Letter re response to the defendant's objections… — Letter re response to the defendant's objections to the… (Dkt. 65)

Record facts

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York · No. 1:22-cr-00020-FB · Doc. 65 · 2025-03-04 · Docket on CourtListener

Full text

U.S. Department of Justice 
 
 
United States Attorney 
Eastern District of New York 
 
CWE/AA/JB 
271 Cadman Plaza East 
F. #2020R00955 
Brooklyn, New York 11201 
 
March 4, 2025 
 
By ECF and E-mail 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The Honorable Frederic Block 
United States District Judge 
Eastern District of New York 
225 Cadman Plaza East 
Brooklyn, New York 11201 
 
Re: 
United States v. Anuli Okeke 
Criminal Docket No. 22-20 (FB) 
 
Dear Judge Block: 
 
The government respectfully submits this letter in advance of the defendant Anuli 
Okeke’s sentencing, which is scheduled for March 7, 2025.  The government responds to two 
objections in the defendant’s sentencing memorandum.  Def. Mem., ECF No. 62.  Specifically, 
the defense errs in (a) its objection to the sophisticated means enhancement, id. at 7, and (b) its 
blanket objection to the offense conduct, id. 
I. 
The Sophisticated Means Enhancement Is Warranted 
Under U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(10)(C), a two-level sentencing enhancement applies if 
the offense involved “sophisticated means,” which the Guidelines define as “especially complex 
or especially intricate offense conduct pertaining to the execution or concealment of an offense.”  
In this case, the sophisticated means enhancement applies because the defendant 
abused her insider knowledge to manipulate weaknesses in the bank’s internal controls and 
security protocols to both execute and avoid detection of the scheme.  As proven at trial, 
surveillance footage showed the defendant moving to blind spots in the bank branch to divide up 
stolen funds. Gov. Ex. 514; see also Tr. 107-10 (testimony that bank managers were required to 
examine blind spots on branch cameras).  Courts have found that exploiting institutional 
weaknesses for financial fraud constitutes sophisticated means. See United States v. Amico, 416 
F.3d 163, 169 (2d Cir. 2005) (affirming enhancement where the defendant exploited procedural 
loopholes to misappropriate funds); United States v. Jackson, 346 F.3d 22, 25 (2d Cir. 2003),  
(holding that structuring transactions and avoiding detection mechanisms justified the 
enhancement), judgment vacated on other grounds, 543 U.S. 1097 (2005).  Similarly, the 
defendant and her co-conspirators at times wrote out and cashed cashier’s check and starter 
Case 1:22-cr-00020-FB     Document 65     Filed 03/04/25     Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 1510

 
2
checks with false notations (e.g. that they were being paid to employees or going to payroll or 
other legitimate expenses).  PSR ¶ 18; Tr. 186-187 (co-conspirator testimony that, in 
consultation with the defendant, accounts were liquidated via starter checks or cashier’s checks, 
among other means).  
The defendant also recruited co-conspirators, including borrowers and corrupt tax 
preparers, who the defendant coached into creating forged tax documents in order to fool the 
bank and others into believing the borrowers had real business activity.  Tr. 570-575, 588-589, 
693.  These practices, which took place repetitively across numerous loans, allowed the 
defendant and her co-conspirators to rapidly liquidate bank accounts when they were funded 
with PPP loans, while at the same time disguising the true purpose and destination of the funds.  
Id.  The enhancement applies where, as here, a defendant employs “repetitive and coordinated 
conduct designed to evade detection” or exploits financial systems in a way that increases the 
complexity of the offense.  See United States v. Fofanah, 765 F.3d 141, 146 (2d Cir. 2014); 
Amico, 416 F.3d at 169 (creation of false documents, among other things, warranted 
sophisticated means enhancement).   
Evaluating the entire scheme, all of which includes defrauding a complex federal 
disaster loan program, the recruitment of employees at a bank and outside tax preparers, the 
recruitment of individuals willing to submit fraudulent loan applications for fictitious entities, 
and the creation of fraudulent tax documents sufficient to survive scrutiny from within her bank, 
all underscores that the defendant’s fraudulent scheme involved sophisticated means.  Even if 
“each step in the scheme was not elaborate,” the scheme in total was “sophisticated in the way all 
the steps were linked together” so that Okeke could “exploit different vulnerabilities in different 
systems in a coordinated way.”  Jackson, 346 F.3d at 25. 
II. 
The Court Should Overrule the Blanket Objection to the Offense Conduct 
The Court should overrule the generalized and unsupported defense objection to 
the PSR’s offense conduct.  Def. Mem. 7 (“Paragraphs 16-22 of the PSR describe offense and 
other conduct allegedly committed by Okeke. Because Okeke pled not guilty and the case 
proceeded to trial, she respectfully objects to the factual allegations in these paragraphs.”).  The 
defense fails to identify any specific error, does not cite any trial transcripts, nor reference any of 
the many exhibits produced and admitted at trial.  The government respectfully incorporates by 
reference its sentencing memorandum (ECF No. 61), which describes in detail the offense 
conduct that was proven at trial, including with citation to specific transcript testimony and 
exhibits, and which amply supports the PSR. 
 
 
Case 1:22-cr-00020-FB     Document 65     Filed 03/04/25     Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 1511

 
3
III. 
Conclusion 
 
 
For the reasons set forth above, the government respectfully requests that the 
Court overrule the defense objections. 
Respectfully submitted, 
 
JOHN J. DURHAM 
United States Attorney 
 
By: 
 /s/ Chand Edwards-Balfour  
 
Chand Edwards-Balfour 
 
Adam Amir 
 
Assistant U.S. Attorneys 
 
(718) 254-7000 
GLENN S. LEON 
Chief, Fraud Section 
 
By: 
/s/ Jennifer Bilinkas 
 
Jennifer Bilinkas   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  Trial Attorney, Department of Justice 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
cc:  
Clerk of the Court (FB) (by ECF) 
 
Defense Counsel of Record (by ECF and email) 
  
U.S. Probation Officer (by email) 
Case 1:22-cr-00020-FB     Document 65     Filed 03/04/25     Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 1512

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.nyed.474435.65.0.pdf

Size

174,951 bytes

SHA-256

bde61860028d88c80cfd365d109912a7d33764b4c8fe6bbc01e2587de717879e

Our copy

gov.uscourts.nyed.474435.65.0.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)