Pandemic Darlings The pandemic economy, in original documents
Home Court filings USA v. Ilori et al USA v. Ilori et al — U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York Letter Response in Opposition by USA as to Adedayo Ilori addressed — USA v. Ilori et al. (Dkt. 138, S.D.N.Y.)

Court filing

Letter Response in Opposition by USA as to Adedayo Ilori addressed — USA v. Ilori et al. (Dkt. 138, S.D.N.Y.)

Filed July 14, 2023 in USA v. Ilori et al.; one of 59 filings from this case.

Record facts

CourtU.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
Filed2023-07-14

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York · No. 1:21-cr-00746-MKV · Doc. 138 · 2023-07-14 · Docket on CourtListener

Full text

[Type text] 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
July 14, 2023 
 
BY ECF 
 
The Honorable Mary Kay Vyskocil   
 
 
 
United States District Judge  
 
 
 
 
 
 
Southern District of New York 
 
 
 
 
 
 
500 Pearl Street 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
New York, New York 10007  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Re: 
United States v. Adedayo Ilori, S1 21 Cr. 746 (MKV) 
 
Dear Judge Vyskocil: 
 
The Government respectfully writes regarding the sentencing of defendant Adedayo Ilori 
(“Ilori” or the “defendant”) in the above-captioned case, in response to defense counsel’s letter 
dated July 13, 2023.  (Dkt. 136.)  For the reasons described in detail in the Government’s June 28, 
2023 submission, the Government has established by a preponderance of the evidence that the 
challenged sentencing enhancements apply.  (Dkt. 130.)  Ilori is not entitled to a Fatico hearing 
regarding either of the factual issues he raised in his July 13, 2023 letter, see United States v. 
Phillips, 431 F.3d 86, 983 (2d Cir. 2005), and the Court should schedule sentencing in this case. 
 
1) Gross Receipts Enhancement (Paragraph 70) 
 
Ilori first continues in his challenge to the enhancement relating to his receipt of more than 
$1 million from banks.  The Court should reject this challenge without a hearing.  
 
Ilori was the leader of the fraud scheme, and he controlled the fraudulent bank accounts 
that he and Recamier opened in the names of identity theft victims, into which they directed the 
$1,024,625 in funded fraudulent loans.  The Court has ample evidence about Ilori’s control over 
those accounts, including his possession of bank cards for the bank accounts that received the more 
than $1 million in fraud proceeds and accounts into which those proceeds were funneled, and the 
fact that Ilori’s phone number was associated with those accounts.  The evidence presented at trial 
included, among other things, a recorded call from Ilori (posing as identity theft victim Jonathan 
Herttua) to Charles Schwab regarding the Schwab bank account to which approximately $40,000 
in fraud proceeds were routed.  (GX 243, 708, 709; Trial Tr. 75-76, 609.)   
 
Ilori is further linked to the $1 million in gross receipts through his control of the 0642 
phone, which the trial evidence established Ilori possessed and was arrested with.  This phone 
number was provided in connection with the Chase, Capital One, and HSBC accounts that together 
received more than $1 million in bank funds.  (See GX 740C, 700.)  In addition, the 0642 phone 
 
The Silvio J. Mollo Building 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
One Saint Andrew’s Plaza 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
New York, New York 10007 
U.S. Department of Justice 
United States Attorney 
Southern District of New York 
Case 1:21-cr-00746-MKV     Document 138     Filed 07/14/23     Page 1 of 3

 
 
 
 
 
number was associated with the Robinhood account to which approximately $230,000 in fraud 
proceeds were routed, among other accounts.  (GX 709.) 
 
Further, as previously described, in Chris Recamier’s post-arrest statement, Recamier 
unambiguously confirmed that Ilori controlled the stolen money.  (Dkt. No. 33, Ex. B, at 53.)  
Recamier also confirmed that Recamier did not have direct access to the stolen funds.  (Id. at 53-
54.)   
 
The law is clear that the sentencing court “is entitled to rely on any type of information 
known to it” in resolving sentencing disputes.  United States v. Tracy, 12 F.3d 1186, 1203 (2d Cir. 
1993) (citing United States v. Carmona, 873 F.2d 569, 574 (2d Cir. 1989)).  “[A] sentencing court, 
like a jury, may base its fact-finding on circumstantial evidence and on reasonable inferences 
drawn therefrom.”  United States v. Gaskin, 364 F.3d 438, 464 (2d Cir. 2004).   
 
The evidence that Ilori individually received more than $1 million from banks is 
overwhelming and certainly exceeds the requisite preponderance standard.  See Gov’t Sent. Sub. 
at 9.  Accordingly, the gross receipts enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(17)(A) applies. 
 
2) Enhancement for 10 or More Victims (Paragraph 68) 
 
Ilori next continues in his attack relating to the enhancement for ten or more victims.  This 
too is meritless and should be denied without a hearing. 
 
Plainly, Ilori’s offense conduct—involving massive fraud and money laundering 
committed and advanced through the use of stolen identities—involves “means of identification.”  
As a result, the specific definition of victims included in Application Note 4(E) to Section 2B1.1 
of the Guidelines applies.  Under that Note, as Ilori acknowledges, the definition of “victim” 
includes “any individual whose means of identification was used unlawfully or without authority.”  
U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1, Application Note 4(E).  As proven at trial, the crimes of conviction involved 
the defendant’s use of at least 18 identities belonging to victims.  (See GX 730.)  As a result, this 
enhancement clearly applies, and the facts upon which it may be imposed are available to the Court 
through the trial evidence.  No hearing is necessary. 
 
*  
 
 
*  
 
 
* 
As set forth above and in the Government’s prior submissions, the defendant’s objections 
to the Guidelines Range, as calculated by the PSR, should be rejected.  The Court has ample 
evidence from the trial in this matter to resolve these disputed issues.  No Fatico hearing is 
necessary.   
 
*  
 
 
*  
 
 
* 
 
Case 1:21-cr-00746-MKV     Document 138     Filed 07/14/23     Page 2 of 3

 
 
 
 
 
The Government respectfully requests that the Court set sentencing.  The parties have 
conferred and are available the following dates and times:   
 
Thursday, July 27, 2023:  
12:00 – 5:00 p.m. 
Tuesday, August 8, 2023:  
12:00 – 5:00 p.m. 
Wednesday, August 9, 2023: 12:00 – 5:00 p.m. 
Friday, August 11, 2023:  
9:00 a.m. – 5:00 p.m. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Respectfully submitted, 
 
DAMIAN WILLIAMS 
United States Attorney for the 
 
Southern District of New York 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
      By: /s/__________________________ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Juliana N. Murray 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Daniel G. Nessim 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
David R. Felton 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Assistant United States Attorneys 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
(212) 637-2314 / -2486 / -2299 
 
cc: Sanford Talkin, Esq. (via ECF) 
Case 1:21-cr-00746-MKV     Document 138     Filed 07/14/23     Page 3 of 3

File and source

File
gov.uscourts.nysd.571512.138.0.pdf
Size
249,780 bytes
SHA-256
7b7220d341af537d5a52d3ccebdf68b37c6736a798c6e7837fe07ed808837b54
Our copy
gov.uscourts.nysd.571512.138.0.pdf
Original
PACER (login required)
  1. Letter Motion addressed to Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil from Juliana Murray — USA v. Ilori et al. (Dkt. 139, S.D.N.Y.)same docket · 2023-08-08
  2. Letter Motion addressed to Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil from Sanford Talkin — USA v. Ilori et al. (Dkt. 136, S.D.N.Y.)same docket · 2023-07-13
  3. Order as to Adedayo Ilori: The Court is in receipt of letters — USA v. Ilori et al. (Dkt. 140, S.D.N.Y.)same docket · 2023-08-08
  4. ENDORSED LETTER as to (21-Cr-746-1) Adedayo Ilori addressed to Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil… — USA v. Ilori et al (Dkt. 135)same docket · 2023-06-30
  5. Order as to Adedayo Ilori — USA v. Ilori et al. (Dkt. 141, S.D.N.Y.)same docket · 2023-10-04
  6. Consent Motion for Extension of Time to File. Document filed by Adedayo Ilori — USA v. Ilori et al. (Dkt. 134, S.D.N.Y.)same docket · 2023-06-30
  7. SENTENCING SUBMISSION by Adedayo Ilori — USA v. Ilori et al (Dkt. 142)same docket · 2023-10-10
  8. ORDER as to (21-Cr-746-1) Adedayo Ilori.… — USA v. Ilori et al (Dkt. 133)same docket · 2023-06-30
  9. Order as to Adedayo Ilori: The Court is in receipt — USA v. Ilori et al. (Dkt. 143, S.D.N.Y.)same case · 2023-10-10
  10. NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT as to Adedayo Ilori.… — USA v. Ilori et al (Dkt. 132)same case · 2023-06-28
  11. Sentencing Letter by USA as to Adedayo Ilori addressed — USA v. Ilori et al. (Dkt. 144, S.D.N.Y.)same case · 2023-10-13
  12. Order of Restitution as to Adedayo Ilori — USA v. Ilori et al. (Dkt. 145, S.D.N.Y.)same case · 2023-10-23
  13. Text of Proposed Order of Restitution (Ex. B) — USA v. Ilori et al. (Dkt. 130-2, S.D.N.Y.)same case · 2023-06-28
  14. Preliminary Order of Forfeiture as to Specific Property/Money Judgment — USA v. Ilori et al. (Dkt. 146, S.D.N.Y.)same case · 2023-10-23
  15. Text of Proposed Order of Forfeiture (Ex. A) — USA v. Ilori et al. (Dkt. 130-1, S.D.N.Y.)same case · 2023-06-28
  16. Notice of Appeal by Adedayo Ilori from 147 Judgment — USA v. Ilori et al. (Dkt. 148, S.D.N.Y.)same case · 2023-10-23
  17. Sentencing Letter by USA as to Adedayo Ilori addressed — USA v. Ilori et al. (Dkt. 130, S.D.N.Y.)same docket · 2023-06-28
  18. Judgment in A Criminal Case as to Adedayo Ilori — USA v. Ilori et al. (Dkt. 147, S.D.N.Y.)same docket · 2023-10-24
  19. LETTER by Adedayo Ilori addressed to Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil from Sanford Talkin dated… — USA v. Ilori et al (Dkt. 129)same docket · 2023-06-09
  20. NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT as to Adedayo Ilori.… — USA v. Ilori et al (Dkt. 128)same docket · 2023-06-02

Part of: USA v. Ilori et al (NYSD 571512) · U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York · Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) · COVID Economic Injury Disaster Loans (EIDL) · Criminal prosecutions · Letters · 2023 · Court filings

Back to top