Government Sentencing Memorandum — United States v. Francois

Record facts

U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts · No. 1:25-cr-10389-FDS · Doc. 12 · 2026-03-04 · Docket on CourtListener

Full text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS 
 
 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA   
) 
) 
v.  
 
 
 
 
) 
Criminal No: 25-cr-10389-FDS 
)  
WIGENIE FRANCOIS, 
 
 
)  
 
 
 
) 
Defendant. 
  
 
)  
____________________________________)  
 
GOVERNMENT’S SENTENCING MEMORANDUM 
 
Defendant Wigenie Francois pled guilty to one count of wire fraud, in violation of 18 
U.S.C. § 1343.  This Court scheduled sentencing for the Defendant for March 11, 2026.  For the 
reasons set forth below and to be articulated at the sentencing hearing, the Government believes 
that a sentence of 12 months of probation, no fine, $100 special assessment, restitution of 
$62,499, and forfeiture is sufficient, but not greater than necessary, to comply with the purposes 
of sentencing set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2). 
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 
The Defendant was charged in this matter on October 1, 2025.  Presentence Investigation 
Report (“PSR”) at ¶ 1.  On December 11, 2025, the Defendant waived indictment and pled guilty 
to a one-count information charging her with wire fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343.  PSR ¶ 
2.   
Defendant has been employed full-time as part of the Veterans Affairs Nursing Service 
since 2007.  PSR ¶ 9.  On April 2, 2021, Defendant submitted an application for a Paycheck 
Protection Program (“PPP”) loan to Fountainhead SBF LLC.  PSR ¶ 9.  In the application, 
Defendant reported that she made $116,500 of gross income for 2019.  PSR ¶ 9.  In support of this 
application, Defendant submitted a Schedule C tax document claiming that she had a residential 
Case 1:25-cr-10389-FDS     Document 12     Filed 03/04/26     Page 1 of 5

2 
 
home care business that she ran out of her home in Brockton, Massachusetts that had $116,500 in 
gross income, $83,300 in profit, and purportedly $27,000 in advertising costs.  PSR ¶ 9.  The 
Schedule C had mathematical errors in it.  PSR ¶ 9.  Specifically, the expenses listed included 
$27,000 advertising, $10,000 in vehicle/machinery rentals, and $6,200 in taxes and licenses.  PSR 
¶ 9.  The total should have been $43,200, but was listed as $33,200.  PSR ¶ 9.  Notably, Defendant’s 
husband, Viguez Odies, also submitted two PPP loan applications.  PSR ¶ 10.  In these 
applications, Odies claimed to have an elderly care and group home out of the residence in 
Brockton, Massachusetts that he shares with his wife, Francois.  PSR ¶ 10.  Odies claimed to make 
the same amount of income and included a Schedule C with the same numbers, including the same 
mathematical error as Defendant’s for the total expenses.  PSR ¶ 10. 
Despite the alleged $27,000 in advertising, investigators were unable to find any evidence 
of a home health care facility operating at the residence in Brockton.  PSR ¶ 11.  Further, a review 
of Defendant’s bank records did not support the claim that she operated a business with over 
$100,000 of gross income and over $80,000 profit.  PSR ¶ 11.  Defendant’s tax filings with 
Massachusetts showed that, for 2019, Defendant and Odies filed jointly and reported $51,372 in 
income.  PSR ¶ 11.  Odies reported $729 in income from a driving business in a Massachusetts 
Schedule C.  PSR ¶ 11.  Defendant did not have any Schedule C in this return with Massachusetts.  
PSR ¶ 11. 
The PPP loan was approved, and, on April 22, 2021, Fountainhead SBF LLC wired 
$20,833 to FRANCOIS’s HarborOne Bank account via an interstate wire.  PSR ¶ 12. 
On March 2, 2024, FRANCOIS submitted a loan forgiveness application in which she 
falsely claimed that the entire $20,833 of PPP loan funds had been spent on payroll.  PSR ¶ 13.  
The forgiveness application was approved by the Small Business Administration.  PSR ¶ 13. 
Case 1:25-cr-10389-FDS     Document 12     Filed 03/04/26     Page 2 of 5

3 
 
DISCUSSION 
A. 
Sentencing Guidelines Calculation 
 
1. 
Total Offense Level 
Probation has calculated the Defendant’s total offense level as 9.  PSR ¶ 27.  This is 
based on a base offense level of seven (U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(a)(1); a six-point enhancement for 
causing a loss of over $40,000 but less than $95,000 (U.S.S.G. §2B1.1(b)(1)(D)); a two-point 
reduction for being a zero-point offender (U.S.S.G. §4C1.1); and a two-point reduction for 
acceptance of responsibility (U.S.S.G. §3E1.1(a)).  PSR ¶¶ 19-27.  The Government agrees with 
this calculation.   
 
2. 
Criminal History 
Probation has calculated the Defendant’s criminal history category as I, because the 
Defendant has no criminal convictions.  PSR ¶¶ 29-31.  The Government agrees with this 
calculation.   
 
3. 
Guideline Range 
Probation noted that the Guideline Range for a total offense level of 20 and Criminal 
History Category I is 4-10 months.  PSR ¶ 58.  The Government agrees with this calculation.   
B. 
Application of the Section 3553(a) Factors 
The Court must consider the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) in determining a 
sentence that is sufficient, but not greater than necessary, to comply with the purposes of 
sentencing set forth in § 3553(a)(2).  These factors include the nature and circumstances of the 
offense, the history and characteristics of the defendant, the need for the sentence imposed to 
reflect the seriousness of the offense, to promote respect for the law, to provide just punishment 
for the offense, to afford adequate deterrence to criminal conduct, to protect the public from 
Case 1:25-cr-10389-FDS     Document 12     Filed 03/04/26     Page 3 of 5

4 
 
further crimes of the defendant, and to provide for the needs of the defendant.  They also require 
courts to consider the kinds of sentences available and the Guidelines Sentencing Range 
(“GSR”).  Here, the Government believes that the proposed sentence of 12 months of probation, 
no fine, $100 special assessment, restitution of $62,499, and forfeiture is sufficient, but not 
greater than necessary, to achieve the goals of § 3553(a)(2). 
Defendant has no history of convictions and has worked for the Department of Veterans 
Affairs Nursing Service since 2007.  Defendant also volunteers to mentor young adults in her 
community.  PSR ¶ 47.  Defendant did this while also raising her own family of three children.  
See PSR ¶ 39.   
In what appears to be an aberration to an otherwise productive, law-abiding life, 
Defendant engaged in fraud to obtain benefits that were designed to help protect businesses 
impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic.  Defendant’s fraudulent conduct contributed to what the 
Small Business Administration (“SBA”) has estimated to be over $200 billion in fraud related to 
EIDL and PPP funds.1   
While it appears to be aberrant behavior for Defendant, Defendant’s conduct cannot be 
excused as an impulsive decision.  Defendant had to fill out the PPP loan application with false 
information and create a false tax document to support the false claims on the application.  
Nearly three years later, Defendant submitted additional false statements in support of the loan 
forgiveness application.  And, notably, Defendant engaged in this conduct while employed by an 
 
1 SBA, “COVID-19 Pandemic EIDL and PPP Loan Fraud Landscape Recommendations 
Update,” March 31, 2025, available at https://www.sba.gov/document/report-25-10-covid-19-
pandemic-eidl-ppp-loan-fraud-landscape-recommendations-update.   
Case 1:25-cr-10389-FDS     Document 12     Filed 03/04/26     Page 4 of 5

5 
 
agency of the federal government and took benefits designed to help people that could not pay 
employees during the pandemic.  Defendant has accepted responsibility for her conduct. 
Balancing all of the factors here, the Government believes that its proposed sentence of 
12 months of probation, no fine, $100 special assessment, restitution of $62,499, and forfeiture is 
sufficient, but not greater than necessary, to comply with the purposes of sentencing set forth in 
18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2).  Therefore, the Government requests that the Court impose its 
recommended sentence. 
 
   Respectfully submitted, 
 
 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 
 
I hereby certify that this document filed through the ECF system will be sent 
electronically to the registered participants as identified on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) 
and paper copies will be sent to those indicated as non-registered participants. 
 
/s/ Brian J. Sullivan 
 
 
BRIAN J. SULLIVAN 
Assistant United States Attorney 
 
 
Dated: March 4, 2026 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Date: March 4, 2026  
LEAH B. FOLEY 
Acting United States Attorney 
 
/s/ Brian J. Sullivan  
Brian J. Sullivan 
Assistant United States Attorneys 
John J. Moakley U.S. Courthouse, Suite 9200 
1 Courthouse Way 
Boston, MA 02210 
Phone: (617) 748-3100 
brian.sullivan@usdoj.gov   
 
Case 1:25-cr-10389-FDS     Document 12     Filed 03/04/26     Page 5 of 5

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.mad.289747.12.0.pdf

Size

165,720 bytes

SHA-256

4b33f320041c09652d333adc21e8e224821dd59010ff604e7d159a3717bbd612

Our copy

gov.uscourts.mad.289747.12.0.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)