By Milton Allimadi
Two Central Valley, N.Y., businessmen—a father and son—say they were not merely prosecuted by the federal government, but deliberately targeted, convicted, and imprisoned as part of a broader scheme to seize property that could now be worth more than $100 million when fully developed following a major rezoning.
Mehdi Moslem and his son, Saaed Moslem, operated Exclusive Motor Sports, a car dealership in Central Valley, New York. In August 2019, federal prosecutors charged them with conspiring to defraud the United States by allegedly hiding dealership profits, underreporting income, and committing bank fraud by inflating net-worth statements to secure a $1.5 million loan. The government alleged the conduct spanned a decade, from 2009 to 2019. The two men were convicted in June 2021.
In October 2022, Mehdi Moslem was sentenced to three years and four months in prison; his son received an eight-year sentence. The case was tried in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York before Judge Cathy Seibel.
Now, in a sweeping Dec. 17, 2025 court filing, Mr. Moslem challenges the convictions on multiple grounds, alleging fabricated court records, suppression of exculpatory evidence, reliance on legal theories later struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court, and newly obtained forensic accounting evidence that he says establishes actual innocence.
In a brief Dec. 29, 2025 email response to questions submitted by Black Star News, a spokesperson for the Southern District of New York said, “The court does not comment on matters before it. Please refer to the Circuit’s decision affirming the conviction.” Nicholas Sutherland Bradley, an assistant U.S. attorney involved in the case and copied on the inquiry, did not respond.
At the center of Mr. Moslem’s filing is a direct assault on the government’s evidentiary foundation and legal framework. He alleges prosecutors relied on the now-defunct “right-to-control” theory of fraud—a doctrine the Supreme Court rejected in 2023. He further asserts that the government’s key witness, Stephen Strauhs, committed perjury by testifying as a certified public accountant despite having pleaded guilty to crimes prior to December 2012. “His conduct should have resulted in the revocation of his CPA license,” Mehdi Moslem said.
The government maintained that Mr. Strauhs, as the Moslems’ accountant, participated in the alleged conspiracy before becoming a cooperating witness. Mr. Moslem counters that Mr. Strauhs could not have been part of any conspiracy after December 2012, when he began cooperating with federal authorities. Citing United States v. Jimenez Recio, the Moslems’ filing argues that a conspiracy terminates as a matter of law once a co-conspirator becomes an informant. Mr. Strauhs did not respond to questions submitted by email.
The filing also raises explosive allegations of judicial record tampering. In an Aug. 22, 2022 ruling, Judge Seibel referenced a prior May 18, 2021 decision stating that “evidence of repayment of fraudulently obtained loans would not be admitted.” According to Mr. Moslem, that language no longer appears in the official transcript. His filing claims forensic metadata analysis shows the transcript was altered on May 19, 2025—four years after the hearing. The Southern District spokesperson did not respond to questions regarding the alleged alteration of court records.
If the transcript was altered, Mr. Moslem argues, the conviction must be vacated. If it was not altered, then Judge Seibel relied on evidence that no longer exists—an impossibility under the law. He has formally demanded the release of the original audio recordings from the May 18, 2021 hearing.
On the substance of the fraud allegations, Mr. Mehdi Moslem presents new forensic accounting evidence indicating the family actually overreported income by $424,053.90, resulting in an inflated tax liability. Citing Schlup v. Delo (1995), he argues this establishes “actual innocence,” because no reasonable juror would have convicted had the correct figures been presented.
He further contends there was no intent to defraud lenders, pointing to bank appraisals showing the loans were substantially over-collateralized. Noah Bank appraised the property at 279 Route 32 at $2.5 million against a $1.15 million loan. Riverside Bank appraised the same property at $1.55 million against a $1.5 million loan. “Where collateral exceeds 200 percent of the loan, intent to defraud cannot exist as a matter of law,” the filing states.
Additional claims include the suppression of a $750,000 line of credit that prosecutors allegedly treated as taxable income; the improper assessment of a canceled $501,744 debt as a tax loss; and the application at sentencing of a purportedly “fabricated” $360,000 New York State tax loss—even after the court stated on the record that the government had withdrawn its state-tax-related motion.
Mr. Moslem argues the criminal prosecution served a broader purpose: neutralizing his ability to challenge a foreclosure action he describes as fraudulent. The property at issue—30-15 Thomson Avenue in Long Island City—was appraised “as is” at $8.1 million in 2024. But following the OneLIC rezoning approved on Nov. 12, 2025, Mr. Moslem says the property’s valuation and income-generating potential now exceed $100 million when fully developed, due to expanded allowances for vertical construction.
In his telling, the federal prosecution initiated in 2019 dovetailed seamlessly with the foreclosure action that followed—both, he claims, designed to wrest control of the property from him and his son.
Facing foreclosure in Queens County Supreme Court, Mr. Moslem sought bankruptcy protection in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of New York. His case is being presided over by Judge Jil Mazer-Marino, whose rulings have drawn prior scrutiny by Black Star News in other cases she’s been presiding over.
Mr. Moslem has moved to block the foreclosure by VM SPV 3 LLC, alleging fabricated documents, an intentionally inflated loan amount designed to evade New York’s usury laws, and—most critically—the plaintiff’s failure to produce the original “wet ink” promissory note. He says he made formal written demands for the original note on March 24 and Sept. 16, 2025, without success.
In opposition papers filed Dec. 12, 2025, Mr. Moslem alleges the demand letter initiating foreclosure was fabricated, bearing a date—Feb. 8, 2021—that predates the foreclosing party’s acquisition of the note. He further accuses three attorneys representing VM SPV 3 LLC of submitting perjured affidavits and claims the loan schedule was inflated by more than $408,000 to push the balance above $2.5 million.
Black Star News sent detailed questions regarding these allegations on Dec. 16, 2025, to Chezki Menashe, counsel for VM SPV 3 LLC, copying Judge Mazer-Marino and the bankruptcy trustee, Michael J. Macco. None responded by the Dec. 19 editorial deadline.
“The judicial oath is not aspirational. It is obligatory. It is the price of admission to the temple of justice,” Mr. Moslem said. “This case tests the very soul of that oath. Will the officers of the court—prosecutors, defense counsel, and the judiciary itself—stand for truth, honor, and justice? Or will they avert their eyes, bury the evidence, and wrap institutional fraud in the cloak of ‘procedural propriety’ to protect their own?”
What emerges from the filings is a portrait of a case that—if Mr. Moslem’s allegations are substantiated—raises profound questions about prosecutorial conduct, judicial record-keeping, and the intersection of criminal law with high-stakes real estate development. “At stake is the freedom of my son who is still behind bars,” Mr. Moslem said. “The real target is the property whose value has exploded. The justice system will have to reexamine this judgment.”
Editor’s Note: Part-one of a series
