hearing on forfeiture matters after the trial transcript is received and reviewed by both parties. As of Tuesday evening, there has not been a response to the defendant’s response.

Officials with Amarillo Federal Court previously stated that Reagor is scheduled to be sentenced at 1:30 p.m. Feb. 24, 2022, and faces up to 30 years in federal prison, according to the United States Department of Justice.

Written by David Gay

Categories: Law

Tagged as: , , ,

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s