Restitution Memorandum and Order — United States v. Hashim Campbell and Charlene Wint (E.D.N.Y.)

Record facts

U.S. District Court, Eastern District of New York · No. 1:21-cr-00478-FB · Doc. 26 · 2023-03-10 · Docket on CourtListener

Full text

1
 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER 
 
Case No. 21-CR-478 (FB) 
 
 Case No. 21-CR-479 (FB) 
 
  
 
 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 
                            Plaintiff, 
 
-against- 
HASHIM CAMPBELL, 
                           Defendant. 
 
    
 
 
 
 
 
 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 
                            Plaintiff, 
 
-against- 
CHARLENE WINT, 
                           Defendant. 
 
    
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BLOCK, Senior District Judge: 
 
Co-conspirators Hashim Campbell (“Campbell”) and Charlene Wint 
(“Wint”) were sentenced separately on November 17, 2022, in the above-captioned 
cases after pleading guilty to charges stemming from their involvement in a 
scheme to obtain millions of dollars of Paycheck Protection Program loans. Both 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT  
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
For the Plaintiff: 
BREON PEACE 
United States Attorney 
CHAND W. EDWARDS-BALFOUR 
271 Cadman Plaza East 
Brooklyn, NY 11201 
For Defendant Campbell: 
STACEY RICHMAN 
Richman Hill & Associates PLLC 
2027 Williamsbridge Road, 
Bronx NY 10461
For Defendant Wint: 
LONNIE HART JR. 
Law Offices of Lonnie Hart Jr. P.C. 
32 Court Street, Suite 602 
Brooklyn, NY 11201. 
Case 1:21-cr-00478-FB     Document 26     Filed 03/10/23     Page 1 of 5 PageID #: 219

 
2
pleaded guilty to participating in a conspiracy to commit bank and wire fraud, as 
well as violating 18 U.S.C. § 1349. During sentencing, the Court reserved 
judgment on restitution. 
 
Campbell and Wint participated in a scheme to defraud the Paycheck 
Protection Program (“PPP”), a program designed to offer favorable loans to small 
businesses to enable job retention during the early part of the COVID-19 
pandemic. Campbell personally contributed to obtaining over $1 million in 
fraudulent loans through two tax preparation businesses he owned. Wint was 
employed at a retail branch of a national bank in New York, New York. Together 
with others, Campbell and Wint recruited customers of Wint’s bank, along with 
family and friends, and assisted them in filing fraudulent PPP applications, taking 
commissions from the proceeds. Campbell prepared false tax documents which 
were attached to the fraudulent applications; his work included fabricating tax 
returns and inflating figures on tax documents to enable applicants to qualify for 
larger PPP loans. Wint submitted completed false tax documents to her supervisor 
and co-conspirator, the branch manager of her bank. Wint then coordinated with 
applicants in withdrawing and collecting the disbursed funds using personal and 
cashier’s checks. Campbell accepted $100,000 in commission from the 
fraudulently obtained loans. Wint accepted “thousands,” demanding $5,000 in 
commission from each of the participants she assisted. Gov. Ltr. Br. at 4.  
Case 1:21-cr-00478-FB     Document 26     Filed 03/10/23     Page 2 of 5 PageID #: 220

 
3
 
The Mandatory Victim Restitution Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3663A, required 
restitution in sentencing proceedings where the offense (a) was committed via 
fraud or deceit and (b) an identifiable victim suffered injury or pecuniary loss. 18 
U.S.C. §§ 3663A(a)(1), (c)(1)(A)(ii), (c)(1)(B). Restitution under this scheme is 
the “amount of loss caused by the specific conduct” that is the basis for the 
conviction. United States v. Gushlak, 728 F.3d 184, 195 n.7 (2d Cir. 2013). The 
Government must establish the loss amount, and disputed restitution “shall be 
resolved by the court by the preponderance of the evidence.” United States v. 
Bahel, 662 F.3d 610, 647 (2d Cir.2011) (quoting 18 U.S.C. § 3664(e)). The 
adjudicating district court must “only make a reasonable estimate of the loss, given 
the available information.” United States v. Carboni, 204 F.3d 39, 46 (2d Cir. 
2000) (internal quotation omitted). Co-conspirators may be held joint and severally 
liable for restitution at a district court’s discretion. See United States v. Nucci, 364 
F.3d 419, 422-23 (2d Cir. 2004) (citing 18 U.S.C.A. § 3664(h)). Each defendant is 
“liable for the reasonably foreseeable acts of all co-conspirators.” United States v. 
Boyd, 222 F.3d 47, 50–51 (2d Cir. 2000).  
 
The Government requests that Campbell and Wint be held joint and 
severally liable with other participants in the fraud scheme for $3,500,000 plus 
interest. Campbell suggests he be individually responsible for a sum equivalent to 
$100,000 or higher, while Wint claims no restitution is warranted.  
Case 1:21-cr-00478-FB     Document 26     Filed 03/10/23     Page 3 of 5 PageID #: 221

 
4
 
As a part of his plea agreement, Campbell agreed that he was individually 
accountable for a loss amount of $1,200,000 in fraudulently obtained loans. PSR 
¶ 18. The Government argues that he was directly responsible for a total of 
$1,706,426.02 in losses through his two tax companies. The total loss amount 
caused by the scheme is $3.5 million according to the PSR, which was not objected 
to. PSR ¶ 22. Both Campbell and Wint question the extent to which the victim 
bank truly lost the amount disbursed in loans because it may also have been repaid 
by the federal government.  
 
The Government has failed to demonstrate by a preponderance of the 
evidence that the victim bank lost $3,500,000 in connection with the scheme 
Campbell and Wint participated in, or that it would be reasonable to hold them 
jointly and severally liable for this sum. Accordingly, the Court declines to hold 
Campbell and Wint joint and severally liable here. The Court imposes $300,000 in 
restitution on Campbell—the amount he accepted in connection with his fraudulent 
activity and additional funds to account for the fact that he helped put in motion a 
scheme causing a much larger loss. It is unclear how many applicants Wint 
assisted or how much she received for her work; the Government characterizes her 
income from the scheme only as “thousands” of dollars. Given this uncertainty, 
and because Wint served only as a low-level clerk in in the overall fraud scheme, 
the Court imposes $100,000 in restitution on Wint. Restitution is due immediately 
Case 1:21-cr-00478-FB     Document 26     Filed 03/10/23     Page 4 of 5 PageID #: 222

 
5
but payable at the rate of 10% of the defendant’s gross monthly income, earned 
and/or unearned from all sources, in monthly payments. 
SO ORDERED. 
 
_/S/ Frederic Block__________ 
          
 
FREDERIC BLOCK 
           
Senior United States District Judge 
 
March 10, 2023 
Brooklyn, New York 
Case 1:21-cr-00478-FB     Document 26     Filed 03/10/23     Page 5 of 5 PageID #: 223

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.nyed.469462.26.0.pdf

Size

493,368 bytes

SHA-256

cfdc98ab82a7c1c3bd6442008c76dd9817571b1e5487b41bc5bc26ec53279280

Our copy

gov.uscourts.nyed.469462.26.0.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)