,,,,,,,LET'S RECAP: 129. The crimes form a pattern of criminal acts lasting from 2009 through at least mid-
2014.
34
130. XA’s allegations of predicate crimes are established largely by the RICO
Defendants’ own words, in their own emails and text messages, and in their own spreadsheets
and fake bills, that they failed to irretrievably erase from XA’s server, which was restored, and
from Gudin’s I-phone, the only one left behind that was not completely erased.
131. They are, in addition, established, by Hudson Gray’s own website photos which
include photos of XA high-end furniture, stolen from XA’s office (the invoices for same were
recovered from XA’s server). This stolen furniture now adorns Hudson’s office, a fact
inadvertently documented on their own website.
The Three Criminal Enterprises and Enterprise Distinctness
132. The RICO Defendants operated and managed the affairs of four criminal
“enterprises,” with different but largely overlapping members.
133. The first criminal enterprise was and is Studio AG, a business entity enterprise
(the “Studio AG Enterprise), controlled largely but not exclusively by its owners Andereck,
Wilson, Day and Wagner. Studio AG was and is a criminal “enterprise” within the meaning of
18 U.S.C. § 1961(4).
134. The second criminal enterprise was and is Hudson Gray (the “Hudson Gray
Enterprise,” controlled largely but not exclusively by its owners, Andereck, Wilson, Wagner,
and, also, Lomma) (the “Hudson Gray Enterprise”). Hudson was and is a criminal “enterprise”
within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 1961(4) through which Andereck, Wilson, Wagner (and
Lomma) and that entity continued the pattern of predicate crimes which began at Studio AG, but
adding new predicate crimes, as indicated herein.
35
135. The third criminal enterprise was an association in fact enterprise within the
meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(b), comprised of Studio AG, Hudson Gray, Andereck, Wagner,
Wilson, Lomma and Pizzo (the “Association Enterprise).
136. The fourth criminal enterprise was an association in fact enterprise among the
RICO Defendants to engage in the Diversions
137. Each of the RICO Defendants is a separate and distinct “person” within the
meaning of the RICO statute because each is either a natural person or business entity and, for
RICO purposes, this is sufficient distinctness between the entities Studio AG and Hudson Gray,
and the natural persons controlling enterprise activity, to satisfy RICO enterprise-person
distinctness.
138. Each RICO Defendant was and is a separate and distinct from the predicate
crimes of mail fraud and wire fraud and commercial bribery in which they engaged, because, on
information and belief, each had or has legitimate functions and activities, apart from their
criminal activities chronicled in Schedule A.
AI
