AFFIDAVIT GEORGE B. MADING, being duly sworn, deposes and says: A. Your affiant alleges that probable cause exists to believe that CHRISTOPHER MATTHEW LAMPRECHT and JASON ARTHUR COPSON have violated Title 18, United States Code (U.S.C.), Section 1953(g), Money Laundering Conspiracy. The following paragraphs detail the probable cause to support seizure and forfeiture. B. Based on my experience and training, I know that Title 18, U.S.C., Section 1956(g) makes it illegal for an individual to conspire to knowingly conduct a financial transaction with proceeds of a specified unlawful activity (which includes violation of Title 18, U.S.C., Sections 2314 and 2315, Interstate Transportation of Stolen Property), if the transaction was designed to conceal or disguise the nature, ownership or control of the proceeds. C. I have been a Special Agent with the Internal Revenue Service, Criminal Investigation Division (IRS) since June 1975. During this time period I have been involved in numerous investigations of individuals who derive substantial income and/or proceeds from illegal activity. This activity includes a wide variety of illegal conduct including narcotics trafficking, commercial bribery, bookmaking, embezzlement, theft and interstate transportation of stolen property. In addition, on numerous occasions I have provided financial investigative expertise and assistance to various law enforcement agencies in their investigations of individuals who violate state and federal criminal statues. My assistance to other agencies included the documentation and tracing of the illegal proceeds obtained in violation of, or used in the violation of Titles 18 and 21 U.S.C., and various other Federal statues, the Texas Controlled Substance Act and the Texas State Penal Code. I have also had extensive experience in the execution of contraband and financial search warrants, debriefing defendants, participant witnesses, informants, and other persons who have personal knowledge of the amassing, spending, converting, transporting, distributing, laundering and concealing of proceeds of illegal activity. D. Your affiant states that the investigative facts that assist in establishing probable cause for a seizure warrant for the above-described vehicle are as follows: 1. Based on my review and analysis of the investigative files of the Austin Police Department (APD), the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and the IRS, my discussions with the various investigators involved in the underlying cases, and my own investigation, I have concluded that since at least 1992, several individuals, including LAMPRECHT and COPSON have been involved in the theft and interstate distribution of electronic telephone switching components. These individuals have also conspired to launder the proceeds of their illegal conduct. 2. Based on my review of the investigative files of the APD, Theft Division, on 7-9-92, LAMPRECHT and COPSON, using the alias of SCOTT BERRY, were arrested by APD officers after they attempted to sell stolen electronic components to an Austin area computer store. A further review of these files shows the following: a. During the execution of search warrants on the residence of LAMPRECHT and COPSON on November 10, 1992, numerous items of evidence were seized including: (1) Approximately 72 telephone electronic switching systems valued at $500,000. (2) Numerous items stolen in other burglaries of Austin, TX area businesses. (3) Southwestern Bell Telephone Company (SBTC) stolen employee tools, test equipment and equipment. (4) Handwritten notes and instructions, that based on my experience, training and knowledge of this case, detail how to burglarize a location, avoiding detection and stealing specific electronic telephone switching equipment. (5) Handwritten notes and telephone numbers in a telephone address book, that appear to be SBTC installations in the Austin area. SBTC Security Representative, Rex Parks told APD Officer Randy that the numbers listed were to telephones in various SBTC facilities. Parks said that knowledge of these numbers could assist anyone trying to gain entry to the facilities. Four of the listed facilities were burglarized and electronic telephone switching systems were stolen. In addition, PARKS said that more than $1,000,000 in telephone switching components had been stolen from SBTC during 1992 and 1993. b. During the follow-up investigation, APD obtained records from the Mail Center USA. These records show that a mail box was rented in the name of SCOTT E. BERRY and/or BERRY ASSOCIATES on 4-27-92. COPSON admitted that he was using the fictitious identity of SCOTT BERRY. APD also determined that COPSON was also utilizing the use of an Austin, TX answering service to assist in BERRY ASSOCIATES sales. c. LAMPRECHT entered a plea of guilty to state charges of burglary and received a probated sentence. COPSON was returned to Virginia on the federal charges. The state burglary charges were dismissed. 3. Based on my review of records obtained from various banks in Texas and Maryland I know the following: a. On June 18, 1992, COPSON using the alias of BERRY, opened a savings account at the Nations Bank in Austin, Texas. In addition, COPSON utilized the address of a private mail box when opening the account and a Virginia drivers license. b. On September 17, 1993, LAMPRECHT opened a savings account at the Nations Bank in Austin, Texas. LAMPRECHT, like COPSON, utilized the address of a private mail box when opening the account. c. Beginning on or about June 22, 1992, Beverly Daniels, started depositing checks payable to COPSON and/or BERRY into her checking account at the Loyala Federal Savings Bank, in Glen Burnie, Maryland. These deposits continued until at least April 28, 1993. d. In total, at least, $59,240 in deposits were made to these three accounts with the source being checks drawn on the accounts of telephone electronics communication firms from around the United States. Many of the checks were endorsed in the name of BERRY and made payable to DANIELS and/or LAMPRECHT. e. Based on my review of these records and my experience and training as a financial investigator, I believe that these transactions were handled in such a manner to conceal the receipt of the funds by COPSON and LAMPRECHT and the underlying source of the funds, the interstate sale of stolen telephone electronic components. 4. All of the companies, whose checks were deposited in the above described accounts provided information concerning the purpose of the checks. All of the firms stated that the funds were to pay for telephone switching systems that they had purchased from BERRY. Some of the records provided by these companies show that the transactions were completed through Federal Express parcel services. 5. During the time COPSON has been incarcerated in federal custody, he has made numerous telephone calls to various individuals including LAMPRECHT. The Bureau of Prisons regularly and normally records and monitors all outgoing telephone calls made by inmates. All inmates are made aware of this procedure as part of their indoctrination into the BOP. Based on my review of these recordings I know that COPSON has continued to direct the illegal actions of LAMPRECHT and others while in prison. 6. Based on my review of the investigative files of the APD, and the Texas Racing Commission (TRC), I know on, February 7, 1994, an additional, but unrelated search warrant was executed on the residence of LAMPRECHT and others. The search warrant was executed after it was determined that a computer, utilizing the telephone service in LAMPRECHT's apartment had been used to illegally penetrate the computer system at the TRC. A further review of these files shows the following: (a) Recovered were two computers with electronic data stored showing that TRC information had been downloaded onto the computers. (b) Also recovered were SBTC equipment stolen on January 26, 1994 in Austin, TX. (c) Numerous Federal Express out-of state shipping documents, and billing statements in the name of Berry Associates. (d) A typewritten document headed "UPLOAD REQUEST" with handwritten comments. The document begins, "the following is a list of programs to be up loaded". The so called "programs" described in this document are the same number and/or type as telephone switching components reported stolen by SBTC during 1992. The document also refers to shipping the programs using one of two FedX accounts. Based on my experience and training and knowledge of this case, this document represents coded instructions for the inventory and shipment of stolen telephone components through FedX. (e) A handwritten document detailing a step-by-step process for the burglary, packaging and sale of telephone components. In addition, the following was shown: "To Sell: (sell to each remarketer only once!) Use out-of state MBE & VMS. Have re-mailed to MBE local. Hold check for 10 days. Cashiers check preferable. Deposit check. Send ATM card to distant person. Have him/her withdraw limit each day and store in safe place. After 30+ days (when all money is transferred), Fly to distant person, party, get cash, party, come home. Buy safe. Shop for and buy 300ZX." Based on my investigation I know that LAMPRECHT and COPSON used Mail Box ETC (MBE) and various answering services and voice mail services (VMS) to conceal their illegal activities. (f) Four handwritten receipts to LAMPRECHT from TRENT CAPIONE showing the receipt of money totalling $20,000 in payment for a 300ZX automobile. (g) Numerous Automated Teller Machine (ATM) receipts and envelopes showing the withdrawal of increments of $400 at a time and approximately $2,500.00 in United States Currency. Some of these transactions were from an account in the name of BERRY. 7. The records of the Texas Department of Transportation show that on November 28 1993 the above described 300ZX was sold to LAMPRECHT for $15,000. 8. Based on my discussions with the officers involved during the searches detailed in the affidavit, a review of the inventory of evidence seized, and my experience and training as a criminal investigator I conclude that COPSON and LAMPRECHT were dealing exclusively in stolen property sold through a business front as BERRY ASSOCIATES. This conclusion is highlighted by the fact that none of the searches revealed any records showing the purchase of products sold interstate as documented above. 9. Based on my experience and training as a criminal investigator and the facts of this case as outlined above, I conclude that probable cause exists to believe that LAMPRECHT and COPSON have violated the provisions of Title 18, U.S.C., Section 1956(g). (signed) ________________________ GEORGE B. MADING Special Agent Criminal Investigation Division Sworn to me before this 11th day of January 1995. (signed) _________________________ Stephen H. Capelle United States Magistrate Judge