Which specific court filings and forfeiture orders detail Aimee Bock’s role and the amounts ordered forfeited?
Executive summary
A federal forfeiture request filed by prosecutors on Dec. 19 asked a judge to order forfeiture and restitution tied to Aimee Bock’s central role in the Feeding Our Future scheme, and a preliminary court order signed Dec. 30 cleared the way to seize millions in cash, a 2013 Porsche and luxury items; the judge’s signed forfeiture figure reported across outlets is $5,241,522.79, though the order is preliminary pending sentencing [1] [2] [3] [4]. Reporting identifies the Dec. 19 prosecutorial forfeiture filing as the document that lays out Bock’s alleged role and itemizes the assets sought, and the subsequent judge-signed preliminary order and related court docket entries as the orders implementing that request [1] [3] [4].
1. The prosecutors’ Dec. 19 forfeiture filing: role and dollar figure laid out
Federal prosecutors’ Dec. 19 court filing explicitly sought a forfeiture order and outlined both Bock’s alleged management role in Feeding Our Future and the monetary sums they say should be forfeited, asking that she be held responsible for $5.2 million tied to the fraud, including detailed categories such as deposits, payments to scheme-related entities and alleged “bribes and kickbacks” [1] [5] [6]. That filing quoted an FBI forensic accountant, Pauline Roase, who characterized Bock as “the Director and sole person in control of FOF,” calling her “the indispensable leader of the food program fraud scheme and conspiracy,” language used to justify the scope of forfeiture sought [1] [5].
2. The preliminary forfeiture order (late December) that clears the path to seizure
Following the prosecutors’ motion, a federal judge signed a preliminary order at the end of December that authorizes seizure of identified assets pending a final forfeiture determination at sentencing; local outlets report that order was signed Dec. 30 and described as “preliminary,” meaning the final disposition will be resolved at Bock’s sentencing hearing [4] [2]. Coverage by multiple outlets summarizes the government’s list of targeted assets—roughly $3.5 million in Feeding Our Future bank accounts, a 2013 Porsche, and assorted electronics, clothing, accessories and jewelry seized from Bock’s home and the nonprofit’s office—as being encompassed by that order [3] [7] [8].
3. The judge’s signed forfeiture amount reported in court coverage
News reports from KARE 11, CBS Minnesota and others cite a judge-signed figure of $5,241,522.79 as the current forfeiture judgment reflected in the preliminary order, which aggregates the monetary accounts and the value of seized tangible property and will be readjusted or finally confirmed at sentencing [3] [9] [4]. Multiple outlets reiterate the $5.2 million number and specify components—more than $3.5 million in a Feeding Our Future account plus the Porsche and miscellaneous items—linking that judge-signed figure back to the prosecutors’ Dec. 19 submission [3] [7] [8].
4. How the filings tie alleged conduct to specific assets
The forfeiture motion and subsequent order connect documented account balances and items seized during 2022 law-enforcement action to prosecutors’ theory that those assets were purchased or maintained with proceeds of the fraud; reporting notes prosecutors’ claims that Bock personally benefited—allegedly pocketing about $2 million during the scheme—and that various deposits and payments reflect kickbacks and bribes itemized in the filing [5] [10] [1]. The cited filings, as described in reporting, therefore serve a dual legal purpose: to memorialize the government’s calculation of loss and to substitute specific assets for future restitution to taxpayers [5] [7].
5. Limits of available reporting and alternative views
Public reporting identifies and summarizes the Dec. 19 forfeiture filing and the Dec. 30 preliminary order, but the articles cite rather than publish the underlying docket text; therefore this account relies on contemporaneous news summaries of those filings and the judge’s preliminary order rather than the primary court documents themselves, and defense challenges or Bock’s own legal arguments against the forfeiture are not quoted in detail in the cited coverage [1] [4] [3]. While prosecutors and an FBI accountant framed Bock as the “indispensable leader,” defense assertions or contestations to the forfeiture amounts would be found in the public court docket and defense filings, which the cited reporting does not reproduce [1] [5].