Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas

Criminal Court Division

State of Ohio, Draft Indictment For
Plaintiff Engaging In A Pattern Of Corrupt Activity - F2
VS. †$

7 Defendants 3 Additional Count(s)

Defendants
Leslie Hart, Ashleigh Estell, Rachel Donofrio, Ke'aisha Scruggs, Shawnte Davis, Mara Pryor, Roz Hayes
Dates of Offense (on or about) The Term Of Case Number
07/03/2018 to 12/19/2018 May of 2019 641733-19-CR

The State of Ohio,

Cuyahoga County } SS.

Count One Engaging In A Pattern Of Corrupt Activity - F2

†$
Defendants Leslie Hart, Ashleigh Estell, Rachel Donofrio, Ke'aisha Scruggs, Shawnte Davis,
Mara Pryor, Roz Hayes
Date of Offense On or about July 3, 2018 to December 19, 2018
The Jurors of the Grand Jury of the State of Ohio, within and for the body of the County aforesaid, on their oaths, IN THE NAME
AND BY THE AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF OHIO, do find and present, that the above named Defendant(s), on or about the
date of the offense set forth above, in the County of Cuyahoga, unlawfully
while employed by, or associated with, any enterprise did conduct or participate in, directly or
indirectly, the affairs of the enterprise through a pattern of corrupt activity or the collection of an
unlawful debt.
To wit:

On or between July 3, 2018 and December 19, 2018, in the County of Cuyahoga, State of Ohio, or by
some manner enumerated in Section 2901.12 of the Revised Code whereby proper venue is placed in
Cuyahoga County, DEFENDANTS, were associated with an Enterprise, as defined in Section
2923.31(C) of the Revised Code.

An "enterprise," includes any union or group of individuals, "associated-in-fact", where the group of
persons are associated together for a common purpose of engaging in a course of conduct. An
association-in-fact enterprise must have a structure, but it does not need to have an ascertainable
structure beyond that inherent in the pattern of racketeering activity in which it engaged. An
association-in-fact enterprise must have at least three structural features: a purpose, relationships
among those associated with the enterprise, and longevity sufficient to permit these associates to
pursue the enterprise's purpose. The existence of an association-in-fact enterprise is often-times more
readily proven by what it does, rather than by abstract analysis of its structure.

<GRANDJURORSIGNATURE> <PROSECUTORSIGNATURE>
Foreperson of the Grand Jury Prosecuting Attorney

Page 1 of 6
Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Draft Indictment

To constitute an association-in-fact enterprise under O.R.C. 2923.31, a group need not have a
hierarchical structure, a chain of command, or other business-like attributes; decisions may be made
on an ad hoc basis and by any number of methods. Members of the group need not have fixed roles;
different members may perform different roles at different times. An enterprise is proved by
evidence of an ongoing organization, formal or informal, and by evidence that the various associates
function as a continuing unit. Proof of a pattern of pattern of corrupt activity may be sufficient in a
particular prosecution under O.R.C. 2923.31 to create an inference that an association-in-fact
enterprise does exist.

The Enterprise in this case existed as an "illicit enterprise" under O.R.C. 2932.22, whether or not this
Enterprise existed separate and apart from the pattern of corrupt activity described in this Indictment.

This Enterprise functioned as a continuing unit by engaging in the diverse forms of illegal activities,
as stated in this Indictment. In so doing, the DEFENDANTS NAMED BELOW are persons
associated with the Enterprise who participated in and/or managed the affairs of the Enterprise, as
explained in this Indictment. As such, these persons provided continuity and structure to the
Enterprise in order to accomplish its illegal purposes ±the pattern of corrupt activity, to wit:

The common purpose of the Enterprise and its members is theft by means of a coupon fraud scheme.
The methods of accomplishing this scheme is fairly consistent. Members of the enterprise fall into
two categories: store employees and customers. These categories are also interchangeable in that
during many of the fraudulent transactions, the store employees were the customers. There were at
least five store employees and at least two non-employee customers participating.

The fraud begins with a customer walking around the store and filling one or more grocery carts with
items for sale ±typically the items chosen were baby products, paper goods, personal care items,
cleaners, other non-perishable goods, and retail gift cards. The customer member would then take
these carts to an employee member's register to be checked out. The employee member would scan
all items and activate all gift cards for the customer member. The employee member would then take
coupons from the customer member. Most, if not all, of the coupons offered by the customer
member were non-matching and otherwise ineligible. When the store register would decline the
coupon, the employee member would simply override it and apply the coupon anyway. The same
ineligible coupon would be scanned and overridden over and over again, and then the next ineligible
coupon would be treated similarly. The majority of transactions examined were over $400 and after
the invalid coupons were applied, the customer members would typically only pay less than $20.
Furthermore, the two non-employee customers set up make shift "stores" to sell much of the stolen
product to others. The total fraud alleged is over $156,000. These activities were all done in
furtherance of the above activity as explained in this Indictment.

This Enterprise and the Persons Associated with the Enterprise were joined in purpose over a period
of time, although their various roles were different in order to accomplish the main purposes of the
Enterprise. These activities occurred with the knowledge and/or support of and/or were aided and

<GRANDJURORSIGNATURE> <PROSECUTORSIGNATURE>
Foreperson of the Grand Jury Prosecuting Attorney

Page 2 of 6
Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Draft Indictment

abetted by each of the persons associated with the Enterprise.

The Enterprise in this matter consisted of: Leslie Hart, Asleigh Estell, Rach D'Onofrio, Ke'aisha
Scruggs, Shawnte Davis, Mara Pryor, and Roz Hayes , and others yet to be identified, each of whom
did conduct or participate in, directly or indirectly, the affairs of said enterprise, to-wit: a group of
persons "associated in fact" for the purposes of engaging in THEFT and MONEY LAUNDERING
through a pattern of corrupt activity as defined in Section 2923.31(I)(2)(a) or (I)(2)(c) of the Revised
Code.

The required predicate acts constituting the pattern of corrupt activity as defined in Section
2923.31(E) include listed criminal violations of Ohio Revised Code TITLE 29, Theft and Money
Laundering, as alleged in the following: COUNTS THREE and FOUR of the indictment, all alleged
as Predicate Acts, which are incorporated herein as if fully restated.
The offense is contrary to the form of the statute in such case made and provided, and against the peace and dignity of the State of
Ohio.

Count Two Conspiracy - F3

†$
Defendants Leslie Hart, Ashleigh Estell, Rachel Donofrio, Ke'aisha Scruggs, Shawnte Davis,
Mara Pryor, Roz Hayes
Date of Offense On or about July 3, 2018 to December 19, 2018
The grand jurors, on their oaths, further find that the Defendant(s) unlawfully
, with purpose to commit or to promote or facilitate the commission of Engaging in a Pattern of
&RUUXSW$FWLYLW\LQYLRODWLRQRI$GLGZLWKDQRWKHUSHUVRQRUSHUVRQVSODQRUDLGLQ
planning the commission of Engaging in a Pattern of Corrupt Activity in violation of 2923.32(A)(1),
and in furtherance of the conspiracy did undertake substantive overt acts, to wit: (see below).
FURTHERMORE, and the object of the conspiracy was a felony of the second degree, to wit:
Engaging in a Pattern of Corrupt Activity-2923.32(A)(1).
To wit:

On or between July 3, 2018 and December 19, 2018, in the County of Cuyahoga, State of Ohio, or by
some manner enumerated in Section 2901.12 of the Revised Code whereby proper venue is placed in
Cuyahoga County, DEFENDANTS, were associated with an Enterprise, as defined in Section
2923.31(C) of the Revised Code.

An "enterprise," includes any union or group of individuals, "associated-in-fact", where the group of
persons are associated together for a common purpose of engaging in a course of conduct. An
association-in-fact enterprise must have a structure, but it does not need to have an ascertainable
structure beyond that inherent in the pattern of racketeering activity in which it engaged. An
association-in-fact enterprise must have at least three structural features: a purpose, relationships
among those associated with the enterprise, and longevity sufficient to permit these associates to

<GRANDJURORSIGNATURE> <PROSECUTORSIGNATURE>
Foreperson of the Grand Jury Prosecuting Attorney

Page 3 of 6
Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Draft Indictment

pursue the enterprise's purpose. The existence of an association-in-fact enterprise is often-times more
readily proven by what it does, rather than by abstract analysis of its structure.

To constitute an association-in-fact enterprise under O.R.C. 2923.31, a group need not have a
hierarchical structure, a chain of command, or other business-like attributes; decisions may be made
on an ad hoc basis and by any number of methods. Members of the group need not have fixed roles;
different members may perform different roles at different times. An enterprise is proved by
evidence of an ongoing organization, formal or informal, and by evidence that the various associates
function as a continuing unit. Proof of a pattern of pattern of corrupt activity may be sufficient in a
particular prosecution under O.R.C. 2923.31 to create an inference that an association-in-fact
enterprise does exist.

The Enterprise in this case existed as an "illicit enterprise" under O.R.C. 2932.22, whether or not this
Enterprise existed separate and apart from the pattern of corrupt activity described in this Indictment.

This Enterprise functioned as a continuing unit by engaging in the diverse forms of illegal activities,
as stated in this Indictment. In so doing, the DEFENDANTS NAMED BELOW are persons
associated with the Enterprise who participated in and/or managed the affairs of the Enterprise, as
explained in this Indictment. As such, these persons provided continuity and structure to the
Enterprise in order to accomplish its illegal purposes ±the pattern of corrupt activity, to wit:

The common purpose of the Enterprise and its members is theft by means of a coupon fraud scheme.
The methods of accomplishing this scheme is fairly consistent. Members of the enterprise fall into
two categories: store employees and customers. These categories are also interchangeable in that
during many of the fraudulent transactions, the store employees were the customers. There were at
least five store employees and at least two non-employee customers participating.

The fraud begins with a customer walking around the store and filling one or more grocery carts with
items for sale ±typically the items chosen were baby products, paper goods, personal care items,
cleaners, other non-perishable goods, and retail gift cards. The customer member would then take
these carts to an employee member's register to be checked out. The employee member would scan
all items and activate all gift cards for the customer member. The employee member would then take
coupons from the customer member. Most, if not all, of the coupons offered by the customer
member were non-matching and otherwise ineligible. When the store register would decline the
coupon, the employee member would simply override it and apply the coupon anyway. The same
ineligible coupon would be scanned and overridden over and over again, and then the next ineligible
coupon would be treated similarly. The majority of transactions examined were over $400 and after
the invalid coupons were applied, the customer members would typically only pay less than $20.
Furthermore, the two non-employee customers set up make shift "stores" to sell much of the stolen
product to others. The total fraud alleged is over $156,000. These activities were all done in
furtherance of the above activity as explained in this Indictment.

This Enterprise and the Persons Associated with the Enterprise were joined in purpose over a period

<GRANDJURORSIGNATURE> <PROSECUTORSIGNATURE>
Foreperson of the Grand Jury Prosecuting Attorney

Page 4 of 6
Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Draft Indictment

of time, although their various roles were different in order to accomplish the main purposes of the
Enterprise. These activities occurred with the knowledge and/or support of and/or were aided and
abetted by each of the persons associated with the Enterprise.

The Enterprise in this matter consisted of: Leslie Hart, Asleigh Estell, Rach D'Onofrio, Ke'aisha
Scruggs, Shawnte Davis, Mara Pryor, and Roz Hayes , and others yet to be identified, each of whom
did conduct or participate in, directly or indirectly, the affairs of said enterprise, to-wit: a group of
persons "associated in fact" for the purposes of engaging in THEFT and MONEY LAUNDERING
through a pattern of corrupt activity as defined in Section 2923.31(I)(2)(a) or (I)(2)(c) of the Revised
Code.

The required predicate acts constituting the pattern of corrupt activity as defined in Section
2923.31(E) include listed criminal violations of Ohio Revised Code TITLE 29, Theft and Money
Laundering, as alleged in the following: COUNTS THREE and FOUR of the indictment, all alleged
as Predicate Acts, which are incorporated herein as if fully restated.
The offense is contrary to the form of the statute in such case made and provided, and against the peace and dignity of the State of
Ohio.

Count Three Grand Theft - F4

†$
Defendants Leslie Hart, Ashleigh Estell, Rachel Donofrio, Ke'aisha Scruggs, Shawnte Davis,
Mara Pryor, Roz Hayes
Date of Offense On or about July 3, 2018 to December 19, 2018
The grand jurors, on their oaths, further find that the Defendant(s) unlawfully
did with purpose to deprive the owner, Giant Eagle and/or various consumer packed goods
manufacturers, of consumer packed goods and retail gift cards or services, knowingly obtain or exert
FRQWURORYHUHLWKHUWKHSURSHUW\RUVHUYLFHVE\GHFHSWLRQDQGWKHSURSHUW\RUVHUYLFHVVWROHQLVYDOXHG
at $7,500 or more and less than $150,000.
The offense is contrary to the form of the statute in such case made and provided, and against the peace and dignity of the State of
Ohio.

<GRANDJURORSIGNATURE> <PROSECUTORSIGNATURE>
Foreperson of the Grand Jury Prosecuting Attorney

Page 5 of 6
Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Draft Indictment

Count Four Money Laundering - F3

†$
Defendants Mara Pryor, Roz Hayes
Date of Offense On or about July 3, 2018 to December 19, 2018
The grand jurors, on their oaths, further find that the Defendant(s) unlawfully
did conduct or attempt to conduct a transaction knowing that the property involved in the transaction
was the proceeds of some form of unlawful activity with the purpose of committing or furthering the
commission of corrupt activity.
The offense is contrary to the form of the statute in such case made and provided, and against the peace and dignity of the State of
Ohio.

<GRANDJURORSIGNATURE> <PROSECUTORSIGNATURE>
Foreperson of the Grand Jury Prosecuting Attorney

Page 6 of 6