Sentencing Memorandum of the United States — United States v. Lamdul (Dkt. 298, S.D. Ohio)

Summary

The sentencing memorandum of the United States in United States v. Uriah Lamdul, Case No. 2:20-CR-94(6), in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio before Judge Sarah D. Morrison, filed January 19, 2023 as Doc 298. The government recommends 51 months of imprisonment, 3 years of supervised release and restitution of $583,415.25, jointly and severally with codefendant Robert K. Asante, plus forfeiture. It recounts that a June 23, 2020 indictment charged Asante, Kwame Yeboah and Eric Ahiekpor with conspiracy to commit money laundering under 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h), and that a superseding indictment of July 8, 2021 added Lamdul and others on money laundering charges related to the proceeds of online romance fraud. The operative Second Superseding Indictment was returned December 2, 2021.

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

Case: 2:20-cr-00094-SDM Doc #: 298 Filed: 01/19/23 Page: 1 of 9 PAGEID #: 1772




                             UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                              SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
                                   EASTERN DIVISION

 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                                         CASE NO. 2:20-CR-94(6)
                Plaintiff,
                                                         JUDGE SARAH D. MORRISON
        v.

 URIAH LAMDUL,                                           Sentencing Memorandum of the
                                                         United States
                Defendant.


       The United States hereby submits its Sentencing Memorandum with respect to Defendant

Uriah Lamdul. There are no pending objections. For the reasons that follow, a sentence of 51

months of imprisonment, 3 years of supervised release, and a restitution order of $583,415.25,

jointly and severally with codefendant Robert K. Asante, would be sufficient but not greater than

necessary to achieve the statutory goals of sentencing. Forfeiture is also required in this case.

                                         BACKGROUND

       On June 23, 2020, a grand jury in this District returned an Indictment charging Robert K.

Asante, Kwame Yeboah, and Eric Ahiekpor with one count of Conspiracy to Commit Money

Laundering, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h). (Indictment, R.22.) On July 8, 2021, the grand

jury returned a Superseding Indictment, which added both defendants and charges to the case.

(Superseding Indictment, R.85.)

       One of the new defendants was Defendant Uriah Lamdul. The Superseding Indictment

charged Mr. Lamdul and four others with multiple money laundering crimes related to their

involvement in laundering the proceeds of online romance fraud. (Id. at 510–20.) Mr. Lamdul

was arrested on July 26, 2021, and released subject to certain conditions. (Order, R.103.)

  Case: 2:20-cr-00094-SDM Doc #: 298 Filed: 01/19/23 Page: 2 of 9 PAGEID #: 1773




       On December 2, 2021, the grand jury returned a Second Superseding Indictment, which

is the operative charging instrument. (Second Superseding Indictment, R.152.) It charged Mr.

Lamdul and others with participating in a Conspiracy to Commit Money Laundering, in violation

of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h). (Id. at 782–85.) It also charged Mr. Lamdul with multiple counts of

Concealment Money Laundering, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(1)(B)(i). (Id. at 786–88.)

And it charged him with multiple counts of 18 U.S.C. § 1957. (Id. at 788–90.) These charges all

concerned Mr. Lamdul’s involvement in laundering the proceeds of online romance fraud.

       On September 9, 2022, the day of the Final Pretrial Conference, the Parties filed a Plea

Agreement, in which Mr. Lamdul agreed to plead guilty to the Money Laundering Conspiracy

count of the Second Superseding Indictment. (Plea Agreement, R.240 at 1183.) Mr. Lamdul

agreed to pay $583,415.25 in restitution to the fraud victims and agreed that the same figure

should be used to calculate the applicable guidelines range. (Id. at 1185.) He also agreed to

surrender for forfeiture all property involved in the conspiracy. (Id. at 1186.) On September 23,

2022, Mr. Lamdul entered his guilty plea. (See Minute Entry, R.245.)

       The Probation Office released the Final Presentence Investigation Report on December 7,

2022. (PSR, R.269.) Sentencing is scheduled for January 26, 2023.

                                          ARGUMENT

       The Probation Officer calculated that Mr. Lamdul’s Total Offense Level is 23 and that

his Criminal History Category is II. PSR ¶¶ 56, 63. The Probation Officer correctly noted that

these calculations would result in advisory guidelines ranges of 51 to 63 months of

imprisonment, a fine of $20,000 to $1,166,830.50, and supervised release of 1 to 3 years. PSR

¶¶ 88, 92, 98. There are no unresolved objections.



                                                 2

  Case: 2:20-cr-00094-SDM Doc #: 298 Filed: 01/19/23 Page: 3 of 9 PAGEID #: 1774




       Considering the § 3553(a) factors, the United States recommends a sentence at the

bottom of the guidelines range of 51 months in prison, a three-year term of supervised release,

and a restitution order for $583,415.25, jointly and severally with Mr. Asante. Forfeiture is also

required.

       Nature and circumstances of the offense. Mr. Lamdul laundered $583,415.25 in proceeds

of romance fraud over roughly two years. The Court has heard the stories of three victims who

sent funds to Mr. Lamdul because they testified at the trial of codefendant Edward Amankwah.

       Victim CC was 75 years old when she testified at Mr. Amankwah’s trial. After her

husband died, she met a person on Facebook, Robert Michael, who purported to be in the U.S.

military in Iraq. He was a widower and was preparing to retire from the military. He told her that

there were costs associated with retiring early, and asked her to send money. She agreed to help

so he could retire, and they could be together. Robert Michael promised to repay her once he

returned to the United States. Among other payments, he directed her to send $58,000 to

Brandtown Logistics LLC, which was a company in Mr. Lamdul’s name. See PSR ¶ 32. She

obtained a cashier’s check payable to Brandtown and sent it by FedEx to Mr. Lamdul’s home

address. He deposited the funds and laundered the proceeds. In total, CC sent between $270,000

and $280,000 to individuals at Robert Michael’s direction. She initially sent money that she had

received as an inheritance from her parents. She also took out a loan to send additional money.

When Robert Michael needed a larger amount, he asked her how much she thought her home

was worth. She sold her house, sending $99,900 from the sale to Mr. Amankwah.

       Victim GC met a woman he believed to be named Leticia Miles online after his marriage

of 25 years broke up. While they communicated by email, text, and phone, the relationship

turned romantic. They made plans to have her move to his city and explore the relationship

                                                 3

  Case: 2:20-cr-00094-SDM Doc #: 298 Filed: 01/19/23 Page: 4 of 9 PAGEID #: 1775




further. At some point, she told him that her father had died, and that she had inherited millions

of dollars’ worth of gold as a result. She needed $399,000 for taxes, which he provided. She also

asked for money for storage and transportation, which he also sent. During trial, the Court saw

an email where GC was instructed to deposit a $75,000 cashier’s check into the JP Morgan

Chase Bank account of Brandtown Logistics LLC. He did so, and Mr. Lamdul laundered the

funds. PSR ¶ 32. GC sent between $300,000 and $500,000 at Ms. Miles’s direction, which he

funded by withdrawing investments and savings.

       Victim LT joined a senior dating site after her husband of 44 years died of cancer. On the

dating site, she connected with a man who went by the name Jason Turner. They fell in love. He

said he worked in mining in Quebec and said his money was tied up overseas. He asked her to

send money based on a variety of needs, and she ultimately sent more than $500,000. She

stopped sending money only in June 2022, roughly three months before she testified in Mr.

Amankwah’s trial. Much of the money came from her savings and investments. She also

withdrew money from her retirement funds, the withdrawal of which had negative tax

consequences. She also sent the proceeds of the sale of her home in Washington. Of that total,

she sent $10,000 to Mr. Lamdul. PSR ¶ 32.

       These stories are representative of other victims who sent funds in this case. As the Court

has heard, the human costs of romance fraud are extreme. Victims sent all or a substantial

amount of their savings and retirement accounts. When that was not enough for the fraudsters,

victims took out second mortgages and other loans. Many filed for bankruptcy. Some had to

return to work after retirement. The fraud caused or exacerbated victims’ mental health issues,

and multiple victims have attempted suicide.



                                                 4

  Case: 2:20-cr-00094-SDM Doc #: 298 Filed: 01/19/23 Page: 5 of 9 PAGEID #: 1776




       Mr. Lamdul knew the money coming into his accounts was generated by fraud. When he

pleaded guilty, he swore under oath that he “knew that the funds represented the proceeds of

fraud.” (Plea Agreement, R.240 at 1189.) Accordingly, the harm to the victims was foreseeable

to him. He nevertheless laundered funds for an extended period of time. When it comes to the

harm caused by romance fraud, he cannot hide behind ignorance or willful blindness.

       Unlike some individuals who become involved in this laundering activity, Mr. Lamdul

knew right away that he was committing a crime. Less than a month after the first victim funds

entered his bank account, Mr. Lamdul tried to negotiate a larger percentage for himself because

he knew he was at risk of being caught.

       On September 23, 2019, the $75,000 cashier’s check from GC was deposited into Mr.

Lamdul’s bank account. The next day, over the text-messaging app WhatsApp, Mr. Lamdul

asked Mr. Asante, “So how the talk go with your guys about percentage bro?” (Exhibit A,

Excerpt of Conversation with Robert Asante, at 2.) Mr. Asante replied, “He still don’t wanna go

up cos errbody [everybody] else goes wit dat percentage but I’m still talking to him.” (Id.) Mr.

Lamdul complained that he “didn’t kno I’ll be doing all dat extra stuff that’s why I said coo

[cool] but if u ask me if things go down they in the clear and ima have to face the consequences.

Am just think bout me rn [right now] bro, faces all over them cameras.” (Id. at 4; PSR ¶ 30)

When Mr. Lamdul wrote that “they in the clear,” he was referring his coconspirators in Ghana.

PSR ¶ 30. In other words, he believed that he deserved a larger percentage of the fraud proceeds

because he was engaged in illegal activity and his face was being captured by the cameras at the

bank. Ultimately, after he had a conversation with Mr. Asante, Mr. Lamdul acquiesced: “Bro you

don’t have to talk to ur guys about the percentage anymore. 10% is fine with me, the talk with

you tonight was necessary.” (Exhibit A, Excerpt of Conversation with Robert Asante, at 11.) On

                                                5

  Case: 2:20-cr-00094-SDM Doc #: 298 Filed: 01/19/23 Page: 6 of 9 PAGEID #: 1777




the day of this message and the next day, Mr. Lamdul withdrew a total of $8,800 in cash and sent

$66,000 to a bank account in Ireland. For the purpose of the wire, he listed “For Ethanol.” PSR

¶ 29. After that, he continued to launder romance-fraud proceeds until his arrest 22 months later.

       Mr. Lamdul committed a serious crime that generates real harm to its victims. He knew

the source of the funds and he did it anyway. The recommended sentence fairly reflects the

seriousness of the offense.

       Need to afford adequate deterrence. The sentence should account for both specific and

general deterrence. Mr. Lamdul’s activity in this case represents a concerning escalation of

previous financial crimes. In 2015, he was sentenced to 180 days in jail for credit card fraud.

PSR ¶ 60. Roughly four years later, he joined the conspiracy to commit money laundering. See

PSR ¶ 26. The recommended sentence should deter Mr. Lamdul from committing further

financial crimes.

       The sentence should also afford general deterrence to others. Mr. Lamdul is one of at

least 20 individuals who have been charged related to laundering the proceeds of Ghana-based

romance fraud schemes in this District alone. Investigation has shown that far more people, in

this District and elsewhere, are involved in romance fraud and laundering the proceeds of

romance fraud. Moreover, the Sixth Circuit has recognized that “[b]ecause economic and fraud-

based crimes are more rational, cool, and calculated than sudden crimes of passion or

opportunity, these crimes are prime candidates for general deterrence.” United States v. Peppel,

707 F.3d 627, 637 (6th Cir. 2013) (internal quotation marks omitted). The recommended

sentence would be a clear message that helping romance fraudsters will be punished.

       History and characteristics of the defendant. There are no significant mitigating facts in

Mr. Lamdul’s history and characteristics. He was raised in Sierra Leone in a supportive family

                                                 6

  Case: 2:20-cr-00094-SDM Doc #: 298 Filed: 01/19/23 Page: 7 of 9 PAGEID #: 1778




that provided him all his needs. PSR ¶¶ 66, 68. There was no abuse in the home, and he was not

exposed to substance abuse as a child. PSR ¶ 68. Mr. Lamdul moved to the United States in 2000

and obtained a permanent resident card. PSR ¶ 66. Despite these advantages, Mr. Lamdul turned

to money laundering.

       Need to avoid unwarranted sentence disparities. Mr. Lamdul is expected to be the fourth

member of the conspiracy to be sentenced. As described above, Mr. Asante is the most culpable

member of the conspiracy. Mr. Asante signed a Plea Agreement pursuant to Criminal Rule

11(c)(1)(C) with an agreed-to range of 36 to 84 months. The United States has recommended a

sentence at the top of that range. The recommended sentence here fairly reflects the defendants’

relative culpability, and would avoid unwarranted disparities among codefendants.

       Given the nature and circumstances of Mr. Lamdul’s offense, his history and

characteristics, the need for deterrence, the need to avoid unwarranted sentence disparities, and

the other circumstances of this case, the recommended sentence would satisfy 18 U.S.C.

§ 3553(a).

                                          CONCLUSION

       For these reasons, a sentence of 51 months of imprisonment, 3 years of supervised

release, and a restitution order of $583,415.25, jointly and severally with codefendant Robert K.

Asante, would be sufficient but not greater than necessary to achieve the statutory goals of

sentencing. Forfeiture is also required in this case.




                                                  7

Case: 2:20-cr-00094-SDM Doc #: 298 Filed: 01/19/23 Page: 8 of 9 PAGEID #: 1779




                                   Respectfully submitted,

                                   KENNETH L. PARKER
                                   United States Attorney


                                   s/ Peter K. Glenn-Applegate
                                   PETER K. GLENN-APPLEGATE (0088708)
                                   DAVID J. TWOMBLY (0092558)
                                   Assistant United States Attorneys
                                   303 Marconi Boulevard, Suite 200
                                   Columbus, OH 43215
                                   Phone No.: (614) 469-5715
                                   Fax No.: (614) 469-5653
                                   Email: peter.glenn-applegate@usdoj.gov
                                           david.twombly@usdoj.gov




                                      8

  Case: 2:20-cr-00094-SDM Doc #: 298 Filed: 01/19/23 Page: 9 of 9 PAGEID #: 1780




                                CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

       I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing Sentencing Memorandum of the United

States was served this 19th day of January, 2023, electronically upon counsel for the Defendant.

                                                s/Peter K. Glenn-Applegate
                                                PETER K. GLENN-APPLEGATE (0088708)
                                                Assistant United States Attorney

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.ohsd.258150.298.0.pdf

Size

207,289 bytes

SHA-256

0504281afe50e97971860b600c7afd801c1762fb14e9a24205d9123eb01554fc

Our copy

gov.uscourts.ohsd.258150.298.0.pdf

Original

archive.org