POSITION WITH RESPECT TO PRESENTENCE REPORT filed by Plaintiff USA as to Defendant… — USA v. Ayvazyan et al (Dkt. 1448)

Record facts

U.S. District Court for the Central District of California · No. 2:20-cr-00579-SVW · Doc. 1448 · 2024-04-08 · 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
E. MARTIN ESTRADA 
United States Attorney 
MACK E. JENKINS 
Assistant United States Attorney 
Chief, Criminal Division 
SCOTT PAETTY (Cal. Bar No. 274719) 
BRIAN FAERSTEIN (Cal. Bar No. 274850) 
Assistant United States Attorneys 
Major Frauds/Public Corruption and Civil Rights Sections 
1100/1500 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 
 
Brian.Faerstein@usdoj.gov 
 
GLENN S. LEON 
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. 
ARTUR AYVAZYAN, 
 
Defendant. 
No. CR 20-00579-SVW-3 
GOVERNMENT’S RE-SENTENCING POSITION 
FOR DEFENDANT ARTUR AYVAZYAN 
Sentencing: April 15, 2024 
Time:       11:00 a.m.  
Location:   Courtroom of the         
           Hon. Stephen V. Wilson   
 
Plaintiff United States of America, by and through its counsel 
of record, the United States Attorney for the Central District of 
California, Assistant United States Attorneys Scott Paetty and Brian 
Faerstein, and Department of Justice Trial Attorney Christopher 
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW     Document 1448     Filed 04/08/24     Page 1 of 12   Page ID
#:21143

 
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
Fenton, hereby files its re-sentencing position regarding defendant 
Artur Ayvazyan. 
The government’s re-sentencing position is based upon the 
attached memorandum of points and authorities, the government’s 
original sentencing memorandum (ECF 1133), the presentence 
investigation report, the files and records in this case, and any 
other evidence or argument that the Court may wish to consider at the 
time of re-sentencing.  The government reserves the right to file any 
supplemental sentencing positions that may be necessary. 
Dated:  April 8, 2024 
Respectfully submitted, 
 
E. MARTIN ESTRADA 
United States Attorney 
 
MACK E. JENKINS 
Assistant United States Attorney 
Chief, Criminal Division 
 
      /s/ 
 
SCOTT PAETTY 
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 1448     Filed 04/08/24     Page 2 of 12   Page ID
#:21144

 
 
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
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 
I. 
INTRODUCTION 
Following a jury trial, defendant Artur Ayvazyan was convicted 
of numerous offenses in connection with his role in a sweeping 
conspiracy to fraudulently obtain and launder millions of dollars in 
federal Covid-relief funds that were intended to assist businesses 
impacted by the pandemic.  The Court found “there was overwhelming 
evidence of Defendant’s guilt.”  (ECF 875 at 11.)  At sentencing, the 
Court decried the fraud in this case as “horrific and calculated and 
calloused” because, among other things, it “resulted in losses to a 
very vulnerable program imposed at a critical time in the country’s 
history.”  (ECF 1188; 11/15/21 Tr. 25:7-10.)  As for defendant, who 
sought to shift blame to his wife and codefendant, Tamara Dadyan, 
while testifying in his own defense at trial, this Court found that 
defendant “perjured himself” while peddling “patently incredible” and 
“totally implausible” testimony at trial.  (11/15/21 Tr. 13:5-14:7.) 
Although not the architect of the fraud, defendant played an 
important role helping his wife and his brother, Richard Ayvazyan, 
who were the ringleaders.  Accordingly, he received a sentence of 60 
months’ imprisonment, while his wife and brother respectively 
received sentences of 130 months and 17 years.  When sentencing 
defendant, the Court explained that it applied “the most charitable 
analysis [of the loss attributable to the conspiracy that] the 
defense can get” (Id.; 11/15/21 Tr. 4:9–12), and “impose[d] the most 
lenient sentence necessary” (Id.; 11/15/21 Tr. 25:23–25).  Indeed, 
defendant’s 36-month sentence (not including the additional mandatory 
24-month consecutive sentence he received for aggravated identity 
theft) was significantly below the advisory Guidelines range of 70 to 
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW     Document 1448     Filed 04/08/24     Page 3 of 12   Page ID
#:21145

 
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
87 months for his bank/wire fraud conspiracy, bank/wire fraud, and 
money laundering conspiracy offenses. 
On appeal, the Ninth Circuit rejected virtually all of 
defendant’s challenges to his conviction and sentence, including 
challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence and this Court’s 
application of the Guidelines.  The Ninth Circuit, however, remanded 
the case for a de novo resentencing solely because of one procedural 
(not substantive) issue, namely, that the Court did not invite the 
allocution of defendant at the sentencing hearing.  The government 
recommends that at re-sentencing, the Court impose the same sentence 
as before: 60-months’ imprisonment, five-years supervised release, a 
special assessment of $2,200, and restitution in the amount of 
$17,723,141.26.  Not only does the factual record remain the same, 
but the Ninth Circuit affirmed the Court’s view of the evidence as 
well as its correct application of the advisory Guidelines.1   
II. 
RELEVANT FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY2 
A. 
Defendant’s Charges, Testimony and Conviction at Trial, and 
Post-Trial Motions 
On March 9, 2021, a grand jury returned a first superseding 
indictment against defendant and seven codefendants, charging 
conspiracy to commit bank fraud and wire fraud, substantive wire 
fraud and bank fraud counts, aggravated identity theft, and 
conspiracy to commit money laundering.  (ECF 154.)  On June 15, 2021, 
 
1 Rather than repeat all of the arguments that the government 
originally made in connection with defendant’s sentencing, the 
government incorporates by reference the government sentencing 
memorandum (ECF 1133).    
2 The government provided an extensive summary of the facts presented 
at trial related to defendant Artur Ayvazyan in its opposition to 
defendant’s Rule 29 and 33 motion (ECF 793), and incorporates by 
reference the factual background contained therein. 
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW     Document 1448     Filed 04/08/24     Page 4 of 12   Page ID
#:21146

 
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
defendant and three of his co-conspirators — brother Richard 
Ayvazyan, sister-in-law Marietta Terabelian, and cousin-in-law Vahe 
Dadyan — went to trial and defendant was convicted of all counts 
charged against him.  (ECF 644, Redacted Verdict Form.)  Defendant’s 
wife, Tamara Dadyan, pleaded guilty to counts 1, 24, and 26 prior to 
trial, and – following defendant’s convictions - filed a motion to 
withdraw her guilty plea (and later fled the country after that 
motion was denied by this Court).  (ECF 525, 541, 998, 1193, and 
1271.)  
At trial, defendant testified and, under oath, attempted to 
convince the jury and this Court that his wife, co-defendant Tamara 
Dadyan (not present at trial on account of her plea), was solely 
responsible for the volumes of incriminating documentary evidence 
found in his possession at his home.  Defendant claimed, incredibly, 
that he permitted her to submit COVID-19 disaster relief loan 
applications for his business without even knowing the amount of 
those loans.  (ECF 676; 6/23/21 A.M. Tr. 101:24-103:19 and 108:3-
110:12.)   
Defendant also tried to obfuscate the overwhelming proof of his 
direct participation in the charged conspiracy found on his phone.  
This evidence included personal identifying information for 
individuals and businesses used in fraudulent PPP and EIDL 
applications (see Government Trial Exhibit (“GEX”) 24b), handwritten 
instructions to make changes to identification cards (“IDs”) followed 
by images of false and fraudulent IDs matching those instructions 
(see GEX 24a at 16-19), and numerous images of checks and 
debit/credit cards in names of individuals and businesses used in the 
charged conspiracy (see GEX 24c).  The evidence also included copies 
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW     Document 1448     Filed 04/08/24     Page 5 of 12   Page ID
#:21147

 
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
of confirmations of the very same Small Business Administration loan 
applications whose amounts he allegedly did not see (see GEX 24d).  
Defendant’s explanation as to why the voluminous evidence of fraud 
found on his phone was the same as that found at his home was that 
the incriminating evidence was “likely” put there by his wife, Tamara 
Dadyan.  (ECF 676; 6/23/21 A.M. Tr. 102:14-103:7 and 104:22-105:21.)   
In contrast, defendant testified that his brother, Richard 
Ayvazyan, who had not pleaded guilty and was contesting the charges 
at trial with defendant, was a “great guy” to whom he had transferred 
fraudulent loan proceeds (albeit only after first laundering it 
through two other bank accounts) simply to repay a supposed business 
loan from many years earlier.  (Id. at 89:5-18 and 111:18-113:4; see 
also GEX 115 at 7.) 
The jury rejected defendant’s inconsistent testimony and attempt 
to shift all blame to his wife (co-defendant Tamara Dadyan), and 
convicted defendant on all counts for which he was charged.  
Following defendant’s convictions, defendant moved for a judgment of 
acquittal and a new trial pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 29 and 33. 
(ECF 686, 687.)  The government opposed, and the Court denied 
defendants motions, finding that “there was overwhelming evidence of 
Defendant’s guilt.”  (ECF 875 at 11.)  The Court went on to find 
that, “[t]he evidence in this case does not preponderate heavily 
against the verdict.  Instead, it preponderates heavily in favor of 
the verdict against Defendant.”  (Id. at 12.)  
B. 
The Presentence Investigation Report and the Parties’ 
Respective Sentencing Recommendations 
The USPO filed its PSR and recommendation letter for defendant 
on September 23, 2021, in which it calculated a criminal history 
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW     Document 1448     Filed 04/08/24     Page 6 of 12   Page ID
#:21148

 
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
category of I and total offense level of 35, yielding an advisory 
guidelines range of 168 to 210 months’ imprisonment for counts 1-20 
and 26, plus a mandatory consecutive term of 24 months’ imprisonment 
for his aggravated identity theft conviction in count 24.  (PSR ¶¶ 2, 
6, 81-113, 115-125, and 176-178.)  The USPO’s offense level 
calculation of 35 was based on the following:  
• a base offense level of 7 (see U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(a)(1));  
• +20 for a loss between $9.5 million and $25 million (see 
U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(1)(K));  
• +2 for ten or more victims (see U.S.S.G. 
§ 2B1.1(b)(2)(A)(i));  
• +2 for sophisticated means (see U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(1));  
• +2 for the use of identifications (see U.S.S.G. 
§ 2B1.1(b)(11)); and  
• +2 for defendant’s conviction for violating 18 U.S.C. 
§ 1956 (see U.S.S.G. § 2S1.1(b)(2)(B)).   
(PSR ¶¶ 81-112.)  The USPO further recommended that this Court impose 
a total sentence of 192 months’ imprisonment at the low-end of the 
effective advisory guidelines range (which included the mandatory 
consecutive 24-month sentence for count 24), plus five years of 
supervised release.  (USPO Rec. Letter at 3-7.)   
The government agreed with the PSR’s calculation except that it 
argued for an additional two-level vulnerable victim enhancement 
pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3A1.1(b)(1) for a total offense level of 37 
and an advisory Guidelines range of 210 to 262 months (exclusive of 
the 24 months’ mandatory minimum for the Section 1028A conviction).  
(See CR 1041 (“Govt. PSR Obj.”) at 2-4; CR 1133 at 17-21.)  The 
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW     Document 1448     Filed 04/08/24     Page 7 of 12   Page ID
#:21149

 
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
government argued for a 260-month sentence (236 months for the 
underlying offenses plus 24 months for the Section 1028A conviction).   
Defendant objected to all of the PSR’s findings with respect to 
the sentencing enhancements and adjustments and instead argued for a 
total offense level of 16 and an advisory Guidelines range of 21 to 
27 months (exclusive of the 24-month mandatory minimum for the 
Section 1028A conviction).  (See ECF 1038 (“Def. PSR Obj.”) at 12.)  
Specifically, defendant argued that the loss was less than $250,000 
and that he qualified as a minor participant in the scheme for 
purposes of USSG § 3B1.2.  The defendant argued for a 36-month 
sentence (12 months for the convictions on the underlying offenses 
plus 24 months for the Section 1028A conviction). 
C. 
The Sentencing Hearing 
At the sentencing hearing, the Court determined the offense 
level was 27 based on the following calculation: 
•  a base offense level of 7 (see U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(a)(1));  
• +16 for a loss between $1.5 million and $3 million (see 
U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(1)(I))3;  
• +2 for sophisticated means (see U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(1));  
• +2 for defendant’s conviction for violating 18 U.S.C. 
§ 1956 (see U.S.S.G. § 2S1.1(b)(2)(B)).  (ECF 1188; 
11/15/21 Tr. at 4:9-19.) 
The Court rejected defendant’s argument that he qualified as a minor 
participant in the scheme for purposes of USSG § 3B1.2.  
 
When sentencing defendant, the Court examined the Section 
 
3 The Court applied what it considered to be the “the most charitable 
analysis [of the loss attributable to the conspiracy that] the 
defense can get”.  (ECF 1188; 11/15/21 Tr. 4:9 – 4:12.)   
 
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW     Document 1448     Filed 04/08/24     Page 8 of 12   Page ID
#:21150

 
7 
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
3553(a) factors, and found that “the fraud here was horrific and 
calculated and calloused and resulted in losses to a very vulnerable 
program imposed at a critical time in the country's history.”  (ECF 
1188; 11/15/21 Tr. 25:7-10.)  During the sentencing hearing, the 
Court also explained that it believed that defendant “lied when he 
testified” at trial.  (Id. at 13:5-14:7.)  The Court found 
defendant’s testimony to be “patently incredible” and “totally 
implausible.”  (Id.)  This led the Court to find that defendant had 
“perjured himself.”  (Id.) 
 
Based on the Court’s consideration of the advisory Guidelines 
and the Section 3553(a) factors, the Court imposed a sentence of 60 
months’ imprisonment, which included 36 months for the underlying 
offenses (namely, conspiracy to commit bank fraud and wire fraud 
(count 1), numerous substantive counts of wire fraud and bank fraud 
(counts 2-20), and conspiracy to commit money laundering (count 26)), 
and 24 months for aggravated identity theft (count 24).  At the 
sentencing hearing, the Court explained that “judges have discretion 
to impose the most lenient sentence necessary in their discretion, 
and that is what I think I am doing.”  (ECF 1188; 11/15/21 Tr. 25:23–
25.)  The Court also ordered supervised release for five years, a 
special assessment of $2,200, and restitution in the amount of 
17,723,141.26. (ECF 1265.) 
 
Defendant’s wife, Tamara Dadyan, was sentenced to 130-months’ 
imprisonment.  Defendant’s brother, Richard Ayvazyan, was sentenced 
to 17 years’ imprisonment. 
D. 
Defendant’s Appeal  
On appeal, defendant argued that his convictions were not 
supported by sufficient evidence and that the Court erred in its 
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW     Document 1448     Filed 04/08/24     Page 9 of 12   Page ID
#:21151

 
8 
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
application of the Guidelines and by failing to invite his 
allocution.  The Ninth Circuit rejected virtually all of defendant’s 
challenges, affirming as to defendant’s jury convictions and the 
Court’s application of the Guidelines.  Memorandum, United States v. 
Artur Ayvazyan, No. 21-50302 (9th Cir.) (Aug. 7, 2023) (ECF 104-1.)  
Specifically, the Ninth Circuit found there was sufficient evidence 
to support all of defendant’s convictions and affirmed this Court’s 
application of the 16-level loss enhancement and 2-level 
sophisticated means enhancement, as well as the Court’s rejection of 
the minor role adjustment.  (Id.)  The Ninth Circuit, however, 
vacated in part because the Court did not invite allocution and 
remanded the case back to the Court for defendant’s de novo 
resentencing.  (Id.)4   
III. THE COURT SHOULD IMPOSE THE SAME SENTENCE AS BEFORE 
The Court correctly calculated defendant’s sentencing range at 
70 to 87 months, reflecting an offense level of 27 based on the 
rulings that were subsequently affirmed by the Ninth Circuit.  The 
Court’s below-Guidelines sentence of 36 months’ imprisonment (not 
including the 24-month mandatory consecutive sentence for aggravated 
identity theft) was within the Court’s discretion and reflected the 
extremely serious nature of defendant’s crimes, his role in the 
offenses relative to his co-conspirators, the fact that he perjured 
himself at trial, and numerous other factors that compelled a 
substantial custodial sentence.   
 
4 In a separately filed opinion, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the 
Court’s judgment as to defendant’s restitution obligation.  
Memorandum, United States v. Artur Ayvazyan, No. 21-50302 (9th Cir.) 
(Aug. 7, 2023) (ECF 99-1.)     
 
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW     Document 1448     Filed 04/08/24     Page 10 of 12   Page ID
#:21152

 
9 
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
The factual record with respect to this case remains the same -- 
and if anything, the record with respect to defendant is worse at 
this stage of the proceedings.  Specifically, after he was sentenced 
in this case, defendant sustained two separate significant state 
court convictions, both in the Superior Court of California, County 
of Los Angeles.  First, on June 13, 2023, defendant was sentenced to 
seven years in state prison (to be served concurrently to his federal 
sentence in this case) as a result of his pleading guilty to multiple 
felonies (including conspiracy to commit grand theft, money 
laundering, mortgage fraud, identity theft, and counterfeiting) 
arising out of a sprawling mortgage-fraud-related conspiracy in which 
he was charged with numerous co-conspirators, wholly separate from 
the conduct for which he was convicted here.  See California Superior 
Court Case No. BA484293 (Cal. Sup. Ct. June 13, 2023).  Second, on 
November 21, 2023, defendant separately was sentenced to three years 
in state prison for rape.  See California Superior Court Case No. 
XNWLA096433-01 (Cal. Sup. Ct. Nov. 21, 2023).  Defendant’s record of 
other transgressions thus has only become more clear since his prior 
sentencing hearing, as he proceeds to resentencing solely because of 
one procedural error during the initial sentencing hearing.  
In sum, the Court’s findings with respect to the sufficiency of 
the evidence and applicability of the advisory Guidelines has been 
affirmed on appeal, and the factual record in the instant case 
remains the same.  Whatever potential mitigating circumstances 
defendant seeks to muster at this stage of the proceedings should be 
considered within the total scope of his personal history and 
characteristics under Section 3553(a), including his most recent 
convictions in California state court.  Taken as a whole, the Court 
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW     Document 1448     Filed 04/08/24     Page 11 of 12   Page ID
#:21153

 
10 
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
should impose at re-sentencing the same sentence as it previously 
imposed. 
IV. 
CONCLUSION 
For the aforementioned reasons, the government respectfully 
requests that the Court sentence defendant to 60 months total 
imprisonment (comprised of 36 months to be concurrently served on 
counts 1-20 and 26, and the mandatory consecutive term of 24 months 
on count 24), five years of supervised release, order defendant to 
pay $17,723,141.26 in restitution, and order $2,200 in special 
assessments.   
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW     Document 1448     Filed 04/08/24     Page 12 of 12   Page ID
#:21154

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.cacd.802533.1448.0.pdf

Size

173,179 bytes

SHA-256

875ff88312f6f03469ddba06236e5ab39944a589cebb8e49f5c1b7cd391ca314

Our copy

gov.uscourts.cacd.802533.1448.0.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)