SENTENCING SUBMISSION by Adedayo Ilori — USA v. Ilori et al (Dkt. 142)

Record facts

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York · No. 1:21-cr-00746-MKV · Doc. 142 · 2023-10-10 · Docket on CourtListener

Summary

A sentencing submission letter filed October 10, 2023 as Document 142 in United States v. Adedayo Ilori, 21 Cr. 746 (MKV), in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. Responding to an order dated October 4, 2023, defense counsel raises one financial issue: the government's contention that the defendant is liable for the entire forfeiture amount of $1,039,424.27. The letter argues he should forfeit only what he personally acquired, noting that gross receipts of $1,039,625 are also attributable to a co-conspirator, and cites United States v. Honeycutt, 581 U.S. 433 (2017) on 21 U.S.C. § 853(a)(1). It also asks that a sentence in the presentence report stating that $1,072,062.47 is owed to the Small Business Administration as stipulated in a plea agreement be stricken, since the defendant did not enter a plea.

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

Honorable Mary Kay Vyskocil 
Page 2 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
October 10, 2023 
 
 
Honorable Mary Kay Vyskocil 
United States District Judge 
Southern District of New York 
500 Pearl Street 
New York, New York 10007 
 
VIA ECF 
Re: 
United States v. Adedayo Ilori  
21 Cr. 746 (MKV) 
 
Dear Judge Vyskocil: 
 
 
 
In the Order dated October 4, 2023, the Court noted “that no issues have been raised 
with the Court by Mr. Ilori in advance of sentencing” By this letter, defendant Adedayo Ilori 
(“Ilori”) respectfully raises one financial issue.   
 
Forfeiture 
 
 
 
The government contends that Ilori should be held liable for the entire forfeiture 
amount of $1,039,424.27.  Govt Sent. Memo, p. 14.  Ilori submits that he should be required to 
forfeit only the property he actually acquired, in other words, the funds he personally obtained.  
As he stated in his original sentencing memorandum, “The gross receipts in this case are 
$1,039,625 and are [also] attributable to Chris Recamier, Mr. Ilori’s conspirator … This total does 
not reflect gross receipts that Mr. Ilori received individually.”        
 
 
 
In United States v. Honeycutt, 581 U.S. 433, 454 (2017), the Supreme Court held 
that drug crime forfeiture pursuant to 21 U.S.C, § 853(a)(1) “is limited to property the defendant 
himself actually acquired as a result of the crime.”  Honeycutt addressed forfeiture and joint and 
several liability in the context of the narcotic offense forfeiture statute, 21 U.S.C, § 853(a)(1).  
Although the Second Circuit has discussed the applicability of Honeycutt to forfeiture statutes 
other than 21 U.S.C, § 853(a)(1), the Court has not directly rendered a decision on the issue.  See 
United States v. Beras, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 80243 (S.D.N.Y), *5-6 (The Second Circuit has 
Case 1:21-cr-00746-MKV     Document 142     Filed 10/10/23     Page 1 of 2

Honorable Mary Kay Vyskocil 
Page 2 
not yet ruled whether Honeycutt extends to forfeiture orders under 18 U.S.C. § 982(a)(1)).  
However, the Court has strongly indicated that it may view Honeycutt as applicable to money 
laundering forfeiture.  See United States v Tanner, 942 F.3d 60, 67-68 (2d Cir. 2019) (Although 
the Court indicated that it “had not yet fully defined the parameters of Honeycutt,” it analyzed the 
contested forfeiture order in that case, one sought pursuant to the money laundering forfeiture 
statute, under the Honeycutt standard, although ultimately concluding that Honeycutt did not bar 
joint and several liability in that case because each co-conspirator at one time possessed the total 
proceeds of the kickback scheme).1 
 
 
 
With respect to offense property, Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.2 
provides, “If the government seeks forfeiture of specific property, the court must determine 
whether the government has established the requisite nexus between the property and the offense.” 
Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.2(b)(1)(A).  After a defendant is convicted of an offense on proof beyond a 
reasonable doubt, the government must establish by a preponderance of evidence that, as a result 
of the offense, the property at issue is subject to criminal forfeiture. United States v. Fruchter, 411 
F.3d 377, 383 (2d Cir. 2005). 
 
 
 
The government has not established that Ilori personally “actually acquired” the 
entire $1,039,424.  In fact, the evidence establishes, and co-defendant Chris Recamier’s 
(“Recamier) guilty plea indicates, that Recamier actually acquired a portion of the proceeds.2  The 
government, in its sentencing submission as to Recamier stated that he “illegally profited” from 
the instant crimes and that of the “$1 million in relief funds successfully obtained, Ilori and 
Recamier transferred the money to accounts they controlled …” Govt. Recamier Sent. Memo, pp. 
6,7 (emphasis added).  
 
Additional Objection to the Presentence Investigation Report (“PSR”)  
 
 
 
The above discussed Court Order caused me to reread the financial penalties 
sections of the PSR.  Upon revieing the “Restitution” section on page 39 of the PSR, I noticed a 
cosmetic “cut and paste” error which Ilori respectfully requests be corrected.  In this section, the 
second sentence states, “As stipulated in defendant’s plea agreement, $1,072,062.47 is owed to the 
Small Business Administration.”  Since Ilori did not enter a plea, no such stipulation exists and 
he requests that this sentence be stricken from the PSR.   
 
Thank you for Your Honor’s consideration of this letter. 
 
Very truly yours, 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Sanford Talkin 
Sanford Talkin 
 
 
cc: 
AUSA Juliana Murray (by ECF) 
 
1 Defendant respectfully directs the Court’s attention to United States v. Kenner, 443 F.Supp 354 (E.D.N.Y. 2020) 
where the district court rejected this argument.  
2 As discussed in detail during Recamier’s sentencing hearing, he was not subject to forfeiture because the statute to 
which he plead guilty did not provide for forfeiture.  Recamier Sent. Tr. pp. 7-10.   
Case 1:21-cr-00746-MKV     Document 142     Filed 10/10/23     Page 2 of 2

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.nysd.571512.142.0.pdf

Size

205,123 bytes

SHA-256

7c2786f9c534d12485eff2a1ccf72c3c173d99b30d0e697f5b996052f02c95a8

Our copy

gov.uscourts.nysd.571512.142.0.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)