Expert Witness Profiler

Tag: Network

  • Human Trafficking Expert’s Testimony About Shell Companies Admitted

    Human Trafficking Expert’s Testimony About Shell Companies Admitted

    Jane Doe 3, a victim of Jeffrey Epstein’s abuse, sued Darren K. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn in their capacities as the executors of Jeffrey Epstein’s estate for participating in a sex-trafficking venture in violation of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA).

    Doe’s rebuttal expert, Jane Khodarkovsky, is a former state and federal prosecutor who served in various roles as a human-trafficking specialist. 

    Doe engaged Khodarkovsky to “offer her expert testimony regarding sex trafficking and how shell companies, funnel accounts, and other tools can be used by gatekeepers, such as lawyers, bankers and accountants, to support and promote sex trafficking networks.” Khodarkovsky opined that “the use of shell companies is one way in which criminal networks, including in sex trafficking, conceal the source and nature of their criminal activity,” and “Defendants had knowledge of red flag indicators that they reasonably should have known were part of an illicit sex trafficking network.”

    Defendants filed a motion to exclude Khodarkovsky’s testimony in full.

    Human Trafficking Expert Witness

    Jane Khodarkovsky spent almost a decade as a state and federal prosecutor. She served as a Trial Attorney and Human Trafficking Finance Specialist for the U.S. Department of Justice, Money Laundering and Asset Recovery Section (DOJ/MLARS) from December 2018- April 2022. For almost three years, Khodarkovsky served as the sole Human Trafficking Finance Specialist for the entire DOJ.

    In January 2023, she founded Chazak Consulting LLC, a sole member limited liability consulting firm focused on providing consulting services related to anti-money laundering and human trafficking, child exploitation, and blockchain related matters.

    Also, Khodarkovsky earned her Juris Doctor from the University of Michigan Law School, and Bachelor in Arts from Barnard College, summa cum laude.

    Fortify your strategy by reviewing a Challenge Study detailing grounds for excluding Jane Khodarkovsky’s expert testimony. 

    Discussion by the Court

    To begin with, the Court agreed that some portions of Khodarkovsky’s testimony are inadmissible. Whether Defendants knew or recklessly disregarded that Epstein was engaged in sex trafficking is “a central issue in this case.” Khodarkovsky crossed the line by concluding that “Defendants had knowledge of red flag indicators that they reasonably should have known were part of an illicit sex trafficking network.”

    Additionally, as all parties seem to agree, Khodarkovsky may not testify about the scope of the TVPA.

    However, the Court disagreed with Defendants that the rest of Khodarkovsky’s testimony is inadmissible under Rule 702 or 403. Khodarkovsky is experienced in investigating human trafficking, and her opinions regarding how shell companies are used by sex traffickers to enable their operations, as well as how Epstein used his shell companies, will assist the jury in determining whether Epstein was engaged in a sex-trafficking enterprise and, without opining directly on the issue, whether Defendants knew or recklessly disregarded that fact. To the extent that certain financial or bank regulations are relevant to her testimony, she may describe those, given that they inform her opinions on corporate-structuring and transactions.

    Held

    The Court granted in part and denied the Defendants’ motion to exclude the testimony of Jane Khodarkovsky.

    Key Takeaway:

    Whether Defendants knew or should have known that Epstein was engaged in sex trafficking is a question for the jury, not the experts. In other words, Khodarkovsky can’t offer testimony on what Defendants knew or should have known, which is for the jury to figure out.

    Case Details:

    Case Caption: Doe 3 V. Indyke Et Al
    Docket Number: 1:24cv1204
    Court Name: United States District Court, New York Southern
    Order Date: September 15, 2025
  • Automotive Industry Expert Witness’ Testimony about the Legitimacy of the Investment and Business Practices Excluded

    Automotive Industry Expert Witness’ Testimony about the Legitimacy of the Investment and Business Practices Excluded

    Plaintiff filed this lawsuit to recover the $425,000 investment it made into the corporate Defendant, No-H20 USA, Inc., which was the product of fraudulent misrepresentations made by Defendant O’Brien both verbally and in writing pertaining to the Company’s performance and ownership of critical intellectual property. O’Brien was at all material times the CEO of the Company. More than two years after O’Brien’s initial verbal misrepresentations, Plaintiff’s managing member came to learn that he did not own the intellectual property and in addition, the Company was in a financial shambles due to O’Brien’s misuse of corporate funds.

    This is now a securities fraud case against the individual Defendant Emmet O’Brien, for on September 5, 2023, a Clerk’s Default was entered against the Company.

    Plaintiff moved pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993). Plaintiff’s motion sought to exclude Robert Barton‘s testimony because it is not relevant to the issues to be tried. 

    Automotive Industry Expert Witness

    Robert Barton has over 25 years of operational experience in the vehicle rental, automotive, and travel industries. He is a senior vice president and general manager at The Hertz Corporation, the world’s largest car rental company. He oversees the global operations and performance of the Dollar and Thrifty brands, as well as the franchise footprint, with a $2 billion P&L responsibility. 

    Get the full story on challenges to Robert Barton’s expert opinions and testimony with an in-depth Challenge Study. 

    Discussion by the Court

    To begin with, Plaintiff’s remaining claims are federal and state law securities fraud claims. In order to be relevant, Barton’s testimony needs to address one of the elements of Plaintiff’s claims. Plaintiff asserted that Barton’s testimony is not relevant to the issues before the Court and, thus, will not assist the jury in understanding the evidence or facts in issue.

    In his report, Barton set out his instructions as follows:

    “My analysis was to focus on the legitimacy of the investment and business practices, as well as the nature of the communications and actions taken by the parties involved. My task was to evaluate the impact of the Plaintiff’s actions on No-H2O’s franchise network, scrutinize the Franchise Disclosure Document (FDD), investment deck, franchisor evaluations, growth projections, and specific email communications.”

    In short, the Report concluded: “The Plaintiff’s action and claims have adversely impacted the No-H2O franchise network, inconsistent with the investment deck, and industry standard.”

    O’Brien responded that Barton is qualified, Barton’s opinions are grounded in standardized and recognized practices within franchise operations analysis, and his opinions provide essential context to Plaintiff’s allegations. However, the Court noted that Plaintiff has not questioned Barton’s qualifications or his methodology. Plaintiff only questions the relevance of Barton’s opinions. The Court fails to see, and O’Brien has failed to show, how Barton’s opinions—that Plaintiff’s action and claims have adversely impacted the No-H2O franchise network and are inconsistent with the investment deck and industry standard—are relevant to whether Defendants made false or misleading statements to Plaintiff upon which Plaintiff relied when deciding whether to invest in the Company.

    Held

    The Court granted Plaintiff’s motion to exclude the expert testimony of Robert Barton.

    Key Takeaway:

    Based on Barton’s stated instructions and his conclusion, Plaintiff maintained that nothing in Barton’s Report is relevant to what Plaintiff must prove to prevail at trial and would only serve to mislead or confuse the jury. The Court agreed.

    Addendum (September 15, 2025):

    This article was originally based on the Court’s July 31, 2024 order in Ae Capital Group LLC v. No-H2O USA, Inc. et al., which discussed expert testimony regarding the legitimacy of certain investment and business practices and referenced Defendant Emmet O’Brien.

    Subsequently, on August 23, 2024, the Court entered an order dismissing all claims against Mr. O’Brien. This update is published to reflect that Mr. O’Brien is no longer a defendant in this matter.

    Case Details:

    Case Caption: Ae Capital Group Llc V. No-H20 Usa, Inc. Et Al
    Docket Number: 0:23cv60601
    Court: United States District Court, Florida Southern
    Order Date: July 31, 2024