Plea Agreement and Statement of Facts Relevant to Sentencing — United States v. Agbure (Dkt. 154, D. Colo.)

Summary

A plea agreement and statement of facts relevant to sentencing in United States v. Nyerhovwo Presley Agbure, Criminal Case No. 23-cr-00300-CNS-3, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado, filed February 18, 2025 as Document 154. It is submitted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Craig G. Fansler and the defendant, represented by Josh Amos. The defendant agrees to plead guilty to count 2 of the Indictment, conspiracy to commit money laundering under 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h), and to waive certain appellate and collateral attack rights. He also agrees to pay restitution in an amount to be set at sentencing, including at least $644,300 to the SBA plus interest. The agreement closes with the signature blocks of the defendant, defense counsel and the prosecutor.

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Record facts

Full text

Text recognized from a scanned document; may contain errors.

Case No. 1:23-cr-00300-CNS Document154 _ filed 02/18/25 USDC Colorado pgi1
                                      of 22

                 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                     FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

 Criminal Case No. 23-cr-00300-CNS-3

 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

             Plaintiff,

 v.

 3. NYERHOVWO PRESLEY AGBURE,

             Defendant.

              PLEA AGREEMENT AND STATEMENT OF FACTS
                        RELEVANT TO SENTENCING

      The United States of America, by and through Craig G. Fansler, Assistant

United States Attorney for the United States Attorney's Office for the District of

Colorado (the “government”), and the defendant, NYERHOVWO PRESLEY AGBURE

(Agbure ” or the “defendant”), personally and by counsel, Josh Amos, submit the

following Plea Agreement pursuant to D.C.COLO.LCrR 11.1. This agreement binds

only the Criminal Division of the United States Attorney’s Office for the District of

Colorado and the defendant.

                                I. AGREEMENT

 A.    Defendant’s Plea of Guilty:

       The defendant agrees:

       (1)   ‘to plead guilty to count 2 of the Indictment charging a violation of 18
             U.S.C. § 1956(h) (Conspiracy to Commit Money Laundering);

       (2)   to waive certain appellate and collateral attack rights, as explained in

                                                                               COURT
                                                                              EXHIBIT

Case No. 1:23-cr-O0300-CNS Document154 filed 02/18/25 USDC Colorado pg2
of 22

detail below;

(3) to pay restitution to the victims of this offense in an amount to be
determined at sentencing, to include at least $644,300 in restitution to
the SBA plus interest accruing through the date of sentencing. In
advance of the sentencing hearing, the parties intend to confer and
endeavor to reach an agreement as to the amount of restitution;

(4) not to contest forfeiture, as more fully described below.
B. The Government’s Obligations:

This agreement is made pursuant to Fed.R.Crim.P.11(c)(1)(A). The government
agrees not to bring other charges against the defendant based on information
currently known to the United States Attorney’s Office, District of Colorado. Should
the plea of guilty be vacated on the motion of the defendant, the government may, in
its sole discretion, file a superseding indictment.

Provided the defendant does not engage in prohibited conduct or otherwise
implicate U.S.S.G. §§ 3C1.1 and 3E1.1, cmt. n.4 between the guilty plea and
sentencing in this case, the government agrees that the defendant should receive a
two-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1(a)
and agrees to file a motion requesting that the defendant receive a one-level reduction
for acceptance of responsibility pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1(b). The government
agrees to recommend a term of imprisonment not greater than the low-end of the
applicable guideline range for an offense level of 28 and the criminal history category
as calculated by the court at sentencing.

C. Defendant’s Waiver of Appeal:

The defendant is aware that 18 U.S.C. § 3742 affords the right to appeal the

Case No. 1:23-cr-00300-CNS Document154 filed 02/18/25 USDC Colorado pg3
of 22

sentence, including the manner in which that sentence is determined. Understanding
this, and in exchange for the concessions made by the government in this agreement,
the defendant knowingly and voluntarily waives the right to appeal any matter in
connection with this prosecution, conviction, or sentence (including the restitution
order), unless it meets one of the following criteria:

(1) the sentence exceeds the maximum sentence provided in the statute of
conviction, 18 U.S.C. § 1956;

(2) the sentence exceeds the top end of the advisory guideline range from
the Sentencing Guidelines that applies for the defendant’s criminal
history (as determined by the district court) at a total offense level of 28;
or

(3) the government appeals the sentence imposed.

If the first criterion applies, the defendant may appeal only the issue of how his
sentence exceeds the statutory maximum sentence. But if one of the latter two criteria
apply, the defendant may appeal on any ground that is properly available in an
appeal that follows a guilty plea.

The defendant also knowingly and voluntarily waives the right to challenge this
prosecution, conviction, or sentence (including the restitution order) in any collateral
attack (Gncluding, but not limited to, a motion brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2255). This
waiver provision does not prevent the defendant from seeking relief otherwise
available in a collateral attack on any of the following grounds:

(1) the defendant should receive the benefit of an explicitly retroactive
change in the sentencing guidelines or sentencing statute;

(2) the defendant was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel; or

(8) the defendant was prejudiced by prosecutorial misconduct.

Case No. 1:23-cr-00300-CNS Document154 filed 02/18/25 USDC Colorado pg4
of 22

The defendant also waives the right to appeal any sentence imposed below or
within the Guideline range upon a revocation of supervised release in this case
number, except where the defendant unsuccessfully objects to the grade of violation
applied by the court during the district court revocation proceedings. In that event,
this waiver does not apply and the defendant may appeal the sentence imposed upon a
revocation of supervised release, even if that sentence falls below or within the
guideline range calculated by the court.

The defendant also waives the right to appeal the denial of any motion filed
under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) where such denial rests in any part upon the court’s
determination that a sentence reduction is not warranted under the factors set forth
in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). This waiver does not apply to an appeal of a denied
§ 3582(c)(1)(A)G) motion where the district court, in denying the motion on § 3553(a)
grounds, failed to consider the facts allegedly establishing extraordinary and
compelling circumstances as part of its § 3553(a) analysis.

D. Forfeiture of Assets:

The defendant admits the forfeiture allegations. The defendant further agrees to
forfeit to the United States immediately and voluntarily any and all assets and
property, or portions thereof, subject to forfeiture, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 982(a)(1)
whether in the possession or control of the United States, the defendant, the
defendant's nominees, or elsewhere. The assets to be forfeited specifically include but
are not limited to a money judgment in the amount of the proceeds obtained by the

conspiracy. The defendant agrees and consents to the forfeiture of these assets

Case No. 1:23-cr-00300-CNS  Documenti154 filed 02/18/25 USDC Colorado pg5
of 22

pursuant to any federal criminal, civil, and/or administrative forfeiture action. The
defendant understands that pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 983, the seizing agency is
required to send notice in non-judicial civil forfeiture matters. Having been advised of
said rights regarding notice, the defendant hereby knowingly and voluntarily waives
his rights to notice being sent within the time frames in 18 U.S.C. § 983 and to having
the property returned to him if notice is not sent within the prescribed time frames.
The defendant further agrees to the forfeiture of any substitute assets up to the value
of any property described above pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 853(p) and Federal Rules of
Criminal Procedure 32.2(e).

Forfeiture of the defendant's assets shall not be treated as satisfaction of any
fine, restitution, cost of imprisonment, or any other penalty this Court may impose
upon the defendant in addition to forfeiture.

The United States Attorney's Office for the District of Colorado will recommend to
the Attorney General that any net proceeds derived from the sale of the judicially
forfeited assets be remitted or restored to eligible victims of the offense, for which the
defendant has pleaded guilty, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 981(e), 28 C.F.R. pt. 9, and any
other applicable laws, if the legal requirements for recommendation are met and to
relay any such payments made to victims through remission or restoration to the
Clerk of Court to be offset against restitution. The defendant understands that the
United States Attorney’s Office only has authority to recommend such relief and that
the final decision of whether to grant relief rests solely with the Department of

Justice, which will make its decision in accordance with applicable law.

Case No. 1:23-cr-00300-CNS Document154 filed 02/18/25 USDC Colorado pg6

of 22

I]. ELEMENTS OF THE OFFENSE

A, Count 2 (Money Laundering Conspiracy)

The parties agree that the elements of Count 2, a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956¢h),
Money Laundering Conspiracy, are as follows:

1.

the defendant agreed with at least one other person to commit money
laundering in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(1)(A)Q@) (Promotion) and
18 U.S.C. §1956(a)(1)(B)G) (Concealment);

the defendant knew the essential objectives of the conspiracy;

the defendant knowingly and voluntarily participated in the conspiracy;
and

there was interdependence among the members of the conspiracy; that
is, the members, in some way or manner, intended to act together for
their shared mutual benefit within the scope of the conspiracy charged.

Tenth Circuit Pattern Jury Instructions for Conspiracy, § 2.19 (2021) (modified) (no
10th Circuit Pattern Instruction); see 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h); United States v. Keck, 643
F.3d 789, 794 (10th Cir. 2011); United States v. Fishman, 645 F.3d 1175, 1187 (10th
Cir. 2011); Whitfield v. United States, 543 U.S. 209, 215-216 (2005) (there is no overt
act requirement for a 1956(h) conspiracy).

The parties agree that the elements of the first object of the conspiracy, Money
Laundering (Concealing Illegal Proceeds), a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(1\B)(),
are as follows:

1.
2,

the defendant conducted a financial transaction;
the transaction involved the proceeds of wire fraud;

the defendant knew that the property involved in the financial
transaction represented the proceeds of some form of unlawful activity;
and

the defendant conducted the financial transaction knowing it was
designed in whole or in part to conceal or disguise the nature, location,
source, ownership, or control of the proceeds of unlawful activity.

See 10th Cir. Crim. J.I. § 2.73.1, United States v. Gonzalez, 918 F.3d 808, 812 (10th

Cir. 2019).

The parties agree that the elements of the second object of the conspiracy, Money

6

Case No. 1:23-cr-00300-CNS Document154 filed 02/18/25 USDC Colorado pg/7
of 22

Laundering (Promotion), a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(1)(A)(ji), are as follows:

1. the defendant conducted or attempted to conduct a financial
transaction;
2. the transaction involved the proceeds of wire fraud;

3. the defendant knew that the property involved in the financial
transaction represented the proceeds of some form of unlawful activity;
and

4, the defendant conducted the financial transaction with the intent to
promote the carrying on of wire fraud.

See 10th Cir. Crim. J.I. § 2.73, United States v. Johnson, 821 F.3d 1194, 1203 (10th
Cir. 2016).

Ill, STATUTORY MAXIMUM SENTENCE

The maximum sentence for a violation of Count 2 of the Indictment is: not more
than 20 years’ imprisonment; maximum fine of not more than $500,000 or twice the
value of the property involved in the transaction, whichever is greater, or both fine
and imprisonment; not more than three years of supervised release; $100 mandatory
victim’s fund assessment fee; and restitution in an amount to be determined at the
time of sentencing.

IV, COLLATERAL CONSEQUENCES

The conviction may cause the loss of civil rights, including, but not limited to,
the rights to possess firearms, vote, hold elected office, and sit on a jury. The
conviction may cause the defendant to be deported and removed from the United
States, or confined indefinitely if there is no country to which the defendant may be
deported, denied future admission into the United States, and/or to be denied

citizenship.

V. STIPULATION OF FACTS
7

Case No. 1:23-cr-00300-CNS Document154 filed 02/18/25 USDC Colorado pg8
of 22

The factual basis for this plea is set forth below. Because the Court must, as
part of its sentencing methodology, compute the advisory guideline range for the
offense of conviction, consider relevant conduct, and consider the other factors set
forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553, additional facts may be included below which are pertinent to
those considerations and computations. To the extent the parties disagree about the
facts set forth below, the stipulation of facts identifies which facts are known to be in
dispute at the time of the execution of the plea agreement.

This stipulation of facts does not preclude either party from presenting non-
contradictory additional facts which are relevant to the Court’s guideline computation,
to other 18 U.S.C. § 3553 factors, or to the Court’s overall sentencing decision.

The parties stipulate that the following facts are true and correct.
A. Background on Relevant Federal Programs

Between March 2020 and at least April 2021, Congress authorized emergency
financial assistance to millions of Americans suffering adverse economic effects
caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, including through the Economic Injury Disaster
and Paycheck Protection Programs (EIDL and PPP, respectively) administered by the
Small Business Administration (SBA) and by providing funding to extend and expand
state unemployment insurance (UI) benefit programs. The Internal Revenue Service
(RS) paid refunds to taxpayers whose federal income tax withheld for the year
exceeded the total tax they owe. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the Department of
Treasury and IRS also provided Economic Impact Payments, also referred to as tax

stimulus payments, based on information provided on the previous year’s tax return

8

Case No. 1:23-cr-00300-CNS Documenti154 _ filed 02/18/25 USDC Colorado pg9
of 22

and deposited these payments in the same bank account that received the previous
year’s refund.
B. Summary of the Fraud Ring

Between March 2020 and July 2022, Ikponmwosa Erhinmwinrose and co-
conspirators (“Fraud Ring”) obtained more than $8,119,037 from government
programs (“Wire Fraud Proceeds”) by using information of identity-theft victims to
submit (1) fraudulent applications under the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP),
Economic Injury Disaster Loan (EIDL) program, and state unemployment insurance
(UI) benefit programs, and (2) fraudulent tax returns to obtain tax refunds and

Economic Impact payments. Wire Fraud Proceeds included:

Begin and
Program End Dates Loss Amount

Victim

April 2020 —
EIDL Sept. 2020 $2,332,600 SBA
Feb. 2021 ~
PPP June 2021 $ 5,704,967 Various
Lenders
At least 2020- States including CO, IL, KS,
UI 2021 $422,047 NJ, NY, OH, WA
April 2020-
Tax Refunds July 2022 $81,470 IRS
April 2020-
Total July 2022 $8,541,084

C. Summary of the Money Laundering Conspiracy
Upon receipt of the Wire Fraud Proceeds, Agbure, along with his co-defendants
Erhinmwinrose, Oreoluwa Elegba, Victor Tobore, and other co-conspirators, conducted
and coordinated monetary transactions with the objectives to conceal and disguise the

nature, location, source, ownership, and control of Wire Fraud Proceeds and to promote

Case No. 1:23-cr-O00300-CNS Document 154 filed 02/18/25 USDC Colorado pg
10 of 22

the carrying on of wire fraud.
D. Agbure’s Conduct and Role in the Conspiracy
During the term of the conspiracy, Agbure controlled a bank account in the
name of Laurence Iyapo that received Wire Fraud Proceeds and then transferred the
funds to other bank accounts managed by co-conspirators who could convert the Wire Fraud
Proceeds to cash and money orders, without the intermediate transactions being
directly traceable to the Fraud Ring organizers.

I, Concealment money laundering through Green Dot bank accounts

One method utilized was for Erhinmwinrose and other conspirators to open
Green Dot bank accounts under various names of identity theft victims including B.J.,
K.T., M.P., P.S., R.W., S.R., and W.S. and request disbursement of Wire Fraud
Proceeds to these bank accounts and associated debit cards.

Initially, Erhinmwinrose and other conspirators directed money runners
including Elegba and Tobore to visit retail stores such as Walmart to purchase debit
cards. The money runners then sent the debit card information to Erhinmwinrose
using messaging applications such as WhatsApp so that the bank accounts could be
registered online in other names before Erhinmwinrose and other conspirators listed
the accounts on fraudulent applications to receive fraud proceeds.

At the time Erhinmwinrose and other conspirators registered the debit cards,
on some of the debit cards, Agbure’s address was listed as the address of record for
mailing debit cards and other bank communications.

After funds were deposited to the debit cards, the debit cards were used to

10

Case No. 1:23-cr-O00300-CNS Document 154 filed 02/18/25 USDC Colorado pg
11 of 22

purchase blank money orders from multiple retail stores and the U.S. Postal Service
and to withdrew cash from banks or ATMs in close geographic proximity over a short
time frame, typically for amounts at or below $3,000. For example, after a Green Dot
debit card in the name of identity-theft victim W.S. was registered at Agbure’s
address, the SBA disbursed an EIDL for $22,000. Within days, the debit card was
used near Agbure’s residence to purchase over $13,000 in money orders from retail
stores and over $7,000 in U.S. Postal Service money orders using the EIDL funds.
Subsequently, those money orders were deposited in bulk deposits of money orders to
bank accounts used by other conspirators, including bank accounts in the name of MH
Trucking and Matthew Howard but controlled by Tobore.

2. Agbure uses bank account in name of Laurence Iyapo to launder $85,400
in. KE IDL proceeds

On July 27, 2020 and September 4, 2020, checking accounts using the
synthetic identity’ of Laurence Iyapo were opened at Wells Fargo bank. Agbure
used these bank accounts in Iyapo’s name.

On August 3, 2020, the SBA transferred $85,400 to one of the Iyapo accounts
for an EIDL intended for identity-theft victim W.L. After these funds were received,
Agbure provided seven business and personal checks from the Iyapo bank account

to false identities or entities associated with Elegba and Tobore:

1 Synthetic identities use a combination of real information—such as real social
security numbers— with other false information so that the resulting identity is not
associated with a real person. In these circumstances, names rather than initials are

used.
11

pg

Case No. 1:23-cr-O0300-CNS Document 154 filed 02/18/25 USDC Colorado
12 of 22
Check # Check Date Recipient Amount
101 8/17/2020 | Matthew Howard $ 6,500.00
102 8/17/2020 | Matthew Howard § 3,210.00
103 8/19/2020 | MH Trucking $ 15,462.00
105 9/2/2020 | MH Trucking $ 27,800.00
109 8/19/2020 | MH Trucking $ 13,400.00
115 8/20/2020 | AR Logistics $ 15,000.00
126 10/3/2020 | MH Trucking $ 2,450.00
Total $ 83,822.00

The conspirators then laundered the Wire Fraud Proceeds through other bank
accounts before returning money to Agbure. As an example, after the $15,000 check
was deposited into the AR Logistics account that Elegba controlled, Elegba visited
local banks multiple times over a short time period to withdraw amounts at or below
$3,000 from ATMs and amounts below $10,000 from bank tellers. Elegba subsequently
gave the cash he obtained at the direction of Agbure to Agbure.

3. Agbure uses Iyapo bank account to launder PPP proceeds

After a lender deposited a PPP loan intended for identity-theft victim L.R. in the
amount of $451,925 to one of the Iyapo bank accounts in February 2021, the loan
proceeds were immediately wired in four transfers to one of the other [yapo bank
accounts. Agbure then transmitted these proceeds to other conspirators via nine

checks endorsed to corporate entities used by Elegba, Tobore, and Conspirator 2 to

launder funds:

Check # Date Recipient Amount
176 2/22/2021 | WC CONSTRUCTION $ 48,522
178 2/22/2021 | MH TRUCKING $ 9,850
151 2/23/2021 | INTEL STREET INC. $ 62,500
152 2/24/2021 | INTEL STREET INC. $ 62,500

12

Case No. 1:23-cr-00300-CNS Document 154 filed 02/18/25 USDC Colorado pg

13 of 22
177 2/26/2021 | MH TRUCKING $ 8,500
128 3/1/2021 | AR LOGISTICS $ 8,750
179 3/1/2021 | INTEL STREET INC. $ 77,500
180 3/1/2021 | INTEL STREET INC. $ 77,500
154 3/4/2021 | INTEL STREET INC. $ 95,300
Total $ 450,922

In transferring the funds via check to other conspirators to launder, Agbure
knew the transactions were designed to conceal the nature, location, source,
ownership, and control of Wire Fraud Proceeds.

Similarly, after a lender deposited a PPP loan for $450,157.00 intended for
identity-theft victim B.M. to one of the Iyapo bank accounts on April 9, 2021, the
entire amount was transferred to one of the other Iyapo bank accounts before three
business checks were endorsed to a shell corporation run by Conspirator 2 and

laundered through that shell corporation’s bank accounts:

Check # Date Recipient Amount
138 4/12/2021 | INTEL STREET INC. $ 160,000
142 | 4/15/2021 | INTEL STREET INC. $ 170,000
148 | 4/19/2021 | INTEL STREET INC. $ 108,000
Total § 438,000

Co-conspirators including Elegba and Tobore took further steps to launder the
funds, including visiting local banks multiple times over a short time period to
withdraw amounts at or below $3,000 reporting thresholds from ATMs and transferring
money overseas. Financial records indicate that Erhinmwinrose and Conspirator 2
were the conspiracy participants who received the largest share of personal gain from
the criminal activity.

4. Agbure deposits money orders for Tobore to withdraw as cash

13

Case No. 1:23-cr-00300-CNS Document 154 filed 02/18/25 USDC Colorado pg
14 of 22

On multiple occasions, Agbure made bulk deposits of money orders purchased
with Wire Fraud Proceeds to bank accounts including the MH Trucking account for
Tobore to subsequently withdraw as cash. For example, on September 15, Tobore
provided the bank account information for MH Trucking to Agbure. The same day,
Agbure stated in a message that he deposited $21,000 in previously purchased money
orders to this account:

Messages between Agbure (“Odafe,” in blue) and Tobore (in green)

161567821843. whatsapp.net
MH TRUCKING SERVICE LLC
636748862
) 8 — s7speoz0 esa.11 Prqurceo)
Scunces GB)
ia Odafe
K
{) 9asreaze 100-23 pmi(uTc+o)
Sources (2)
Q Odate
21k deposited
Sources (2)
161 $6782184@s. whatezpp.nct a
Abeg help me depasit 25k today
0) 88 opzyzozo 5-54.06 pacuTC+o7
Sources 8)
[or Odafe
Hmmm k
() spzyeozo 5-54.42 PMqUTC+9)
Sevurces (2)
[s2) Odafe
Done
[3 spreo2o 7:46.37 PmiuTe +07

14

Case No. 1:23-cr-00300-CNS Document 154 filed 02/18/25 USDC Colorado pg
15 of 22

September 2020 MH Trucking bank statement

{DEPOSITS AND ADDITIONS|

OaATe GESCAIFTION AMOUNT
090) Deposit 1106214592 $6,500.00
0904 Depost 1106214871 27,800.60

oo0a Depot 194811

Deposit 1949909834 21,000.
rok 15) mam = = Pe y rr)
Dopost 1960210184 Oe
B arse Rol OL Bento nes 20ST é oo bial Lik Cool os Sr ed
“o325 Taopes! 1929638357 35,880 28
ow28 Ceposil 19463153878 10.600 00
LU Tote Denoalts end Ace itlors $184.38 50

The money orders deposited on September 15 included three $1,000 money
orders purchased from a fraudulent EIDL application prepared by Erhinmwinrose
for a fake business named Kathryn’s Furs, submitted using the information of
identity theft victim K.H. Five other money orders were purchased from these same
EIDL proceeds and deposited to an individual account in the name of Matthew
Howard at a different bank. After the money orders were deposited to the MH
Trucking and the Matthew Howard bank accounts, Tobore withdrew the Wire
Funds Proceeds as cash from various banks and ATMs over a short time period.
Tobore subsequently gave the cash to Agbure or Ehrwinmwinrose, i.e. whoever
directed him to obtain and cash the money orders. Tobore received a commission
from the proceeds as payment.

5. Delivery of money to Agbure and Erhinmwinrose and use of proceeds

During the term of the conspiracy, conspirators including Elegba and Tobore
delivered cash to Agbure and Erhinmwinrose, including by depositing cash to
corporate bank accounts linked to Agbure’s businesses.

With part of his share of the proceeds, Agbure purchased multiple properties

15

Case No. 1:23-cr-00300-CNS Document 154 filed 02/18/25 USDC Colorado pg
16 of 22

in Nigeria.
6. Agbure coordinates use of Wire Fraud Proceeds to promote wire fraud
Agbure provided instructions to Tobore to use Wire Fraud Proceeds to
promote wire fraud. In May 2020, Agbure provided Tobore with corporate bank
accounts in Agbure’s name to make cash deposits of Wire Fraud Proceeds to make it
appear that Agbure’s nonoperating businesses were receiving legitimate business

revenues (Agbure messages in blue, Tobore in green):

From, «147049380 Odale
To HBT ETEZIM [ewner)

Bepost the total canon afl ince, Spd them,
S010000 1021 44 PRTC a}

When Tobore responded that there was no PNC Bank locations near Nashville,

Agbure provided different accounts and told Tobore how he could deposit the money:

From: «14703648350 Odale
Te: +16158782184 (owner}

You can do cash to business account
57112020 10:36:48 PM(UTC+0)

From: +46156787184 (owner)
To: + 14703646380 Odate

Ya

SAM12020 10-3724 PMQUTC +D}

Bank statements then confirm that cash deposits were made across the three

16

Case No. 1:23-cr-00300-CNS Document 154 filed 02/18/25 USDC Colorado pg
17 of 22

accounts:

= Your checking account
BANK OF AMERICA “> §

SOHRETN ASSETS HOLDINGS LLC | Account # 33405774 1670 | June 1. 2070 to func 30, 2020

Deposits and other credits
* en

Artount,

6/0120 Courter Credit 11.380,.00

60120 Counter Cros 10.000.00

06/19/20 TO AMERITRADE OES:ACH MICRO IDeZ9PTOCFOS INDNAGBURE NYERHOWWO ca g30
1D:4470533629 PPO

o6f19/20 TD AMERITRADE DESACH MICRO tDaZ9PTOCFOS INDNAGBURE NYERHOVWO co ous
10:4470533629 PPD

06/22/20 Counter Creel 10,000.00

In directing Tobore to make cash deposits, Agbure’s intent was that the
transactions would promote the carrying on of wire fraud.

Specifically, shortly after these deposits, Agbure submitted EIDL
applications for two of these same businesses and inflated revenues in those
applications. In total, Agbure submitted eight EIDL applications for companies in
his own name, wherein he falsely stated that these entities had $3,770,000 in
combined revenues and 22 employees. As a result, he obtained $628,300 in EIDLs

and $16,000 in related grants (EIDGs):

Date Submitted | Gross # of E
Entity Name Program {on orabout) | Revenues |Employees |EIDL Amoun IDG Amount

Nyerhos Systems EIDL 3317/2020 $ 1,980,000 2|$ 69,500 | $ 2,000
Nyerhos Freight & Logistics Inc. EIDL 5/9/2020 $ 120,000 2| Notfunded | $ =
Phonedial LLC EIDL 66/2020 $ 200,000 213 80,500]5 2,000
Nyerhos Mobile LLC EIDL 66/2020 $ 320,000 3] $ 117,000 | $ 3,000
Nyerhos Group Inc. EIDL 67/2020 $ 350,000 3| & 147,000 | $ 3,000
Sohreyn Assets Holdings EIDL 6/18/2026 $ 250,000 6|$ 86,500} $ 6,000
BBC Capital Investments Inc. | EIDL 7/27/2020 $ 275,000 2| Notfunded | $ =
Nyerhes Truckline LLC EIBL 7/27/2020 § 275,000 2| $ 127,800 | $ :

Total $3,770,000 22 $ 628,300 $ 16,000

E. Knowledge of Unlawful Activity
At all relevant times, Agbure knew that the Wire Fraud Proceeds came from
unlawful activity. For example, in disbursing Wire Fraud Proceeds from the Iyapo

bank account, Agbure knew that the Wire Fraud Proceeds came from illegally
17

Case No. 1:23-cr-00300-CNS Document 154 filed 02/18/25 USDC Colorado pg
18 of 22

obtained EIDLs and PPP loans. Agbure’s participation in the conspiracy occurred
from approximately March 2020 until approximately June 2021.
F. Value of Laundered Funds and Restitution

The government submits that, for purposes of § 251.1, the proper calculation of
the value of laundered funds known at this time to be involved in the charged money
laundering conspiracy is $4,084,689.22, which includes (a) Wire Fraud Proceeds
obtained through tax refunds, tax stimulus payments, and the PPP, EIDL, and state
UI programs, (b) that also were involved in laundering transactions by members of

the conspiracy within the meaning of § 251.1 app. note 1:

Program Value of laundered funds involved
in transactions

PPP $2,494,075

EIDL $1,095,000

UI benefits Gncludes UI payments from | $422,047
CO, IL, IA, KS, NY, and RD)
Tax refund $73,567.22

Total $4,084,689.22

During Agbure’s involvement in the conspiracy, the conspiracy involved the use
of shell corporations to launder funds, and Agbure knew about and participated in two
or more levels of laundering transactions, including bulk deposits of money orders,
coordinating cash deposits to business accounts, and endorsing checks to shell
corporations.

As part of this agreement, in addition to being liable for restitution due for the
underlying money laundering conspiracy, in an amount to be determined at
sentencing, Agbure understands and agrees to pay restitution on the amount of the

unpaid balances on funds he obtained through the EIDL program for EIDLs
18

Case No. 1:23-cr-O00300-CNS Document 154 filed 02/18/25 USDC Colorado pg
19 of 22

submitted in his own name, to be determined at the time of sentencing. Agbure agrees
that the restitution for which he will be held liable for those loans is currently
$644,300, but he understands and agrees that his restitution obligation includes the
interest on the unpaid balance of the EIDLs which will continue to accrue through the
date of sentencing. Interest figures will be presented at the time of sentencing.

VI. ADVISORY GUIDELINE COMPUTATION

The parties understand that the imposition of a sentence in this matter is
governed by 18 U.S.C. § 3553. In determining the particular sentence to be imposed,
the Court is required to consider seven factors. One of those factors is the sentencing
range computed by the Court under advisory guidelines issued by the United States
Sentencing Commission. In order to aid the Court in this regard, the parties set forth
below their estimate of the advisory guideline range called for by the United States
Sentencing Guidelines. To the extent that the parties disagree about the guideline
computations, the recitation below identifies the matters which are in dispute.

The Guideline calculation below is the good-faith estimate of the parties, but it
is only an estimate. The parties understand that the government also has an
independent obligation to assist the Court in making an accurate determination of the
correct guideline range. To that end, the parties may argue that facts identified in the
presentence report, or otherwise identified during the sentencing process, affect the
estimate below.

A. The parties agree that the applicable guideline is §251.1(a)(2) and that

under §251.1(a)(2), the base offense level is 8 plus the number of the

offense levels from the table in §2B1.1 corresponding to the value of the
laundered funds. The government submits that there is an 18-level

19

Case No. 1:23-cr-O00300-CNS Document 154 filed 02/18/25 USDC Colorado pg
20 of 22

increase based on a value of laundered funds of more than $3,500,000,
but less than $9,500,000, which would make the base offense level 26.
The defendant reserves the right to contest this Guideline calculation,
based upon the proper application of “relevant conduct” to his offense
conduct.

B. The defendant should receive a 2-level increase because he is pleading
guilty under 18 U.S.C. § 1956. § 2S1.1(b)(2)(B).

GC: The defendant should receive a 2-level increase because the offense
involved sophisticated laundering. § 2S1.1(b)(3).2

D. The parties disagree on whether a role adjustment should apply. The
government submits that the defendant should receive a 3-level increase as
a manager or supervisor in a criminal activity involving five or more
participants’ or that was otherwise extensive. § 3B1.1(b). The defendant
reserves the nght to argue that the defendant should receive a 2-level
reduction for minor role in the offense, because the loss amount exceeds
the defendant’s personal gain from the offense and the defendant received
direction from others above him in the conspiracy. § 3B1.2 app. note 3(A).
Based on the facts known at this time, the parties agrees that, if the
defendant were to receive a 3-level increase (and no two-level decrease
for minor role), it would overstate his relative culpability compared to
other defendants who have pled guilty in this case. The government
agrees that, in this circumstance, it would recommend at least a two-
level variance to avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities between other
defendants in this case. If the Court finds that the three-level role
adjustment does not apply, the government will determine whether any
variance is warranted after the filing of the defendant’s motion.

E. If the defendant receives an aggravating role adjustment, the
government maintains that the defendant would not qualify for a 2-level
reduction applicable to certain zero-point offenders who meet designated
criteria. § 4C1.1. The defendant reserves the right to contest this
adjustment.

F. There are no victim-related adjustments, obstruction, grouping, and/or
multiple-count adjustments.

2 Although some factors relevant to the enhancement for the business of laundering
funds are satisfied, see § 251.1(b)(2)(B), the application of that enhancement instead
of sophisticated laundering would result in the same offense level.

3 Among other participants, the conspiracy included the four defendants named in this

indictment and Conspirator 2.
20

Case No. 1:23-cr-O00300-CNS Document 154 filed 02/18/25 USDC Colorado pg
21 of 22

G. The defendant should receive a 3-level reduction for acceptance of
responsibility. § 3E1.1(b).

H. The adjusted offense level for Count 2 would be 28 if an aggravating role
adjustment is applied (which reflects the two-level variance), 25 with no
role adjustment (and no variance), and 23 if a mitigating role adjustment
is applied (with no variance).

I, The parties understand that the defendant’s criminal history
computation is tentative. The criminal history category is determined by
the Court based on the defendant’s prior convictions. Based on
information currently available to the parties, it is estimated that the
defendant’s criminal history category would be I.

J. The career offender/criminal livelihood/armed career criminal
adjustments would not apply.

K. The advisory guideline range resulting from these calculations ranges
from 46-57 months (for offense level of 23) to 78-97 months (for offense
level 28). However, in order to be as accurate as possible, with the
criminal history category undetermined at this time, the offense level(s)
estimated above could conceivably result in a range from 46 months
(bottom of Category I for offense level of 23) to 175 months (top of
Category VI for offense level of 28). The guideline range would not
exceed, in any case, the statutory maximum applicable to the count of
conviction.

L. Pursuant to guideline § 5E1.2, assuming the highest estimated offense
level above of 30, the fine range for this offense would be up to $30,000 to
$300,000, plus applicable interest and penalties.

M. Pursuant to guideline § 5D1.2, if the Court imposes a term of supervised
release, that term is at least 1 year, but not more than 3 years.

N. Pursuant to guideline §5E1.1(a)(1), the Court shall enter a restitution
order for the full amount of the victims’ losses.

The parties understand that the Court is free, upon consideration and proper
application of all 18 U.S.C. § 3553 factors, to impose that reasonable sentence which it
deems appropriate in the exercise of its discretion and that such sentence may be less
than that called for by the advisory guidelines (in length or form), within the advisory

guideline range, or above the advisory guideline range up to and including
21

Case No. 1:23-cr-00300-CNS Document 154 filed 02/18/25 USDC Colorado pg
22 of 22

imprisonment for the statutory maximum term, regardless of any computation or
position of any party on any 18 U.S.C. § 3553 factor.

Vil. ENTIRE AGREEMENT

The agreement disclosed to the Court is the entire agreement. There are no
other promises, agreements or “side agreements,” terms, conditions, understandings,
or assurances, express or implied. In entering this agreement, neither the government

nor the defendant has relied, or is relying, on any other terms, promises, conditions or

assurances.
9-|F-25° wee

Date NYERHOVWO PRESLEY AGBURE
Defendant
2: \e-28 QOC
Date JOSH AXMIOS
Attorney for Defendant
‘ CJ
Date CRAIG G4FANSLER

Assistant U.S. Attorney

22

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.cod.225574.154.0.pdf

Size

792,172 bytes

SHA-256

c9fb511b2e5f24a31b05b896688135a97f3535fb61127c257a77769858d1cd21

Our copy

gov.uscourts.cod.225574.154.0.pdf

Original

archive.org