Opposition to Second Application — USA v. Ayvazyan et al. (Dkt. 359, C.D. Cal.)

Record facts

U.S. District Court for the Central District of California · No. 2:20-cr-00579-SVW · Doc. 359 · 2021-05-24 · Docket on CourtListener

Full text

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
TRACY L. WILKISON 
Acting United States Attorney 
BRANDON D. FOX 
Assistant United States Attorney 
Chief, Criminal Division 
SCOTT PAETTY (Cal. Bar No. 274719) 
CATHERINE AHN (Cal. Bar No. 248286) 
BRIAN FAERSTEIN (Cal. Bar No. 274850) 
Assistant United States Attorneys 
Major Frauds/Environmental and Community Safety Crimes Sections 
1100/1300 United States Courthouse 
312 North Spring Street 
Los Angeles, California 90012 
Telephone: (213) 894-6527/2424/3819 
Facsimile: (213) 894-6269/0141 
E-mail: 
Scott.Paetty@usdoj.gov 
 
Catherine.S.Ahn@usdoj.gov 
 
Brian.Faerstein@usdoj.gov 
 
DANIEL S. KAHN 
Acting Chief, Fraud Section 
Criminal Division, U.S. Department of Justice 
CHRISTOPHER FENTON 
Trial Attorney, Fraud Section 
Criminal Division, U.S. Department of Justice 
1400 New York Avenue NW, 3rd Floor 
Washington, DC 20530 
Telephone: (202) 320-0539 
Facsimile: (202) 514-0152 
E-mail: 
Christopher.Fenton@usdoj.gov 
 
Attorneys for Plaintiff 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 
 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
 
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 
 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 
Plaintiff, 
v. 
ARMAN HAYRAPETYAN, 
 
Defendant. 
No. CR 20-579(A)-SVW-6 
GOVERNMENT’S OPPOSITION TO 
DEFENDANT ARMAN HAYRAPETYAN’S 
MOTION FOR SECOND 
REVIEW/RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER 
SETTING CONDITIONS OF 
RELEASE/DETENTION (ECF 355); 
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND 
AUTHORITIES 
 
Plaintiff United States of America, by and through its counsel 
of record, the Acting United States Attorney for the Central District 
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW     Document 359     Filed 05/24/21     Page 1 of 8   Page ID
#:3663

 
ii 
 
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
of California and Assistant United States Attorneys Scott Paetty, 
Catherine Ahn, and Brian Faerstein, and United States Department of 
Justice Trial Attorney Christopher Fenton, hereby files this 
opposition to Defendant Arman Hayrapetyan’s Motion for Second 
Review/Reconsideration of Order Setting Conditions of 
Release/Detention (ECF 355). 
This opposition is based on the attached memorandum of points 
and authorities, the files and records in this case, and such further 
evidence and argument as the Court may permit. 
Dated: May 24, 2021 
Respectfully submitted, 
 
TRACY L. WILKISON 
Acting United States Attorney 
 
BRANDON D. FOX 
Assistant United States Attorney 
Chief, Criminal Division 
 
 
      /s/ 
 
SCOTT PAETTY 
CATHERINE AHN 
BRIAN FAERSTEIN 
Assistant United States Attorneys 
CHRISTOPHER FENTON 
Department of Justice Trial Attorney 
 
Attorneys for Plaintiff 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW     Document 359     Filed 05/24/21     Page 2 of 8   Page ID
#:3664

 
1 
 
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
I. 
INTRODUCTION 
On April 12, 2021, this Court denied defendant Arman 
Hayrapetyan’s (“defendant”) first motion for review of the detention 
order entered by Magistrate Judge Maria A. Audero in this case.  (ECF 
282.)  As Judge Audero previously concluded, this Court found that no 
conditions would assure defendant’s appearance in future proceedings 
and that he posed a flight risk.  (See ECF 257, 276-1 at 23-24, 282.)   
The fundamental bases underlying defendant’s risk of flight in 
this case have not changed.  Defendant remains an Armenian citizen 
whose entire family lives in Armenia; he has virtually no ties to 
this district or the United States; he traveled to Armenia for four 
months last year immediately after his alleged theft and laundering 
of COVID-19 disaster relief funds; and he allegedly engaged in such 
conduct using stolen identities of real people, giving rise to Judge 
Audero’s concern he could do the same to flee the country. 
Defendant once again asks this Court to review Judge Audero’s 
order, without proffering any changed circumstances or adequate bail 
resources.  Defendant proposes, on an interim basis, the same 
unjustified surety he previously proffered, which was insufficient to 
overcome the serious flight risk that led to the denial of his first 
motion for review.  Defendant now also purports to proffer as a 
security interest certain real property supposedly owned by the 
proposed surety’s wife.  But defendant’s proffer regarding this 
property raises more questions than it answers, and remains 
inadequate to mitigate the significant risk of flight in this case.  
Accordingly, defendant’s second motion for reconsideration of his 
detention order should be denied. 
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW     Document 359     Filed 05/24/21     Page 3 of 8   Page ID
#:3665

 
2 
 
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
II. 
RELEVANT BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY 
The government previously summarized the relevant background and 
procedural history underlying defendant’s motions for reconsideration 
in its opposition to defendant’s first motion for review of the 
Court’s detention order.1  (See ECF 276 at 1-4.) 
Nothing has changed since defendant’s initial motion for 
reconsideration, with the exception of defendant’s barebones and 
inadequate proffer regarding a potential security interest, discussed 
further below. 
III. ARGUMENT 
In its opposition to defendant’s first motion for review, the 
government explained why defendant is a serious flight risk based on 
his background and the circumstances of this case.2  The government 
does not repeat those arguments here, which it incorporates by 
reference herein, other than to say that defendant is distinctly 
situated among the defendants in this case.  (See ECF 276 at 4-9.)  
Among other things, defendant has virtually no ties to the United 
States since arriving here in 2019 and has a substantial incentive to 
rejoin his entire family living in Armenia (whom he visited for four 
months after allegedly laundering hundreds of thousands of dollars in 
                     
1 The government incorporates by reference herein the entirety 
of its Opposition to Defendant’s Motion for Review/Reconsideration of 
Order Setting Conditions of Release/Detention (ECF 276). 
2 The government also then noted, and continues to maintain, 
that defendant poses a danger to the community in light of his 
alleged theft of at least two real individuals’ identities and the 
identities of their businesses, which serves as an alternative basis 
to detain him.  (See ECF 276 at 5 n.2 (citing United States v. 
Reynolds, 956 F.2d 192, 192-93 (9th Cir. 1992) (“danger may, at least 
in some cases, encompass pecuniary or economic harm”)).) 
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW     Document 359     Filed 05/24/21     Page 4 of 8   Page ID
#:3666

 
3 
 
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2020), particularly in light of the significant penalties he faces in 
this case and with trial just weeks away. 
Following full briefing and a hearing on defendant’s first 
motion for review, this Court considered and rejected defendant’s 
arguments, including his proffer of Ashot Samsonian to serve as an 
unjustified third-party surety on a $75,000 bond. 
Now, in his second motion for review of the detention order, 
defendant offers no additional facts or argument.  Instead, he 
proffers the same unjustified surety (Mr. Samsonian) and a purported 
real property security interest that raises a number of red flags.  
Both are wholly inadequate to mitigate the serious risk of flight in 
this case. 
First, defendant asserts that he “is able to have [Mr. 
Samsonian] sign an appearance bond without justification in the 
amount of $75,000, to be replaced by property owned by Mr. 
Samsonian’s wife in the amount of $50,000 with justification.”3  (ECF 
355 at 3-4.)  Defendant thus proposes the same unjustified surety and 
bond amount the Court previously found insufficient.  That he appears 
to propose this unjustified surety on an interim basis -- while the 
property package on the proffered property is assembled, the deed is 
recorded, and the bond is perfected -- does not alter defendant’s 
substantial risk of flight in this case.  Indeed, the risk would be 
even greater during the interim period, just weeks before trial is 
                     
3 In the next paragraph of his motion, defendant states that he 
is willing to proffer an “affidavit with justification for $100,000 
with full deeding of property,” as opposed to $50,000 backed up by 
the property as he previously stated.  (ECF 355 at 4.)  It is not 
clear the total amount of the bond defendant proposes at this stage.  
But even assuming he intends to propose a $100,000 bond fully secured 
by the proffered property, the government submits his proposal is 
inadequate for the reasons stated herein. 
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW     Document 359     Filed 05/24/21     Page 5 of 8   Page ID
#:3667

 
4 
 
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
set to commence and before the bond is backed up by the proposed 
property interest.   
The government further believes there is a strong likelihood the 
bond would not be secured by the time of trial, during which 
defendants would face the prospect of conviction.  This is when the 
reality of a permanent sentence looms largest and releasing a 
defendant with little to no ties to the community and an alleged 
history of identity theft on little other than a signature bond will 
not reasonably assure defendant’s appearance.  18 U.S.C. 
§ 3142(c)(1)(B).  Other defendants in this case recently experienced 
a significant delay from the Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder’s 
Office in recording liens on property interests for their bonds as a 
result of backlog from the pandemic, requiring thirty-day extensions 
for perfecting those defendants’ bond packages.  (See ECF 227, 228.)  
The practical import of defendant’s second motion for review here is 
to propose the same third-party surety signing onto the same 
previously rejected appearance bond without justification on an open-
ended basis with trial three weeks away.    
Second, the government has significant concerns about the 
property interest defendant proposes in support of his proffered bond 
package.  According to its public property listing, the proposed 
property in Cathedral City, California was last sold for $470,000 in 
August 2020, at the height of the alleged COVID-19 disaster relief 
loan fraud scheme alleged in the First Superseding Indictment.4  
                     
4 See, e.g., Realtor.com property listing, available at 
https://www.realtor.com/realestateandhomes-detail/67110-Garbino-
Rd_Cathedral-City_CA_92234_M13655-46313; Redfin.com property listing, 
available at https://www.redfin.com/CA/Cathedral-City/67110-Garbino-
Rd-92234/home/6072772.  
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW     Document 359     Filed 05/24/21     Page 6 of 8   Page ID
#:3668

 
5 
 
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Defendant represents that the property is “owned by Mr. Samsonian’s 
wife,” but the grant deed attached to defendant’s motion reflects the 
property is owned by “Aleksandr Sahakyan, a Single Man and Evelina 
Manukyan, a Married Woman, as Joint Tenants.”  (ECF 355-1, Exh. B.)  
Defendant provides no information about who these individuals are, 
what relationship they have to defendant, and even if the Court 
assumes Evelina Manukyan is Mr. Samsonian’s wife, whether her co-
owner is willing to allow the property to be used as security for 
defendant’s bond.   
In addition, while defendant attaches a purported four-sentence 
appraisal letter for the property estimating a market value of 
$525,480.00 (which appears to be well above the values of the 
comparable properties relied on by the same real estate agent),5 
defendant provides no information about the supposed owners’ actual 
equity in the property, including mortgage loans and other 
encumbrances.  Thus, defendant provides little information for the 
government and the Court to assess the financial adequacy of the 
property much less the appropriateness of it as a security interest 
as to this defendant.  Defendant also does not provide any 
information about the source of funds used to purchase the property 
in August 2020 or the circumstances underlying the grant deed 
expanding the ownership from “Aleksandr Sahakyan” to “Aleksandr 
Sahakyan and Evelina Manukyan” in December 2020 -- issues about which 
the government has significant concern given the timing of the 
underlying purchase, defendant’s own alleged criminal conduct in a 
                     
5 Other publicly-available information, including the webpages 
cited in the previous footnote, reflects notably lower appraisal 
estimates for the property, including $463,500 (Realtor.com) and 
$506,043 (Redfin.com). 
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW     Document 359     Filed 05/24/21     Page 7 of 8   Page ID
#:3669

 
6 
 
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
money laundering conspiracy where at a significant portion of the 
funds went to purchase real property, and the lack of clarity 
regarding the owners and their relationship to defendant and Mr. 
Samsonian.   
Finally, defendant contends that his “offering [of a secured 
property interest] would mirror many of the co-defendant’s bond 
conditions” and thus “it would only be appropriate that Mr. 
Hayrapetyan’s is also approved.”  (ECF 355 at 4.)  Defendant ignores 
the individualized assessment at the heart of the Bail Reform Act.  
Defendant is uniquely situated in this case as having arrived in the 
United States in 2019 and having virtually no meaningful ties to this 
district or country.  Defendant’s entire family lives in Armenia, and 
his recent extended travel there during the period of the alleged 
conspiracy reflects a continuing connection to his life in Armenia 
and a strong incentive to flee from the consequences of this case.   
IV. 
CONCLUSION 
For the foregoing reasons, and the reasons set forth in the 
government’s opposition to defendant’s first motion for review of the 
Court’s detention order, the government respectfully requests the 
Court deny defendant’s Motion for Second Review/Reconsideration of 
Order Setting Conditions of Release/Detention (ECF 355). 
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW     Document 359     Filed 05/24/21     Page 8 of 8   Page ID
#:3670

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.cacd.813904.359.0.pdf

Size

44,358 bytes

SHA-256

ed60d7734b938da75810f7ceadeb8f0b5b25a008041ca2bebbb9d5b07472c5ea

Our copy

gov.uscourts.cacd.813904.359.0.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)