Pandemic Darlings The pandemic economy, in original documents
Home Court filings United States v. Campbell

Case docket

United States v. Hashim Campbell — U.S. District Court, E.D.N.Y.

United States v. Campbell — 16 court filings in the archive from U.S. District Court, Eastern District of New York, filed between September 17, 2021 and March 23, 2023. Among them: 2 orders, 2 judgments and 1 information.

Shares documents with: United States v. Charlene Wint — 9 public filings; 1 document appears on both pages.

Case facts

CourtU.S. District Court, Eastern District of New York
Filings16 public filings
Filed2021-09-17 – 2023-03-23
Document typesorders (2), judgments (2), information (1), transcript (1), proposed order (1), sentencing memorandum (1)

Case summary

Hashim Campbell was charged by criminal information on September 23, 2021 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, No. 1:21-cr-00478-FB, and pleaded guilty the same day to the sole count, a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1349. The court accepted the plea on October 13, 2021. The restitution memorandum records that Campbell and a co-defendant participated in a scheme to defraud the Paycheck Protection Program, and that Campbell agreed in his plea agreement that he was individually accountable for a loss of $1,200,000. Judgment was entered November 22, 2022: one month in custody, two years of supervised release including six months of home detention, and a forfeiture money judgment of $100,000.00. An amended judgment of March 23, 2023 followed a restitution order of $300,000.

Case at a glance

Defendant(s)Hashim Campbell; the restitution memorandum and order also covers co-defendant Charlene Wint
Court and docketU.S. District Court, Eastern District of New York, No. 1:21-cr-00478-FB
ProgramPaycheck Protection Program (PPP)
ChargesSole count of the information, 18 U.S.C. § 1349 — conspiracy to commit bank and wire fraud
Outcome and sentencePleaded guilty September 23, 2021; judgment November 22, 2022 imposing one month in custody and two years of supervised release with six months of home detention; forfeiture money judgment of $100,000.00; restitution of $300,000 ordered March 10, 2023; amended judgment March 23, 2023
Counts of convictionPleaded guilty to count one of an information, conspiracy to commit wire and bank fraud, 18 U.S.C. § 1349, offense ended 8/31/2020 (judgment of November 22, 2022, p. 1; amended judgment of March 23, 2023, p. 1)
Sentence imposedOne month in custody (p. 2); two years of supervised release (p. 3), with six months of home detention with voice verification monitoring and 200 hours of community service (p. 4) (judgment of November 22, 2022); the amended judgment of March 23, 2023 prints the same custody, supervised release and home detention terms (Dkt. 27, pp. 2-4)
RestitutionJudgment of November 22, 2022: restitution $0.00, "The determination of restitution is deferred until 2/17/2023" (p. 6, image checked); amended judgment of March 23, 2023: $300,000.00, payee printed as "The Victim Information", interest waived for restitution, payable immediately and at 10% of gross monthly income (Dkt. 27, pp. 6-7)
Fine and assessmentFine $0.00; special assessment $100.00 (judgment of November 22, 2022, p. 6); amended judgment: assessment $100.00 (Dkt. 27, p. 6)
Forfeiture"The defendant shall comply with the order of forfeiture dated 11/17/22 contained in this judgment" (p. 7; the amended judgment prints 11/17/2022, Dkt. 27, p. 8); order of forfeiture entered November 22, 2022: forfeiture money judgment of $100,000.00 (Dkt. 21, p. 1)
Status checked2026-09-23 · against DOJ press releases through 2026-09-22; court docket not yet read

How did the court arrive at the restitution figure?

The government asked that Campbell and Wint be held jointly and severally liable with other participants for $3,500,000 plus interest. The court found the government had not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the victim bank lost that sum, declined joint and several liability, and imposed $300,000 on Campbell — the $100,000 he accepted plus additional funds — and $100,000 on Wint. Restitution is due immediately but payable at 10% of gross monthly income.

What did the filings say about the scheme?

The restitution memorandum states that Campbell personally contributed to obtaining over $1 million in fraudulent loans through two tax preparation businesses he owned, that he accepted $100,000 in commission, and that the government argued he was directly responsible for $1,706,426.02 in losses through those two companies.

What sentence did the government ask for?

Its sentencing letter argued that a sentence within the guidelines range of 33 to 41 months' imprisonment was appropriate.

Summary written from the documents on this page; every sentence is sourced.

Filings

16 public filings from this case, in filing-date order.

  1. Order Referring Case to Magistrate Judge Roanne L — United States v. Campbell (Dkt. 3-2, E.D.N.Y.)Dkt. 3-2 · PDF
  2. Criminal Information — United States v. Hashim CampbellInformation
  3. Consent Order to have the plea — United States v. Campbell (Dkt. 10, E.D.N.Y.)Dkt. 10 · PDF
  4. Plea Hearing Transcript — United States v. Hashim CampbellTranscript
  5. Proposed Order of Forfeiture — United States v. Hashim CampbellProposed order
  6. Order Accepting Guilty Plea — United States v. Hashim CampbellOrder
  7. First Motion to Travel to Michigan Thursday, May 12-Monday 16 — United States v. Campbell (Dkt. 16, E.D.N.Y.)Dkt. 16 · PDF
  8. First Motion to Travel to Michigan Thursday, May 12-Monday — United States v. Campbell (Dkt. 16-1, E.D.N.Y.)Dkt. 16-1 · PDF
  9. Defense Sentencing Memorandum — United States v. Hashim CampbellSentencing memorandum
  10. Government Sentencing Letter — United States v. Hashim Campbell
  11. Final Order of Forfeiture — United States v. Hashim CampbellOrder
  12. Judgment in a Criminal Case — United States v. Hashim CampbellJudgment
  13. Government Restitution Letter — United States v. Hashim Campbell
  14. Defense Restitution Letter — United States v. Hashim Campbell
  15. Restitution Memorandum and Order — United States v. Hashim Campbell and Charlene Wint (E.D.N.Y.)
  16. Amended Judgment — United States v. Hashim CampbellJudgment

Court, dates and docket numbers are as recorded on the filings.

Back to top