PLEA Agreement as to Francesco Distefano — USA v. Distefano (Dkt. 82, N.D. Ill.)

Record facts

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois · No. 1:24-cr-00424 · Doc. 82 · 2025-06-25 · Docket on CourtListener

Full text

Case: 1:24-cr-00424 Document #: 82 Filed: 06/25/25 Page 1 of 35 PagelD #:314

FILED

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS JUN 25 2025
EASTERN DIVISION
Judge Jeremy C. Daniel

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA United States District Court

No. 24CR424-1
Vv.

Judge Jeremy C. Daniel

FRANCESCO DISTEFANO

PLEA AGREEMENT
This Plea Agreement between the United States Attorney for the Northern
District of Illinois, ANDREW S. BOUTROS, and defendant FRANCESCO
DISTEFANO, and his attorney, ROBERT A. FISHER, is made pursuant to Rule 11
of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and is governed in part by Rule
11(c)(1)(A), as more fully set forth below. The parties to this Agreement have agreed
upon the following:
Charges in This Case
1. The second superseding indictment in this case charges defendant with
wire fraud, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1348 (Counts 1-11);
making a false statement to a financial institution in violation of Title 18, United
States Code, Section 1014 (Count 12); and money laundering, in violation of Title 18,
United States Code, Section 1957(a) (Counts 18-17).
2. Defendant has read the charges against him contained in the
superseding indictment, and those charges have been fully explained to him by his

attorney.
Case: 1:24-cr-00424 Document #: 82 Filed: 06/25/25 Page 2 of 35 PagelD #:315

3. Defendant fully understands the nature and elements of the crimes with

which he has been charged.
Charge to Which Defendant Is Pleading Guilty

4, By this Plea Agreement, defendant agrees to enter a voluntary plea of
guilty to Count One of the second superseding indictment. In addition, as further
provided below, defendant agrees to the entry of a forfeiture judgment.

Factual Basis

5. Defendant will plead guilty because he is in fact guilty of the charge
contained in Count One of the second superseding indictment. In pleading guilty,
defendant admits the following facts and that those facts establish his guilt beyond a
reasonable doubt, and establish a basis for forfeiture of the property described
elsewhere in this Plea Agreement:

The Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) and the Economic Injury Disaster
Loan (EIDL) program provided economic relief to businesses experiencing a loss of
revenue as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. DISTEFANO was familiar with these
programs and knew that, in order to obtain a PPP loan, a business was required to
provide information about, among other things, the number of individuals it
employed and its average monthly payroll and, in order to obtain a loan as part of the
EIDL program, a business applicant was required to provide truthful information
about the number of employees as well as the business’ gross revenues and cost of

goods sold, among other things. DISTEFANO also knew that the information in the

AVA
Case: 1:24-cr-00424 Document #: 82 Filed: 06/25/25 Page 3 of 35 PagelD #:316

PPP and EIDL applications about the business’ employees, payroll, and revenues was
material to the approval and funding of these loans.

Beginning in March 2020, and continuing through February 2021, in the
Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, and elsewhere, DISTEFANO, together
with co-defendant Sargis Urumieh, knowingly devised, intended to devise, and
participated in a scheme to defraud and to obtain money and property, in connection
with applications for loans and advances under the PPP and the EIDL program on
behalf of businesses which Urumieh owned and controlled, namely, West Cost POS,
Inc. (West Coast) and National POS Inc. (National). These applications contained
materially false statements and misrepresentations concerning, among other things,
the purported entities’ number of employees, gross revenues, and payroll. And, on or
about March 81, 2020, DISTEFANO, for the purpose of executing the scheme,
knowingly caused to be transmitted by means of wire communication in interstate
commerce certain writings, signs, and signals, namely, an internet transmission of
an EIDL application on behalf of West Coast to the U.S. Small Business
Administration (SBA).

The West Coast EIDL and EIDL Advance

Following the onset of the pandemic, DISTEFANO and Urumieh discussed
obtaining an EIDL on behalf of Urumieh’s company, West Coast. Following that
discussion, on or about March 31, 2020, DISTEFANO prepared and filed an EIDL

application on behalf of West Coast through the SBA online portal with Urumieh’s

eye
Case: 1:24-cr-00424 Document #: 82 Filed: 06/25/25 Page 4 of 35 PagelD #:317

knowledge and consent. DISTEFANO acknowledges that the transmission of this
application over the Internet involved an interstate wire communication.

In completing this application, DISTEFANO falsely represented that West
Coast had 12 employees as of January 31, 2020, gross revenues of $5,000,000, and
cost of goods sold of $4,500,000, even though DISTEFANO knew that West Coast did
not have that many employees or that amount of cost of goods sold. As a result of
these false representations, on May 22, 2020, the SBA disbursed EIDL funds of
$149,900 into an account J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, in the name of West Coast, for
which Urumieh was the sole signatory (“Account 6250”). The SBA also disbursed a
$10,000 advance grant into Account 6250 on or about April 20, 2020, based upon
DISTEFANO’s request.

The West Coast PPP Loan and Second Round Application

On approximately July 17, 2020, DISTEFANO prepared and provided to
Urumieh, and Urumieh thereafter signed and submitted to Arkansas Capital
Corporation (Arkansas Capital), an application for a PPP loan for West Coast in the
amount of $1,090,890. Arkansas Capital was a community development finance
company that originated PPP loans in partnership Encore Bank. In connection with
the loan application, DISTEFANO and Urumieh falsely represented that West Coast
had 67 employees (after reporting 14 employees on the initial application form) and
an average monthly payroll of $436,356, even though West Coast did not have that

number of employees or an average payroll in that amount.

4
Case: 1:24-cr-00424 Document #: 82 Filed: 06/25/25 Page 5 of 35 PagelD #:318

In support of the application, DISTEFANO also created and provided to
Urumieh, and Urumieh electronically submitted to Arkansas Capital, a fictitious
ADP “Payroll Run Summary Report” and a fictitious IRS Form 940. Based upon the
false statements, on July 22, 2020, Arkansas Capital and Encore Bank funded a PPP
loan in the amount of $1,090,890, into an account at Encore Bank in the name of West
Coast, that was opened to receive the PPP proceeds.

On approximately July 28, 2020, DISTEFANO opened a payroll account in the
name of West Coast at ADP, with himself as the account administrator, for the
purpose of removing PPP proceeds from West Coast’s account at Encore Bank and
making it appear that these proceeds were being used for payroll. Between July of
2020 and December of 2020, approximately $783,012 of the West Coast PPP proceeds
were transferred from the West Coast account at Encore Bank to the payroll account
at ADP held for the benefit of West Coast. Between July of 2020 and December of
2020, DISTEFANO told ADP to transfer funds it held for West Coast to
approximately eight “employee” payees including himself, Urumieh, and three of
Urumieh’s family members. Specifically, ADP paid $84,600 as “wages” to Urumieh
and approximately $169,769 as “wages” to three of Urumieh’s family members. ADP
also paid DISTEFANO $389,539, which Distefano identified to ADP as non-wage
payments.

On February 5, 2021, DISTEFANO electronically submitted a second round

PPP application to Arkansas Capital on behalf of West Coast in which he fraudulently

Py
Case: 1:24-cr-00424 Document #: 82 Filed: 06/25/25 Page 6 of 35 PagelD #:319

sought to obtain an additional $1,380,655. In support of this application,
DISTEFANO falsely represented that West Coast had 14 employees and monthly
payroll of approximately $552,262, knowing that West Coast neither had that many
employees or amount of payroll. The loan was not funded.

The National PPP Loan and Second Round Application

Between approximately July 25, 2020, and July 28, 2020, DISTEFANO
prepared and provided to Urumieh, and Urumieh then submitted to Arkansas
Capital, an application for a PPP loan in the amount of $1,722,645.50 on behalf of
National. In the loan application, DISTEFANO and Urumieh falsely represented that
that National had 123 employees and an average monthly payroll of $689,058.20,
even though, in reality, National was not an operating business and had no
employees.

In support of the application, DISTEFANO assisted Urumieh in creating and
sending fabricated documents to the lender in support of the loan. These documents
included a fictitious ADP “Payroll Run Summary Report” and a fictitious IRS Form
940, both falsely reporting that National paid $8,272,696.45 in wages in 2019 that
DISTEFANO created and provided to Urumieh to submit to Arkansas Capital.

On July 28, 2020, DISTEFANO created a fictitious payroll spreadsheet that
listed 122 fictitious employees, each with a reported salary of between $98,121 and
$98,952. Urumieh sent these false documents to Arkansas Capital in support of the

National PPP loan application. Based upon the false statements, on July 29, 2020,

AC
Case: 1:24-cr-00424 Document #: 82 Filed: 06/25/25 Page 7 of 35 PagelD #:320

Encore Bank disbursed a PPP loan in the amount of $1,722,654 into an account at
Encore Bank in the name of National that was opened to receive the PPP proceeds.

On approximately July 28, 2020, DISTEFANO opened a payroll account in the
name of National at ADP, with himself as the account administrator, in order to make
it appear that National had employes and payroll. Nevertheless, the ADP account set
up by DISTEFANO identified only six employees rather than the 123 listed in the
loan application. Of these six employees, DISTEFANO identified four as W-2 wage
earners, with the remaining two — DISTEFANO and his acquaintance — listed as non-
employees receiving 1099 compensation.

On February 5, 2021, DISTEFANO electronically submitted a second round
PPP application to Arkansas Capital on behalf of National in which he and Urumieh
fraudulently sought to obtain an additional $1,994,717. In support of this application,
DISTEFANO falsely represented that National had 53 employees and monthly
payroll of approximately $797,887, knowing that National did have that number of
employees or amount of monthly payroll. This loan was not funded.

Proceeds from the West Coast and National Loans

On July 31, 2020, DISTEFANO caused $388,821 of the National PPP loan
proceeds to be transferred into his account at U.S. Bank (“Account 9624”) via the
National payroll account at ADP. That same day, DISTEFANO caused funds to be
drawn from Account 9624 to make payments to American Express totaling

$188,368.73 and to purchase three cashier’s checks totaling $183,205.33 to purchase

—

+

y?
Case: 1:24-cr-00424 Document #: 82 Filed: 06/25/25 Page 8 of 35 PagelD #:321

or complete the purchase of a 2016 Lamborghini Huracan; 2020 Land Rover Range
Rover Evoque; and 2017 Maserati Ghibli. On or about August 6, 2020, DISTEFANO
used a further approximately $95,000 in National PPP loan proceeds that Urumieh
caused to be transferred directly from National’s account at Encore Bank to
DISTEFANO’s Account 9624 to purchase a 2017 Porsche 911 Carrera.

The total amount of funds DISTEFANO received for his personal benefit from
the National PPP loan was approximately $814,780. This amount is comprised of
transfers into Account 9624 totaling approximately $719,780 from the payroll account
at ADP held for the benefit of National between July 2020 and January 2021, and the
$95,000 transferred directly from National’s account at Encore Bank to Account 9624
on August 6, 2020.

From July 2020 through January 2021, approximately $329,815 of the West
Coast PPP loan proceeds were transferred to Account 9624 for DISTEFANO’s
personal benefit. |

Defendant acknowledges that the actual loss attributable to the scheme is
approximately $2,973,444 and that the total of actual loss and intended loss for that
scheme is approximately $6,348,816.

Urumieh’s Purchase of Property in Glendale California

After obtaining funds from the EIDL and PPP first-round loan applications
filed for West Coast and National, Urumieh entered into a contract to purchase a

home located at 29XX E. Chevy Chase Dr. in Glendale, California (the “Glendale

EDS
Case: 1:24-cr-00424 Document #: 82 Filed: 06/25/25 Page 9 of 35 PagelD #:322

Property”). DISTEFANO’s understanding was that Urumieh used funds obtained
from the West Coast and National PPP loans for the down payment to purchase the
Glendale Property. Thereafter, DISTEFANO and Urumieh caused fraudulent
mortgage loan applications to be filed to enable Urumieh to complete the purchase.

Between approximately September 9, 2020, and October 19, 2020,
DISTEFANO assisted Urumieh in submitting to Better Mortgage an application for
a residential real estate loan in the amount of approximately $746,555 to purchase
the Glendale Property, knowing that such application contained false and fraudulent
representations regarding: (a) monthly income; and (b) the truthfulness and accuracy
of the application and supporting documents.

The Uniform Residential Loan Application that DISTEFANO submitted online
to Better Mortgage on behalf of Urumieh represented that Urumieh had monthly
income of $233,333. In support of the application, DISTEFANO created two
fraudulent individual income tax returns (IRS Forms 1040-X) falsely representing
that Urumieh had adjusted gross income of $8,908,233.43 in 2019 and adjusted gross
income of $7,659,188.50 in 2018, and a fraudulent letter from “ER TAX SERVICES”
explaining the IRS Forms 1040-X, and caused the documents to be submitted to
Better Mortgage. Additionally, DISTEFANO and Urumieh submitted to Better
Mortgage a fraudulent “Large Deposit Explanation” that falsely attributed a

$450,000 deposit of proceeds from the National first draw PPP loan into an account
Case: 1:24-cr-00424 Document #: 82 Filed: 06/25/25 Page 10 of 35 PagelD #:323

that Urumieh controlled at Chase Bank ending in 6250, as proceeds of a liquidation
of Urumieh’s “stock options on TastyTrade.”

On or about October 19, 2020, Urumieh, after he was informed by Better
Mortgage that his loan application had been rejected by underwriting because of
“discrepancies in income in the amount of millions of dollars from what was reported
to the IRS when your taxes were filed as opposed to the tax returns that [Better
Mortgage] received,” sent an email to DISTEFANO and Individual A stating “[t]hats
what I was concerned about” and asking “[w]hat now?” DISTEFANO responded to
this email with a false narrative for Urumieh to provide to Better Mortgage.

After Urumieh’s mortgage loan application was rejected by Better Mortgage,
between approximately October 30, 2020 and December 4, 2020, DISTEFANO,
Urumieh, and Individual A caused to be submitted to Planet Home an application on
behalf of Urumieh for a residential real estate loan in the amount of approximately
$765,600 to purchase the Glendale Property, knowing that the application contained
false and fraudulent representations regarding: (a) monthly income; and (b) the
truthfulness and accuracy of the application and supporting documents.

The Uniform Residential Loan Application to Planet Home falsely represented
that Urumieh was employed by National and West Coast, both of Addison, Illinois,
with a total monthly income of $30,833. To corroborate false representations made in
the application, DISTEFANO, Urumieh, and Individual A, created and submitted to

Planet Home, a fraudulent Sales Purchase Agreement that was backdated to August

10
Case: 1:24-cr-00424 Document #: 82 Filed: 06/25/25 Page 11 of 35 PagelD #:324

1, 2020. More specifically, the document was built from a template Individual A and
DISTEFANO received from a then-relative of DISTEFANO. After the document was
modified to reflect a fictional business sale transaction, the document was docusigned
by DISTEFANO from his house in Addison, Illinois, and by Urumieh from his house
in Glendale, California, on November 27, 2020. The docusign receipt page was then
altered so that it appeared that the document had been docusigned on August 1, 2020.
The document was then submitted to Planet Home and falsely recounted that West
Coast was sold by Urumieh to DISTEFANO’s company, Distefano Enterprises LLC,
for $2,000,000 payable in installments, and that Urumieh was to enter into a 10-year
employment agreement with Distefano Enterprises at an annual salary of $365,000.

6. Defendant also acknowledges that, for the purpose of computing his
sentence under the Sentencing Guidelines, the following conduct constitutes relevant
conduct under Guideline § 1B1.3:

EIDL and EIDL Advance Obtained by Distefano Enterprises

Simultaneous to his scheme with Urumieh, DISTEFANO was engaged in his
own scheme to obtain EIDL and PPP funds through fraudulent applications filed for
his own company, Distefano Enterprises LLC. On March 31, 2020, DISTEFANO
applied for an EIDL on behalf of Distefano Enterprises through the SBA online
portal. In this application, he falsely represented that Distefano Enterprises had 12
employees as of January 31, 2020, gross revenues of $2,500,000, and cost of goods

sold of $2,120,000. At the time of the application, DISTEFANO knew that these

11
Case: 1:24-cr-00424 Document #: 82 Filed: 06/25/25 Page 12 of 35 PagelD #:325

representations were false. As a result of these representations, on June 10, 2020, the
SBA disbursed EIDL funds totaling $149,900 into DISTEFANO’s Account 9624. On
June 18, 2020, the SBA disbursed a $10,000 EIDL advance grant into Account 9624.

Distefano Enterprises PPP Loan and Second Round Application

On or around April 27, 2020, DISTEFANO submitted to U.S. Bank an
application requesting a PPP loan in the amount of $237,500, on behalf of Distefano
Enterprises. In the initial loan application, DISTEFANO falsely stated that Distefano
Enterprises had 14 employees and an average monthly payroll of $95,000.
DISTEFANO supported this loan application with a fraudulent ADP “Payroll Run
Report” that he created.

On or about May 138, 2020, DISTEFANO submitted a revised fraudulent PPP
loan application to U.S. Bank, in which he falsely represented that Distefano
Enterprises had 14 employees with an average monthly payroll of $79,166, once again
knowing these presentations were false. Based upon the false statements, on May 13,
2020, U.S. Bank disbursed a PPP loan in the amount of $197,915 into Account 9624.

On October 29, 2020, DISTEFANO electronically submitted to U.S. Bank a
PPP Loan Forgiveness Application Form 3508EZ on behalf of Distefano Enterprises.
In the application, he falsely reported that during the period of May 13, 2020 to
October 27, 2020, the business had payroll costs of $255,478.54. Additionally,

DISTEFANO submitted, as supporting documentation, a fictitious ADP report listing

12

Ar
Case: 1:24-cr-00424 Document #: 82 Filed: 06/25/25 Page 13 of 35 PagelD #:326

7 employees and a fictitious IRS Form 941 for the 8rd quarter of 2020. This loan
forgiveness application was not granted.

On approximately February 5, 2021, DISTEFANO electronically submitted a
second round PPP application to Arkansas Capital Corporation on behalf of Distefano
Enterprises in which he fraudulently sought to obtain an additional loan in the
amount of $83,921. In support of this application, DISTEFANO falsely represented
that Distefano Enterprises had 14 employees and a monthly payroll of approximately
$33,568. This loan was not funded.

Defendant acknowledges that the actual loss attributable to the Distefano
Scheme is approximately $357,815 and that the total of actual loss and intended loss
for that scheme is approximately $441,736.

Unemployment Benefits

Beginning in March 2020 and continuing into February 2021, DISTEFANO
applied for and received unemployment benefits by falsely claiming that he was
unemployed due to COVID-19 since March 29, 2020. In fact, DISTEFANO was not
unemployed and his business continued to operate. Based upon his false statements,
the Illinois Department of Employment Security electronically deposited
approximately $29,581.50 in unemployment benefits into Account 9624.

Beginning in approximately August of 2020 and continuing into September of
2021, DISTEFANO applied for and received unemployment benefits in the name of

his father, claiming that his father was a self-employed driver/sales worker who

13

my
Case: 1:24-cr-00424 Document #: 82 Filed: 06/25/25 Page 14 of 35 PagelD #:327

became unemployed due to COVID-19. In reality, DISTEFANO’s father was retired.
Based upon DISTEFANO’s false statements, the Illinois Department of Employment
Security disbursed $8,059.50 in unemployment benefits on account of the claim, and
DISTEFANO received the funds.

Defendant’s Fraudulent Petition Filed with FBI

On February 17, 2021, four motor vehicles and $677,932.25 on deposit in
Account 9624 were seized pursuant to seizure warrants. On April 28, 2021, a Notice
of Seizure of Property and Initiation of Administrative Forfeiture Proceedings was
issued and served on the defendant.

On May 3, 2022, defendant filed his Petition for Remission/Mitigation seeking
the return of the $677,932.25 seized from Account 9624. In this application, defendant
represented that the funds transferred to him by West Coast and National were “for
actual work done.” Defendant falsely represented in the application that he “was a
bona fide purchaser or seller of the forfeited property for value, AND [he] did not
know and was without cause to believe that the property was subject to forfeiture at
the time [he] acquired [his] interest in the property.” In support of his petition,
defendant submitted four counterfeit invoices, purporting to bill four different
customers a total of $1,010,000 care of Urumieh and West Coast. These invoices did
not evidence real obligations, and were submitted to deceive the government as to

why defendant had received funds from the West Coast and National loans. The

14

Ful
Case: 1:24-cr-00424 Document #: 82 Filed: 06/25/25 Page 15 of 35 PagelD #:328

Petition for Remission/Mitigation was electronically signed by defendant under
penalty of perjury.

7. The foregoing facts are set forth solely to assist the Court in determining
whether a factual basis exists for defendant’s plea of guilty and criminal forfeiture,
and are not intended to be a complete or comprehensive statement of all the facts
within defendant’s personal knowledge regarding the charged crimes and related
conduct.

Maximum Statutory Penalties

8. Defendant understands that the charge to which he is pleading guilty
carries the following statutory penalties:

a. A maximum sentence of 20 years’ imprisonment. This offense also
carries a maximum fine of $250,000, or twice the gross gain or gross loss resulting
from that offense, whichever is greater. Defendant further understands that the
judge also may impose a term of supervised release of not more than three years.

b. Defendant further understands that the Court must order
restitution to the victims of the offense in an amount determined by the Court. The
Court also may order restitution to any persons as agreed by the parties.

c. Pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 3013, defendant
will be assessed $100 on the charge to which he has pled guilty, in addition to any

other penalty or restitution imposed.

15
Case: 1:24-cr-00424 Document #: 82 Filed: 06/25/25 Page 16 of 35 PagelD #:329

Sentencing Guidelines Calculations

9. Defendant understands that, in determining a sentence, the Court is
obligated to calculate the applicable Sentencing Guidelines range, and to consider
that range, possible departures under the Sentencing Guidelines, and other
sentencing factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), which include: (i) the nature and
circumstances of the offense and the history and characteristics of the defendant; (ii)
the need for the sentence imposed to reflect the seriousness of the offense, promote
respect for the law, provide just punishment for the offense, afford adequate
deterrence to criminal conduct, protect the public from further crimes of the
defendant, and provide the defendant with needed educational or vocational training,
medical care, or other correctional treatment in the most effective manner; (iii) the
kinds of sentences available; (iv) the need to avoid unwarranted sentence disparities
among defendants with similar records who have been found guilty of similar
conduct; and (v) the need to provide restitution to any victim of the offense.

10. For purposes of calculating the Sentencing Guidelines, the parties agree
on the following points:

a. Applicable Guidelines. The Sentencing Guidelines to be
considered in this case are those in effect at the time of sentencing. The following
statements regarding the calculation of the Sentencing Guidelines are based on the

Guidelines Manual currently in effect, namely the 2024 Guidelines Manual.

16
Case: 1:24-cr-00424 Document #: 82 Filed: 06/25/25 Page 17 of 35 PagelD #:330

b. Offense Level Calculations.

1. The base offense level is 7, pursuant to Guideline
§ 2B1.1(a)(1).

ii. The government’s position is that pursuant to Guideline
§ 2B1.1()(1)@) and Application Note 3(D)Gi), the offense level is increased by 18
levels because the intended loss of approximately $6,827,596 attributable to the
offense of conviction and relevant conduct is between $3,500,000 and $9,500,000.
Defendant’s position is that the offense level is increased by 16, pursuant to Guideline
§ 2B1.1(b)(1)d) because the actual loss of $3,368,900 is more than $1,500,000 but less
than $3,500,000. The parties acknowledge that the loss amount attributable to the
offense may change prior to sentencing depending on collateral recovery and the
value of any outstanding collateral, pursuant to Application Note 3(D)(i) of Guideline
§ 2B1.1.

iii. Pursuant to Guideline § 2B1.1(b)(17)(A), the offense level
is increased by 2 levels because the offense involved obtaining more than $1,000,000
in gross receipts from one or more financial institutions.

iv. Pursuant to Guideline § 3C1.1, the offense level is
increased by 2 levels because the defendant willfully attempted to impede and
obstruct the investigation by filing his fraudulent Petition for Remission/Mitigation

with the FBI.

17
Case: 1:24-cr-00424 Document #: 82 Filed: 06/25/25 Page 18 of 35 PagelD #:331

v. The government understands that defendant will
truthfully admit the conduct comprising the offense(s) of conviction, and truthfully
admit or not falsely deny any additional relevant conduct for which the defendant is
accountable under Guideline § 1B1.3. Therefore, based upon facts now known to the
government, defendant has clearly demonstrated a recognition and affirmative
acceptance of personal responsibility for his criminal conduct. If the government does
not receive additional evidence in conflict with this provision, and if defendant
continues to accept responsibility for his actions within the meaning of Guideline
§ 3E1.1(a), including by furnishing the United States Attorney's Office and the
Probation Office with all requested financial information relevant to his ability to
satisfy any fine or restitution that may be imposed in this case, a two-level reduction
in the offense level is appropriate.

vi. In accord with Guideline § 3E1.1(b), defendant has timely
notified the government of his intention to enter a plea of guilty, thereby permitting
the government to avoid preparing for trial and permitting the Court to allocate its
resources efficiently. Therefore, as provided by Guideline § 3E1.1(b), if the Court
determines the offense level to be 16 or greater prior to determining that defendant
is entitled to a two-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility, the government
will move for an additional one-level reduction in the offense level.

c. Criminal History Category. With regard to determining

defendant’s criminal history points and criminal history category, based on the facts

18
Case: 1:24-cr-00424 Document #: 82 Filed: 06/25/25 Page 19 of 35 PagelD #:332

now known to the government, defendant’s criminal history points equal 1 and
defendant’s criminal history category is I:

i. On or about December 19, 2028, defendant was convicted
of Nonconsensual Dissemination of Sexual Images in the Circuit Court of Cook
County in case 22CR0622401 and sentenced to 18 months’ probation. Pursuant to
Guidelines § 4A1.1(c), defendant receives 1 criminal history point.

d. Anticipated Advisory Sentencing Guidelines Range.
Therefore, based on the facts now known to the government, the government’s
position is that the anticipated offense level is 26 which, when combined with the
anticipated criminal history category of 1, results in an anticipated advisory
sentencing guidelines range of 63 to 78 months’ imprisonment, in addition to any
supervised release, fine, and restitution the Court may impose. Defendant’s position
is that the anticipated offense level is 24, and that the anticipated advisory
sentencing guidelines range is 51 to 63 months’ imprisonment.

e. Defendant and his attorney and the government acknowledge
that the guidelines calculations set forth in this Agreement are preliminary in nature,
and are non-binding predictions upon which neither party is entitled to rely.
Defendant understands the above calculations are based on information now known
to the government and that further review of the facts or applicable legal principles
may lead the government to change its position on the guidelines calculations.

Defendant understands that the Probation Office will conduct its own investigation

19

vit
Case: 1:24-cr-00424 Document #: 82 Filed: 06/25/25 Page 20 of 35 PagelD #:333

and that the Court ultimately determines the facts and law relevant to sentencing,
and that the Court’s determinations govern the final guideline calculation.
Accordingly, the validity of this Agreement is not contingent upon the defendant’s,
the probation officer’s, or the Court’s concurrence with the above calculations, and
defendant shall not have a right to withdraw his plea on the basis of a change in the
government's position on the guideline calculations or the Court’s rejection of these
calculations.

f. Both parties expressly acknowledge that this Agreement is not
governed by Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(c)(1)(@), and that errors in applying or interpreting
any of the sentencing guidelines may be corrected by either party prior to sentencing.
The parties may correct these errors by a statement to the Probation Office or the
Court, setting forth any changes in either parties’ position regarding the guidelines
calculations. The validity of this Agreement will not be affected by such corrections,
and defendant shall not have a right to withdraw his plea, nor the government the
right to vacate this Agreement, on the basis of such corrections.

Cooperation
11. Defendant agrees he will fully and truthfully cooperate in any matter in
which he is called upon to cooperate by a representative of the United States
Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Illinois. This cooperation shall include
providing complete and truthful information in any investigation and pre-trial

preparation and complete and truthful testimony in any criminal, civil, or

20

ar,
Case: 1:24-cr-00424 Document #: 82 Filed: 06/25/25 Page 21 of 35 PagelD #:334

administrative proceeding. Defendant agrees to the postponement of his sentencing
until after the conclusion of his cooperation.

Agreements Relating to Sentencing

12. At the time of sentencing, the government shall make known to the
sentencing judge the extent of defendant’s cooperation. If the government determines
that defendant has continued to provide full and truthful cooperation as required by
this agreement, then the government shall move the court, pursuant to Guideline
§ 5K1.1, to depart downward from the low end of the applicable guideline range in an
amount to be determined by the government at the time of sentencing. Defendant
shall be free to recommend any sentence, including a noncustodial sentence.
Defendant understands that the decision to depart from the applicable guideline
range rests solely with the Court.

13. If the government does not move the Court, pursuant to Guideline
§ 5K1.1, to depart from the applicable guideline range, as set forth above, the
preceding paragraph of this Agreement will be inoperative, both parties shall be free
to recommend any sentence, and the Court shall impose a sentence taking into
consideration the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) as well as the Sentencing
Guidelines without any downward departure for cooperation pursuant to § 5K1.1.
Defendant may not withdraw his plea of guilty because the government has failed to

make a motion pursuant to Guideline § 5K1.1.

21

2
Case: 1:24-cr-00424 Document #: 82 Filed: 06/25/25 Page 22 of 35 PagelD #:335

14. It is understood by the parties that the sentencing judge is neither a
party to nor bound by this Agreement and may impose a sentence up to the maximum
penalties as set forth above. Defendant further acknowledges that if the Court does
not accept the sentencing recommendation of the parties, defendant will have no right
to withdraw his guilty plea.

15. Regarding restitution, defendant acknowledges that pursuant to Title
18, United States Code, Section 3663A, the Court must order defendant, together
with any jointly liable co-defendants, to make full restitution to the victims in an
amount to be determined by the Court at sentencing, which amount shall reflect
credit for any funds repaid prior to sentencing. Defendant also agrees to pay
additional restitution, arising from defendant's fraudulent filing of unemployment
claims with the Illinois Department of Employment Security in the amount of
$37,641, and additional restitution to the SBA arising from defendant’s filing of
fraudulent PPP and EIDL applications in the amount of $357,815, pursuant to Title
18, United States Code, Sections 3663(a)(3) and 3664.

16. Restitution shall be due immediately, and paid pursuant to a schedule
to be set by the Court at sentencing. Defendant acknowledges that pursuant to Title
18, United States Code, Section 3664(k), he is required to notify the Court and the
United States Attorney's Office of any material change in economic circumstances

that might affect his ability to pay restitution.

22

Fudd
Case: 1:24-cr-00424 Document #: 82 Filed: 06/25/25 Page 23 of 35 PagelD #:336

17. Defendant agrees to pay the special assessment of $100 at the time of
sentencing with a cashier’s check or money order payable to the Clerk of the U.S.
District Court.

18. Defendant agrees that the United States may enforce collection of any
fine or restitution imposed in this case pursuant to Title 18, United States Code,
Sections 3572, 3613, and 3664(m), and Title 31, United States Code, Sections 3711,
3716, and 3728, notwithstanding any payment schedule set by the Court. In the event
of the death or dissolution of, or the government’s inability to locate the named
recipient(s) of restitution in the Judgment and Commitment Order, the defendant
agrees to not oppose efforts by the government to obtain an order substituting as
payee a representative of the victim’s estate, another family member, or any other
person or successor entity appointed as suitable by the court, or the Crime Victims
Fund.

19. After sentence has been imposed on the count to which defendant pleads
guilty as agreed herein, the government will move to dismiss the remaining counts of
the superseding indictment, as well as the indictment as to defendant.

Forfeiture

20. Defendant understands that, by pleading guilty, he will subject to
forfeiture to the United States all right, title, and interest that he has in any property
constituting or derived from proceeds obtained, directly or indirectly, as a result of

the offense.

23

ane
Case: 1:24-cr-00424 Document #: 82 Filed: 06/25/25 Page 24 of 35 PagelD #:337

21. Defendant agrees to forfeiture of the following specific property to the
United States: the 2016 Lamborghini Huracan, VIN: ZHWUC2ZF1GLA04413; the
2017 Porsche 911 Carrera S Coupe, VIN: WPOAB2A9XHS123487; the 2017 Maserati
Ghibli S, VIN: ZAM57RTA1H1230190; the 2020 Land Rover Evoque SE, VIN:
SALZP2FX7LH006525; and $677,932.25 seized from Account 9624 (collectively, the
“Subject Property”). In doing so, defendant admits that the property described above
represents proceeds defendant obtained as a result of the offense, as alleged in the
superseding indictment. Defendant consents to the immediate entry of a preliminary
order of forfeiture as to this specific property, thereby extinguishing any right, title,
or interest defendant has in it. If any of the specific property is not yet in the custody
of the United States, defendant agrees to seizure of that property so that it may be
disposed of according to law.

22.  Inaddition, defendant agrees to the entry of a personal money judgment
in the amount of $1,049,595, which represents the total amount of proceeds traceable
to the offense received by defendant. Defendant consents to the immediate entry of a
preliminary order of forfeiture setting forth the amount of the personal money
judgment he will be ordered to pay.

23. Defendant admits that because the directly forfeitable property, other
than the specific property noted above, is no longer available for forfeiture as
described in Title 21, United States Code, Section 853(p)(1), the United States is

entitled to seek forfeiture of any other property of defendant, up to the value of the

24

FY
Case: 1:24-cr-00424 Document #: 82 Filed: 06/25/25 Page 25 of 35 PagelD #:338

personal money judgment, as substitute assets pursuant to Title 21, United States
Code, Section 853(p)(2).

24. Defendant acknowledges that on or about March 31, 2022, the United
States commenced a civil forfeiture action, case no. 22 CV 1684, in the Northern
District of Illinois, alleging that the Subject Property set forth above is subject to
forfeiture. Defendant acknowledges that he had notice of the proceeding and admits
that the property is subject to forfeiture as alleged. Further, by signing this
agreement, defendant relinquishes any right, title, and interest he may have had in
this property, withdraws any previously filed petitions, claims, and answers, and
understands that an order of forfeiture has been entered, or will be entered, thereby
extinguishing any claim he may have had in the property.

25. Defendant understands that forfeiture shall not be treated as
satisfaction of any fine, restitution, cost of imprisonment, or any other penalty the
Court may impose upon defendant in addition to the forfeiture judgment. In this case,
however, the United States Attorney’s Office will recommend to the Attorney General
that any net proceeds derived from any forfeited assets be remitted or restored to
eligible victims of the offense pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 981(e),
Title 28, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 9, and other applicable law.

26. Defendant agrees to waive all constitutional, statutory, and equitable
challenges in any manner, including but not limited to direct appeal or a motion

brought under Title 28, United States Code, Section 2255, to any forfeiture carried

25

ens
Case: 1:24-cr-00424 Document #: 82 Filed: 06/25/25 Page 26 of 35 PagelD #:339

out in accordance with this agreement on any grounds, including that the forfeiture
constitutes an excessive fine or punishment. The waiver in this paragraph does not
apply to a claim of involuntariness or ineffective assistance of counsel. Defendant
further agrees not to challenge or seek review of the civil or administrative forfeiture
of any property identified in this agreement subject to forfeiture, and will not assist

any third party with regard to such challenge or review.

Acknowledgments and Waivers Regarding Plea of Guilty

Nature of Agreement

27. This Agreement is entirely voluntary and represents the entire
agreement between the United States Attorney and defendant regarding defendant’s
criminal liability in case 24-CR-424-1.

28. This Agreement concerns criminal liability only. Except as expressly set
forth in this Agreement, nothing herein shall constitute a limitation, waiver, or
release by the United States or any of its agencies of any administrative or judicial
civil claim, demand, or cause of action it may have against defendant or any other
person or entity. The obligations of this Agreement are limited to the United States
Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Illinois and cannot bind any other
federal, state, or local prosecuting, administrative, or regulatory authorities, except

as expressly set forth in this Agreement.

26

Pr
Case: 1:24-cr-00424 Document #: 82 Filed: 06/25/25 Page 27 of 35 PagelD #:340

29. Defendant understands that nothing in this Agreement shall limit the
Internal Revenue Service in its collection of any taxes, interest or penalties from
defendant or defendant’s partnership or corporations.

Waiver of Rights

30. Defendant understands that, by pleading guilty, he surrenders certain
rights, including the following:

a. Trial rights. Defendant has the right to persist in a plea of not
guilty to the charges against him, and if he does, he would have the right to a public
and speedy trial.

i. The trial could be either a jury trial or a trial by the judge
sitting without a jury. However, in order that the trial be conducted by the judge
sitting without a jury, defendant, the government, and the judge all must agree that
the trial be conducted by the judge without a jury.

ll. If the trial is a jury trial, the jury would be composed of
twelve citizens from the district, selected at random. Defendant and his attorney
would participate in choosing the jury by requesting that the Court remove
prospective jurors for cause where actual bias or other disqualification is shown, or
by removing prospective jurors without cause by exercising peremptory challenges.

iii. If the trial is a jury trial, the jury would be instructed that
defendant is presumed innocent, that the government has the burden of proving

defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and that the jury could not convict him

27
Case: 1:24-cr-00424 Document #: 82 Filed: 06/25/25 Page 28 of 35 PagelD #:341

unless, after hearing all the evidence, it was persuaded of his guilt beyond a
reasonable doubt and that it was to consider each count of the superseding indictment
separately. The jury would have to agree unanimously as to each count before it could
return a verdict of guilty or not guilty as to that count.

li. If the trial is held by the judge without a jury, the judge
would find the facts and determine, after hearing all the evidence, and considering
each count separately, whether or not the judge was persuaded that the government
had established defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

ili. At a trial, whether by a jury or a judge, the government
would be required to present its witnesses and other evidence against defendant.
Defendant would be able to confront those government witnesses and his attorney
would be able to cross-examine them.

iv. At a trial, defendant could present witnesses and other
evidence in his own behalf. If the witnesses for defendant would not appear
voluntarily, he could require their attendance through the subpoena power of the
Court. A defendant is not required to present any evidence.

Vv. At a trial, defendant would have a privilege against self-
incrimination so that he could decline to testify, and no inference of guilt could be
drawn from his refusal to testify. If defendant desired to do so, he could testify in his

own behalf.

28
Case: 1:24-cr-00424 Document #: 82 Filed: 06/25/25 Page 29 of 35 PagelD #:342

lv. With respect to forfeiture, defendant understands that if
the case were tried before a jury, he would have a right to retain the jury to determine
whether the government had established the requisite nexus between defendant’s
offense and any specific property alleged to be subject to forfeiture.

b. Waiver of appellate and collateral rights. Defendant further
understands he is waiving all appellate issues that might have been available if he
had exercised his right to trial. Defendant is aware that Title 28, United States Code,
Section 1291, and Title 18, United States Code, Section 3742, afford a defendant the
right to appeal his conviction and the sentence imposed. Acknowledging this, if the
government makes a motion at sentencing for a downward departure pursuant to
Guideline § 5K1.1, defendant knowingly waives the right to appeal his conviction,
any pre-trial rulings by the Court, and any part of the sentence (or the manner in
which that sentence was determined), including any term of imprisonment and fine
within the maximums provided by law, and including any order of restitution or
forfeiture, in exchange for the concessions made by the United States in this
Agreement. In addition, if the government makes a motion at sentencing for a
downward departure pursuant to Guideline § 5K1.1, defendant also waives his right
to challenge his conviction and sentence, and the manner in which the sentence was
determined, in any collateral attack or future challenge, including but not limited to
a motion brought under Title 28, United States Code, Section 2255. The waiver in

this paragraph does not apply to a claim of involuntariness or ineffective assistance

29

VA4
Case: 1:24-cr-00424 Document #: 82 Filed: 06/25/25 Page 30 of 35 PagelD #:343

of counsel, nor does it prohibit defendant from seeking a reduction of sentence based
directly on a change in the law that is applicable to defendant and that, prior to the
filing of defendant’s request for relief, has been expressly made retroactive by an Act
of Congress, the Supreme Court, or the United States Sentencing Commission.

31. Defendant understands that, by pleading guilty, he is waiving all the
rights set forth in the prior paragraphs, with the exception of the appellate rights
specifically preserved above. Defendant’s attorney has explained those rights to him,

and the consequences of his waiver of those rights.

Presentence Investigation Report/Post-Sentence Supervision

32. Defendant understands that the United States Attorney’s Office in its
submission to the Probation Office as part of the Pre-Sentence Report and at
sentencing shall endeavor to ensure that the relevant facts and sentencing factors, as
applied to the facts, are brought to the District Court’s attention fully and accurately,
including facts related to the defendant’s criminal conduct and related conduct, and
any relevant information concerning the defendant’s background, character, and
conduct that the District Court may consider under 18 U.S.C. § 3661 in imposing a
sentence.

33. Defendant agrees to truthfully and completely execute a Financial
Statement (with supporting documentation) prior to sentencing, to be provided to and
shared among the Court, the Probation Office, and the United States Attorney’s

Office regarding all details of his financial circumstances, including his recent income

30

P40
Case: 1:24-cr-00424 Document #: 82 Filed: 06/25/25 Page 31 of 35 PagelD #:344

tax returns as specified by the probation officer. Defendant understands that
providing false or incomplete information, or refusing to provide this information,
may be used as a basis for denial of a reduction for acceptance of responsibility
pursuant to Guideline § 3E1.1 and enhancement of his sentence for obstruction of
justice under Guideline § 3C1.1, and may be prosecuted as a violation of Title 18,
United States Code, Section 1001 or as a contempt of the Court.

34. For the purpose of monitoring defendant’s compliance with his
obligations to pay a fine and restitution during any term of supervised release or
probation to which defendant is sentenced, defendant further consents to the
disclosure by the IRS to the Probation Office and the United States Attorney’s Office
of defendant’s individual income tax returns (together with extensions,
correspondence, and other tax information) filed subsequent to defendant’s
sentencing, to and including the final year of any period of supervised release or
probation to which defendant is sentenced. Defendant also agrees that a certified copy
of this Agreement shall be sufficient evidence of defendant’s request to the IRS to
disclose the returns and return information, as provided for in Title 26, United States
Code, Section 6103(b). |

Other Terms
35. Defendant agrees to cooperate with the United States Attorney’s Office

in collecting any ordered fine and restitution for which defendant is liable, including

31

I
Case: 1:24-cr-00424 Document #: 82 Filed: 06/25/25 Page 32 of 35 PagelD #:345

providing financial statements and supporting records as requested by the United
States Attorney’s Office.

36. Regarding matters relating to the Internal Revenue Service, defendant
agrees as follows (nothing in this paragraph, however, precludes defendant or
defendant’s partnerships or corporations from asserting any legal or factual defense
to taxes, interest, and penalties that may be assessed by the IRS):

a. Defendant agrees to cooperate with the Internal Revenue Service
in any tax examination or audit of defendant and defendant’s partnerships or
corporations which directly or indirectly relates to or arises out of the course of
conduct that defendant has acknowledged in this Agreement, by transmitting to the
IRS original records or copies thereof, and any additional books and records that the
IRS may request.

37. Defendant will not object to a motion brought by the United States
Attorney’s Office for the entry of an order authorizing disclosure of documents,
testimony and related investigative materials which may constitute grand jury
material, preliminary to or in connection with any judicial proceeding, pursuant to
Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e)(3)(E)@). In addition, defendant will not object to the
government’s solicitation of consent from third parties who provided records or other
materials to the grand jury pursuant to grand jury subpoenas, to turn those materials
over to the Civil Division of the United States Attorney’s Office, or an appropriate

federal or state agency (including but not limited to the Internal Revenue Service),

32

PU
Case: 1:24-cr-00424 Document #: 82 Filed: 06/25/25 Page 33 of 35 PagelD #:346

for use in civil or administrative proceedings or investigations, rather than returning
them to the third parties for later summons or subpoena in connection with a civil or
administrative proceeding involving, or investigation of, defendant or defendant’s
partnerships or corporations. Nothing in this paragraph or the preceding paragraph
precludes defendant or defendant’s partnerships or corporations from asserting any
legal or factual defense to taxes, interest, and penalties that may be assessed by the
IRS.

38. Defendant understands that, pursuant to Title 12, United States Code,
Sections 1785(d) and 1829, his conviction in this case will prohibit him from directly
or indirectly participating in the affairs of any financial institution insured by the
National Credit Union Share Insurance Fund or the Federal Deposit Insurance
Corporation, except with the prior written consent of the National Credit Union
Administration Board or the FDIC and, during the ten years following his conviction,
the additional approval of this Court. Defendant further understands that if he
knowingly violates this prohibition, he may be punished by imprisonment for up to
five years, and a fine of up to $1,000,000 for each day the prohibition is violated.

39. Defendant understands that, if convicted, a defendant who is not a
United States citizen may be removed from the United States, denied citizenship, and
denied admission to the United States in the future.

Conclusion

33

ay)
Case: 1:24-cr-00424 Document #: 82 Filed: 06/25/25 Page 34 of 35 PagelD #:347

40. Defendant understands that this Agreement will be filed with the Court,
will become a matter of public record, and may be disclosed to any person.

41. Defendant understands that his compliance with each part of this
Agreement extends throughout the period of his sentence, and failure to abide by any
term of the Agreement is a violation of the Agreement. Defendant further
understands that in the event he violates this Agreement, the government, at its
option, may move to vacate the Agreement, rendering it null and void, and thereafter
prosecute defendant not subject to any of the limits set forth in this Agreement, or
may move to resentence defendant or require defendant’s specific performance of this
Agreement. Defendant understands and agrees that in the event that the Court
permits defendant to withdraw from this Agreement, or defendant breaches any of
its terms and the government elects to void the Agreement and prosecute defendant,
any prosecutions that are not time-barred by the applicable statute of limitations on
the date of the signing of this Agreement may be commenced against defendant in
accordance with this paragraph, notwithstanding the expiration of the statute of
limitations between the signing of this Agreement and the commencement of such
prosecutions.

42. Should the judge refuse to accept defendant’s plea of guilty, this

Agreement shall become null and void and neither party will be bound to it.

34
Case: 1:24-cr-00424 Document #: 82 Filed: 06/25/25 Page 35 of 35 PagelD #:348

43. Defendant and his attorney acknowledge that no threats, promises, or
representations have been made, nor agreements reached, other than those set forth
in this Agreement, to cause defendant to plead guilty.

44. Defendant acknowledges that he has read this Agreement and carefully
reviewed each provision with his attorney. Defendant further acknowledges that he
understands and voluntarily accepts each and every term and condition of this

Agreement.

AGREED THIS DATE: une Zs. ZIZS

UAL EK Le ee Zea (Nth

ANDREW S. BOUTROS () CESCO ‘, AN

United States Attorney rf Fe

JEFFR ~ SNELL ‘God A. Datendkat|

Assistant U.S. Attorney Attorney for Deland t
35

Air

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.ilnd.464178.82.0.pdf

Size

2,097,439 bytes

SHA-256

593b07fb1ccc3a56f6fa732f82b3a9861422eb73795dcfe268c7d811094080fa

Our copy

gov.uscourts.ilnd.464178.82.0.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)