First Application for Review/Reconsideration — USA v. Ayvazyan et al. (Dkt. 263, C.D. Cal.)

Summary

Arman Hayrapetyan's Notice of Motion and Motion for Review/Reconsideration of Order Setting Conditions of Release/Detention in United States of America v. Arman Hayrapetyan, Case No. CR 20-579(A)-SVW-6 in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, was filed April 7, 2021 as Document 263 by attorney Jilbert Tahmazian and asks the court to reconsider the detention ordered after the defendant's self-surrender. It argues that the first superseding indictment alleges participation in seven of 64 overt acts and that Arman Hayrapetyan is neither a danger to the community nor a flight risk under 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g), and offers an unsecured appearance bond of $50,000 to $75,000, a third-party surety and surrender of an Armenian passport.

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

Record facts

Full text

Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW     Document 263     Filed 04/07/21     Page 1 of 8   Page ID
oO CS sD

JILBERT TAHMAZIAN; 143574

LAW OFFICES OF JILBERT TAHMAZIAN
1518 West Glenoaks Blvd.,

Glendale, CA 91201

Telephone: (818) 242-8201

Facsimile: (818) 242-8246

Attorneys for Defendant,

ARMAN HAYRAPETYAN

UNITED STATES

DISCTRICT COURT

CENTERAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

vs.
ARMAN HAYRAPETYAN,
DEFENDANT.

CASE NO.: CR 20-579(A)-SVW-6

NOTICE OF MOTION AND
MOTION FOR
REVIEW/RECONSIDERATION OF
ORDER SETTING CONDITIONS OF
RELEASE/DETENTION

Defendant, Arman Hayrapetyan, by and through the undersigned Counsel of record, hereby

submits the following memorandum in support of reconsideration of detention.

HM

H

Hf

Hf
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW     Document 263     Filed 04/07/21     Page 2 of 8   Page ID
I. INTRODUCTION

Defendant Hayrapetyan has been indicted for allegedly participating in a scheme to obtain
moneys, funds, credits, assets, and other property owned by, and in the custody and control of,
federally-insured financial institutions by means of material false and fraudulent pretenses,
representations, and promises, and/or the concealment of material facts. These allegations stem
from incidents outlined in the Government’s first superseding indictment, filed March 9", 2021
[Dkt. 154]. There, the Government describes 64 Overt Acts spanning in time from April, 2020 to
August, 2020. [/d. at 11-26] Of these 64 Overt Acts, Arman Hayrapetyan is only alleged to have
participated in seven acts total. [/d. at 11-13] These seven acts are alleged to have occurred between
April 16", 2020 and May 4", 2020. For his part, the Government claims that Mr. Hayrapetyan—in
concert with his coconspirators—used the name and social security of real persons—M.H. and
D.S.—to submit false applications for PPP loans. As will be stressed in the discussion portion
below, the indictment—and what I have been able to review of the accompanying discovery!—does
not indicate how this personally identifiable information was acquired, who was in control of the
PII, who prepared and submitted the PPP documents, and who had express control off the bank
accounts associated with these fictitious businesses. Instead the Government relies on alleging that
all the defendants acted in concert with one another. Thus, that Mr. Hayrapetyan’s name appears on
fraudulent documents—and fictions bank accounts—such association is sufficient to impute

criminal liability. Though it is not this motion’s primary purpose to discuss the veracity of the

! The Government has provided my office with about 15 volumes of discovery containing approximately 163 GB worth

of material.
ey) -
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW     Document 263     Filed 04/07/21     Page 3 of 8   Page ID
o eS SD

Government’s indictment, it is important to stress these deficiencies, as they directly relate to the
Defendant’s petition to re-evaluate his detention.

Upon learning of the allegations made against him, Mr. Hayrapetyan contacted my office to
facilitate his self-surrender. On March 25", 2021, Mr. Hayrapetyan willingly surrendered to the US
Marshall’s Office, and a bail hearing was scheduled for later that day, before the Honorable Maria
A. Audero. [Dkt. 254; 255] During the hearing, the Magistrate Court, held that Mr. Hayrapetyan
posed a flight risk and ordered that the Defendant be placed in detention. Namely, the Court had
significant concerns surrounding the possibility of Mr. Hayrapetyan using stolen or fraudulent PII to
flee to Armenia. Ultimately, the Court was in agreement with both the Government, and Pre-Trial
services, that no conditions of release could adequately assure the appearance of the defendant and
protect the public from potential future harm.

Defendant is now offering a surety to sign on his behalf and will happily surrender his

Armenian passport.

Il. LEGAL STANDARD

The Bail Reform Act provides that a defendant shall be detained only if a judicial officer finds
that no condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure the appearance of the
defendant as required for the safety of any other person and the community. 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e).
Title 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g) “specifies the various factors to determine whether the court may impose
conditions of release that will reasonably assure the appearance of the person.” United States v.
Keeton (E.D.Cal. 2020) 457 F. Supp. 3d 855, 858.) These factors are (1) “the nature and

circumstances of the offense charged;” (2) “the weight of the evidence against the person;” (3) “the
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW     Document 263     Filed 04/07/21     Page 4 of 8   Page ID
history and characteristics of the person” including, among other factors, family ties, employment,
financial resources, length of residence in the community, community ties, past conduct, history
relating to drug or alcohol abuse, criminal history, and record concerning appearance at court
proceedings; and (4) “the nature and seriousness of the danger to any person or the community that
would be posed by the person’s release.” 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g) The “weight of the evidence has the
least force in the court's analysis, in recognition of the presumption of innocence that attaches to
defendant at the pretrial stage of a criminal proceeding.” United States v. Keeton (E.D.Cal. 2020)

457 F. Supp. 3d 855, 859 (citing Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 533 (1979).

Il. DISCUSSION

A. DEFENDANT’S DETENTION IS NOT APPROPRIATE: HE IS NEITHER A
FLIGHT RISK NOR A DANGER TO THE COMMUNITY

a. DEFENDANT IS NOT A DANGER TO THE COMMUNITY

As noted above, the Government’s indictment outlines an incredibly complex fraud
executed over several months. It involves both fraudulent and stolen PII, fictitious businesses,
forged documents, falsified tax returns, wire transfers, purchase of properties, cryptocurrencies, and
a myriad of other dubious dealings. Based on the indictment and accompanying discovery, it is fair
to say that Mr. Hayrapetyan is neither the architect of this intricate scheme, nor its primary
beneficiary.

Arman Hayrapetyan immigrated to the United States from Armenia in 2019. Prior to his
move, he served in the Armenian military for 17 years. He moved to the United States hoping, like
many similarly situated immigrants, for a better life. To this day, Mr. Hayrapetyan speaks little to

no English, does not own a computer, and requires assistance navigating his smart phone. He is
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW     Document 263     Filed 04/07/21     Page 5 of 8   Page ID
| || unacquainted with most, if not all, the financial institutions and governing bodies that are implicated
2 |! in this fraud. The suggestion that Mr. Hayrapetyan could be complicit to the same degree as his co-
defendants, is a disingenuous proposition that overestimates this defendant’s acumen. The
Government’s discovery suggests that one or two of Mr. Hayrapetyan’s co-defendants acted
together to obtain, create, disseminate, and subsequently control all the PII information, bank
accounts, loan document, and all other material needed in the execution of this scheme. They, along

with a handful of others, then became the primary beneficiaries. Mr. Hayrapetyan’s association to

oO CO “I NH

this alleged conspiracy is far less direct than almost all of the other co-defendants. Accordingly, it is

10 | unclear why all of Mr. Hayrapetyan’s co-defendants have been afforded pre-trial release, while Mr.

Hayrapetyan remains in detention.

Unlike most of his co-defendant’s Mr. Hayrapetyan has no criminal history. He has no
14 pattern of lavish spending or opulence. He works two modest jobs as a driver—primarily for P&I
15 || Medical Transportation, but with Postmates on the side. The Pre-Trial report prepared by Probation

16 || Office Dalayna Ecklund, expressly notes that “although the instant allegations are concerning, as

17 || they involve a large loss amount and an economic danger to the community, the defendant has no

18 criminal history. Furthermore, the defendant does not have any substance abuse issues or mental

health history. Therefore, Pretrial Services believes conditions could be imposed to mitigate the risk

of danger to the community.” (PSR, pg. 5) Mr. Hayrapetyan is entirely willing to abide by any

7 conditions suggested by Pretrial Services to abate any concern about his potential danger to the

23 || public.

24 As such, given the Government finds the release of all other Defendant’s harmless, they
25 |! should find the same for Mr. Hayrapetyan.

26 55%
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW     Document 263     Filed 04/07/21     Page 6 of 8   Page ID
Sf

b. DEFENDANT IS NOT A FLIGHT RISK

Both the Government, and Pretrial Services, suggest that because Mr. Hayrapetyan’s ties lie
primarily in Armenia, he poses a risk of non-appearance. This argument is flawed for a number of
reasons. First, it takes an incredibly dismissive attitude towards Mr. Hayrapetyan’s decision to self-
surrender. The Government’s fear that Mr. Hayrapetyan will flee the Country, if given the chance,
should be entirely assuaged by the fact that Mr. Hayrapetyan—fully knowing the gravity of the
charges lodged against him—chose to surrender to the US Marshall’s office”. The idea that Mr.
Hayrapetyan would elect to flee from the U.S., only after self-surrender, is an illogical suggestion.
Mr. Hayrapetyan’s decision to turn himself in should be given ultimate deference when considering
whether he poses a risk of non-appearance.

Second, that Mr. Hayrapetyan only has family ties to Armenia is an imbalanced burden he,
as an immigrant, must bear. Mr. Hayrapetyan cannot change the fact that he was born in a different
country, however that should not be the principal focus when positing if he poses a risk of
nonappearance. Instead, this Court should look to Mr. Hayrapetyan’s actions since entering the
United States. Mr. Hayrapetyan immigrated to this country in 2019. He did so legally, and with
every intention to pursue citizenship. Mr. Hayrapetyan has applied for a Green Card and, prior to
his arrest, was making concerted efforts to bring his wife and daughter over to start their application
for citizenship. As the Pretrial Services Report notes, since his arrival Mr. Hayrapetyan left the U.S.

once to visit Armenian between May of 2020-September of 2020.7 While this is true, what the

* Mr. Hayrapetyan came to my office after the indictment was made public. During our meeting, I explained to Mr.
Hayrapetyan the language of the indictment and the full scope of what he was facing. He was expressly aware of what
he was facing when he chose to self-surrender.
3 This was the first time Mr. Hayrapetyan had seen his parents since leaving in 2019.
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW     Document 263     Filed 04/07/21     Page 7 of 8   Page ID
report does not mention is that Mr. Hayrapetyan was given approval from the Government to go
home during this time. Mr. Hayrapetyan has been very transparent and forthcoming with the U.S.
Government regarding his stay in this country.

Both the Government and Pretrial Services make note of the fact that Mr. Hayrapetyan sends
money home to support his family. The families’ financial dependency on Mr. Hayrapetyan should
further assure the Government he is determined to remain in the United States. In the fall of 2020,
Mr. Hayrapetyan’s younger brother passed away during the Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict. As a
result Mr. Hayrapetyan is now the sole caretaker for his elderly parents in addition to his wife and
daughter. In no uncertain terms: Mr. Hayreapetyan cannot afford to leave this country. His entire

family is financially dependent on his ability to sustain steady work in America, because it is not

feasible to do so in Armenia. Prior to his arrest Mr. Hayrapetyan had both steady employment and a
stable residence. While he is not financially capable of obtaining bail resources for a high bond
amount, he can sign an unsecured appearance bond ranging from $50,000 to $75,000. Additionally,
a third party surety has come forward and offered to sign an appearance bond on Mr. Hayrapetyan’s
behalf. It is our belief that the unsecured appearance bond should be sufficient, however the third
party surety is available in the alternative.

Ill
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW     Document 263     Filed 04/07/21     Page 8 of 8   Page ID
oO Co SN DH

IV. CONCLUSION

Mr. Hayrapetyan is neither a fraudster nor a fugitive. He is a well-meaning immigrant whose
faith in his own people was unfairly taken advantage of. Mr. Hayrapetyan has given the
Government every indication he can that he has no intention of evading justice. He is neither a
flight risk, nor does he pose a threat to the general public. For the foregoing reasons, Arman
Hayrapetyan, respectfully requests that this Honorable Court grant the proposed bond package. The
defense also respectfully ask that the Court grant oral briefing/arguments for the reconsideration of

the bond.

Submitted,

Dated: April 7", 2021 Respectfu

Z . a~ N\
JILBERT TAHMAZIAN,
Attorney for Defendant


File and source

File

gov.uscourts.cacd.813904.263.0.pdf

Size

413,573 bytes

SHA-256

7596865f9ef7bbbd74f7d84a30d737a6627203fb9df6ea7cf694c134493332de

Our copy

gov.uscourts.cacd.813904.263.0.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)