The district court erred when it denied appellant’s motion to suppress evidence which was seized by the Government with an invalid search warrant. The warrant contained expansive language and failed to specify what crimes were being investigated. The warrant was a comprehensive laundry list which was so expansive that it authorized the Government to seize almost all of the business’s property, papers, and office equipment, and did not limit the property to items on the list, but referred to records “including but not limited to…” Further, the warrant did not describe what fraudulent activities appellant was suspected of having committed.