SENTENCING SUBMISSION by Adedayo Ilori — USA v. Chancy et al (Dkt. 124)

Record facts

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York · No. 1:20-cr-00378-LJL · Doc. 124 · 2022-02-28 · Docket on CourtListener

Summary

A supplemental sentencing memorandum filed February 28, 2022 by counsel for defendant Adedayo Ilori in United States v. Ilori, No. 1:20-cr-00378-LJL, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, as Doc. 124. It states that Mr. Ilori pled guilty to Count 1, conspiracy to commit wire fraud and mail fraud, under a plea agreement stipulating a Guidelines range of 51 to 63 months. The memorandum asks the Court not to hear evidence at sentencing about alleged pretrial release violations tied to a separate PPP case, No. 21-cr-00746, and says Mr. Ilori does not seek a Fatico hearing. It argues his role was smaller than that of co-defendant Mr. Chancy, who received 30 months, and requests a sentence of 30 months. The filing is 12 pages and attaches Exhibit A.

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Full text

Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP 
425 LEXINGTON AVENUE  
NE W YORK , NY 10017-3954 
 
TELEPHONE: +1-212-455-2000  
FACSIMILE: +1-212-455-2502 
Direct Dial 
+1-212-455-3070 
 
E-Mail Address
brooke.cucinella@stblaw.com
 
 
SENTENCING MEMORANDUM 
 
BY ECF 
February 28, 2022 
Re: 
United States v. Ilori, No. 20-cr-378 (S.D.N.Y.)  
Dear Judge Liman: 
We respectfully submit this supplemental sentencing memorandum on 
behalf of our client, Mr. Adedayo Ilori, the defendant in the above-captioned action 
(“Mr. Ilori” or “Adedayo”).   
As described in our initial sentencing memorandum,1 Mr. Ilori pled guilty to 
Count 1 of the Indictment, which charges him with conspiracy to commit wire fraud 
and mail fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343 and 18 U.S.C. § 1341 relating to a 
scheme in which the conspirators submitted fraudulent business loan applications 
across interstate lines with the intent not to repay the loans.  Mr. Ilori also admitted 
to the conduct charged in Count 5 of the Indictment, which charges him with 
agreeing with his co-defendants and others to launder the proceeds obtained from 
the fraudulent business loan applications through a bank account opened using a 
stolen identity in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343 and § 1341.  On April 8, 2021, Mr. 
Ilori pled guilty pursuant to a plea agreement in which the parties, at that time, 
stipulated to a United States Sentencing Guidelines (the “Guidelines”) range of 51 to 
63 months (the “Guidelines Range”). 
On October 8, 2021, ahead of the scheduled sentencing, a search warrant was 
executed against Mr. Ilori and he was subsequently arrested for alleged violations of 
his pretrial release.  The Government asserts that it had been investigating a series 
                                                 
1 We submitted an initial sentencing memorandum on behalf of Mr. Ilori on 
September 29, 2021.  See Dkt. No. 97.   
The Honorable Lewis J. Liman 
United States District Judge 
Southern District of New York 
500 Pearl St. 
New York, NY, 10007 
Case 1:20-cr-00378-LJL     Document 124     Filed 02/28/22     Page 1 of 12

-2- 
February 28, 2022
 
 
of loans fraudulently obtained through the United States Small Business 
Administration Paycheck Protection Program (“PPP”) by a man named Chris 
Recamier, which led them to Mr. Ilori.  Dkt No. 99.  Mr. Ilori was indicted on 
December 9, 2021 for his involvement in the alleged PPP scheme.  The indictment 
charged Mr. Ilori and co-defendant Mr. Recamier with six offenses, including wire 
fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343.  See Case No. 21-cr-00746, Dkt No. 6.  This 
case is currently pending before Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil.   
Despite these developments, we respectfully request that the parties proceed 
with the sentencing hearing on March 3, and focus on the charges to which Mr. Ilori 
pled guilty, rather than the allegations made in connection with the new case, which 
is pending before Judge Vyskocil, for the reasons explained in further detail below.  
We also submit additional argument on what constitutes a fair and appropriate 
sentence for Mr. Ilori in light of his limited role in the latter aspects of the loan 
scheme for which he is charged in this action.   
I. 
The Conduct At Issue In Mr. Ilori’s Case Pending Before Judge 
Vyskocil Should Be Litigated Separately 
At sentencing, the Court should not hear evidence pertaining to Mr. Ilori’s 
alleged violations of pretrial release because they involve conduct and evidence that 
is at issue, and that Mr. Ilori intends to dispute, in the case pending before Judge 
Vyskocil.   
The Government has informed us that Mr. Ilori’s purported violations of his 
pretrial release include that Mr. Ilori purchased coffee using a debit card in the name 
of an alleged victim of the PPP scheme and that Mr. Ilori was observed driving a 
Mercedes leased by Mr. Recamier using the identity of a different alleged victim, 
among other things.  These allegations are closely intertwined with the PPP loan 
scheme at issue in the second case (the “PPP Case”), and the weighing of evidence 
regarding this conduct—and Mr. Ilori’s defense of that alleged conduct—should be 
handled in Judge Vyskocil’s courtroom rather than as part of this sentencing 
proceeding.  
Mr. Ilori makes this request for a number of reasons.  First, it would be 
premature—and likely prejudicial—to require Mr. Ilori to devise a legal strategy to 
challenge the evidence in the PPP Case at this time.  While we have reviewed discovery 
provided to us by the Government and consider the evidence pertaining to Mr. Ilori 
to be primarily circumstantial, we are not representing Mr. Ilori in his case before 
Judge Vyskocil.  Further exacerbating our concern is the fact that Mr. Ilori has only 
been able to meet with this attorney in the PPP Case once so far (last week), and has 
not had the opportunity to review the Government’s discovery because of, among 
other reasons, the impact of the national lockdown.  See Steven Rodas, N.J. prisons, 
halfway houses suspend visits due to COVID omicron wave, NJ.com (Jan. 7, 2022), 
https://www.nj.com/coronavirus/2022/01/nj-prisons-halfway-houses-suspend-
visits-due-to-covid-omicron-wave.html.  
 
Case 1:20-cr-00378-LJL     Document 124     Filed 02/28/22     Page 2 of 12

-3- 
February 28, 2022
 
 
We cannot predict how Mr. Ilori’s attorney will advise him to proceed in that 
case and moreover, we do not want to be in the position of providing conflicting 
advice or raising arguments that ultimately contradict his legal strategy before Judge 
Vyskocil.  We also suffer from the inherent limitations that a pending criminal case 
would inevitably impose on a hearing that would proceed before it including, but not 
limited to, our inability to call certain witnesses.  As one example, we have reason to 
believe that Mr. Recamier, Mr. Ilori’s co-defendant in the PPP Case, has made 
statements that contradict the Government’s view of the evidence relating to that 
case.  Mr. Recamier’s lawyer, however, has explained that, given the pending charges, 
he cannot at this time put in an affidavit or testify.  Moreover,  any presentation of 
evidence on the PPP scheme in this Court would be duplicative of the forthcoming 
criminal proceedings before Judge Vyskocil.  Accordingly, Mr. Ilori does not seek to 
have a Fatico hearing at this time, as he intends to defend himself against the charges 
in the PPP Case in connection with that case, and respectfully asks that his sentence 
in this case be limited to the conduct for which he pled guilty. 
II. 
The Proposed Sentence Is Fair In Light Of The Circumstances 
Of Mr. Ilori’s Involvement In The Offense 
For the reasons set forth here and in our initial sentencing submission, we 
respectfully request that the Court impose a sentence pursuant to the United States 
Sentencing Guidelines (the “Guidelines”) of 30 months.  While we recognize that Mr. 
Ilori has a criminal history, while Mr. Chancy did not, it is our position that this range 
is appropriate given Mr. Ilori’s role in the offense conduct, especially when viewed 
vis-à-vis Mr. Chancy who received a sentence of 30 months.  
Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1), this Court must consider the nature and 
circumstances of the offense in determining an appropriate sentence.  As explained 
in  his initial sentencing memorandum, Mr. Ilori does not deny that he engaged with 
Mr. Chancy and an undercover agent (the “UC”) to submit fraudulent business loans.  
In evaluating Mr. Ilori’s culpability, however, this Court should consider Mr. Ilori’s 
role in the scheme as a whole, especially as compared to Mr. Chancy.  While Mr. Ilori 
was involved in preparing certain, $5,000 loan applications in January 2020, he was 
not actively involved in the loan applications submitted in February 2020, and 
overall, his role was much less central to the scheme than that of Mr. Chancy.  PSR ¶¶ 
32, 37.2   
Mr. Ilori was not present at the February 2020 meetings between Mr. Chancy, 
the CS, and others regarding additional loan applications and the opening of an 
allegedly fraudulent bank account to launder those proceeds.  On February 18, 2020, 
Mr. Chancy and the confidential source (“CS”)—not Mr. Ilori—met and discussed four 
loan applications (of $250,000 per loan) that Mr. Chancy intended to submit to the 
UC.  Id. ¶¶ 36, 37; see also Compl. ¶ 14(a).  Then, Mr. Chancy—not Mr. Ilori—emailed 
                                                 
2 Mr. Ilori’s limited involvement in the scheme is reflected in the PSR.  Even under 
the Government’s best set of facts, Mr. Ilori is responsible for preparing two of the 
five loans in the first set, and only one of the loans in the second set.  PSR ¶ 42. 
Case 1:20-cr-00378-LJL     Document 124     Filed 02/28/22     Page 3 of 12

-4- 
February 28, 2022
 
 
four loan applications to the UC, including one listing Mr. Chancy as the loan 
applicant.  PSR ¶ 37.  Mr. Chancy also mailed the applications to the UC at a mailbox 
in Manhattan.  Compl. ¶ 14(b).  Mr. Ilori did not. 
On February 26, the CS and Mr. Chancy met at the HSBC Bank where Mr. 
Chancy worked.  PSR ¶ 39.  Mr. Ilori was not present.  While Mr. Chancy may have 
called Mr. Ilori asking him if he had an identity to be used to open a fraudulent bank 
account, Mr. Ilori disputes providing Mr. Chancy with the Missouri identification 
card that Mr. Chancy had on his personal cellphone.  Id. ¶ 39.  Immediately after the 
meeting between Mr. Chancy and the CS, the CS met with co-conspirator Michael 
Albarella (a manager at HSBC) and discussed opening a fraudulent bank account to 
launder the loan money.  Id. ¶ 40.  On February 27, Mr. Chancy, the CS, Mr. Albarella, 
and another undercover agent (“UC-2) met at the HSBC bank to open the fraudulent 
bank account.  PSR ¶ 41.  Again, Mr. Ilori was not present.  
In addition, Mr. Ilori is absent from a number of telephone calls and text 
messages between Mr. Chancy, on the one hand, and the CS or UC, on the other hand, 
coordinating the submission of the February 2020 loan applications and receipt of 
the loan proceeds.  See, e.g., USAO_0000603 (recording of February 17, 2022 
telephone call between Mr. Chancy and the CS); USAO_0000633 (recording of 
February 24, 2020 telephone call between Mr. Chancy and the CS regarding opening 
an account); USAO_000625 (recording of March 2, 2020 telephone call between Mr. 
Chancy and the CS regarding receipt of loan proceeds).  Similarly, text messages 
between Mr. Chancy and the UC indicate that Mr. Chancy—not Mr. Ilori—primarily 
coordinated the scheme involving the $250,000 loans.  For example, on February 25, 
2020, Mr. Chancy sent a text message to the UC confirming he emailed the UC emails 
the loan packages, and Mr. Chancy followed up with the UC the next day about the 
loan term sheets.  See USAO_000724.  
Moreover, Mr. Ilori’s limited role in the February 2020 loan applications and 
bank account is consistent with the fact that Mr. Chancy wanted to restrict Mr. Ilori’s 
continuing involvement in the scheme.  See, e.g., USAO_0000377 (recording of 
January 13, 2020 telephone call between Mr. Chancy and CS in which Mr. Chancy 
asks the CS not to deal with Mr. Ilori); USAO_0000408 (recording of January 16, 
2020 telephone call between Mr. Chancy and CS discussing cutting Mr. Ilori out of 
the scheme). 
Relatedly, with respect to loss amount, the value of the first set of January 
2020 loans was $20,000.  PSR ¶ 33.  By contrast, the value of the second set of loans 
was reportedly $1,000,000.  PSR ¶ 38.  Considering the value of the loans attributed 
to Mr. Ilori’s involvement in the first scheme, his Guidelines range would be only 15 
– 21 months.3 
                                                 
3 Even assuming the Government’s best theory of the facts, Mr. Ilori is responsible 
only for the preparation of two, $5,000 loans and one, $250,000 loan.  PSR ¶ 42.  
This would result in Guidelines range for Mr. Ilori of 41 – 53 months. 
Case 1:20-cr-00378-LJL     Document 124     Filed 02/28/22     Page 4 of 12

-5- 
February 28, 2022
 
 
Mr. Chancy received a sentence of 30 months.  See Dkt. No. 92; United States 
v. Frias, 521 F.3d 229, 236 n.8 (2d Cir. 2008) (district court may consider similarities 
and differences among co-defendants when imposing a sentence).  Mr. Chancy was 
responsible for bringing Mr. Ilori into the scheme in the first place and—unlike Mr. 
Ilori—was directly involved in all of the loan packages at issue in January and 
February 2020.  For these reasons, we submit that a sentence of 30 months is 
appropriate.    
III. 
Mr. Ilori Experiences PTSD Symptoms That Contribute to His 
Behavior And He Expresses Motivation to Participate In 
Treatment 
In executing “perhaps the most difficult task of a trial court judge,” the Second 
Circuit has ask sentencing judges to “have some understanding of ‘the diverse frailties 
of humankind’” and to exercise “a ‘generosity of spirit, that compassion which causes 
one to know what it is like to be in trouble and in pain.’”  United States v. Singh, 877 
F.3d 107, 121 (2d Cir. 2017) (citations omitted).  To aid this Court in gaining a fuller 
understanding of who Mr. Ilori is, we submitted our initial sentencing memorandum 
which describes the reasons why his history and characteristics warrant leniency.  See 
Ex. A.   
In addition, we submit a report from psychiatrist Eric Goldsmith, M.D., who 
conducted a psychiatric evaluation of Mr. Ilori to assess his overall psychiatric 
condition following his second arrest for alleged fraud.  See Ex. A (Dr. Goldsmith 
Report).  Dr. Goldsmith has diagnosed Mr. Ilori with “complex PTSD” and concluded 
that Mr. Ilori evidences “dissociative symptoms” which “can best be understood as 
can be best understood as identification with the state of mind that he had as a child, 
when he was exposed to deprivation and traumas and forced to survive.”  Id. at 4–5.  
Dr. Goldsmith’s expert opinion is that “[w]ith ongoing treatment, Mr. Ilori’s trauma-
based symptoms will improve and his risk for criminal recidivism will be reduced.”  
Id. at 6.  Dr. Goldsmith reports that Mr. Ilori “is motivated to participate in mental 
treatment.”  Id. 
IV. 
Conclusion 
For all the foregoing reasons, we respectfully ask that the Court impose a 
sentence of 30 months. 
Respectfully submitted, 
Brooke Cucinella 
cc: 
Counsel of record (via ECF) 
/s/ Brooke Cucinella 
Case 1:20-cr-00378-LJL     Document 124     Filed 02/28/22     Page 5 of 12

 
 
 
 
 
 
Exhibit A 
Case 1:20-cr-00378-LJL     Document 124     Filed 02/28/22     Page 6 of 12

Case 1:20-cr-00378-LJL     Document 124     Filed 02/28/22     Page 7 of 12

Case 1:20-cr-00378-LJL     Document 124     Filed 02/28/22     Page 8 of 12

Case 1:20-cr-00378-LJL     Document 124     Filed 02/28/22     Page 9 of 12

Case 1:20-cr-00378-LJL     Document 124     Filed 02/28/22     Page 10 of 12

Case 1:20-cr-00378-LJL     Document 124     Filed 02/28/22     Page 11 of 12

Case 1:20-cr-00378-LJL     Document 124     Filed 02/28/22     Page 12 of 12

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.nysd.540905.124.0.pdf

Size

858,678 bytes

SHA-256

822f877f9aec13d9f1d81f4ec99fbd15b2e09dda14c33b96ceed1ef6a8f07ba4

Our copy

gov.uscourts.nysd.540905.124.0.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)