Court filing
Defendant's Sentencing Memorandum — USA v. Ilori (Dkt. 97, No. 1:20-cr-00378-LJL)
Summary
A defendant's sentencing memorandum, submitted as a letter to the court in United States v. Ilori, No. 20-cr-378, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, filed September 29, 2021 as Document 97. It asks for a sentence of home confinement, below the stipulated Sentencing Guidelines range of 51 to 63 months based on an adjusted offense level of 22 and a Criminal History Category of III. The memorandum records a guilty plea on April 8, 2021 to Count 1 of the Indictment, conspiracy to commit wire fraud and mail fraud under 18 U.S.C. 1343 and 18 U.S.C. 1341, and an admission to the conduct charged in Count 5. It disputes parts of the Presentence Report's account of the defendant's role and notes a Fatico hearing on July 29, 2021 and a co-defendant's sentence of 30 months.
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
No. 1:20-cr-00378-LJL · Doc. 97 · Docket on CourtListener
Full text
Case 1:20-cr-00378-LJL Document 97 Filed 09/29/21 Page 1 of 6
Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP
4 25 L E X I N G T O N A V E N U E
N E W Y O R K , N Y 10 0 17 - 3 9 54
T EL E PHO NE : + 1- 2 12 - 4 5 5- 200 0
F A CSI MI L E: + 1- 21 2- 4 55- 2 50 2
Dir ect Di al Num ber E- ma il A ddr es s
+1 - 21 2- 455- 30 70 br o oke .cuci nel la@ st bl aw. com
SENTENCING MEMORANDUM
BY ECF
September 29, 2021
Re: United States v. Ilori, No. 20-cr-378 (S.D.N.Y.)
Hon. Lewis J. Liman
United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York
Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse
500 Pearl Street
New York, NY 10007
Dear Judge Liman:
We respectfully submit this sentencing memorandum on behalf of our client,
Adedayo Ilori, the defendant in the above-referenced matter (“Mr. Ilori” or “Adedayo”).
On April 8, 2021, Mr. Ilori pled guilty to Count 1 of the Indictment, which charges
him with conspiracy to commit wire fraud and mail fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1343
and 18 U.S.C. 1341 relating to a scheme in which the conspirators submitted fraudulent
business loan applications across interstate lines with the intent not to repay the loans.
Mr. Ilori also admitted to the conduct charged in Count 5 of the Indictment, which
charges him with agreeing with his co-defendants and others to launder the proceeds
obtained from the fraudulent business loan applications through a bank account opened
using a stolen identity in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1343 and 1341. Mr. Ilori pled guilty
pursuant to a plea agreement in which the parties stipulated to a United States
Sentencing Guidelines (the “Guidelines”) range of 51 to 63 months (the “Guidelines
Range”), which is based on a total adjusted offense level of 22 and a Criminal History
Category of III.
After the Supreme Court’s decision in Booker, the Guidelines are but one of
several factors that the Court must consider in determining a defendant’s sentence. See
United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005). Indeed, a district court “may not
presume that a Guidelines sentence is reasonable; it must instead conduct its own
independent review of the sentencing factors, aided by the arguments of the prosecution
Case 1:20-cr-00378-LJL Document 97 Filed 09/29/21 Page 2 of 6
September 29, 2021 Hon. Lewis J. Liman
and defense.” United States v. Cavera, 550 F.3d 180, 189 (2d Cir. 2008). The Second
Circuit has recognized that in the post-Booker regime, a sentencing judge “has very wide
latitude to decide the proper degree of punishment for an individual offender and a
particular crime” and is “generally free to impose sentences outside the recommended
range.” Id. at 188–89.
For the reasons set forth in this memorandum and the letters submitted by Mr.
Ilori, his family, and his friends, as well as the other exhibits submitted herewith, we
respectfully request that the Court impose a sentence of home confinement, below the
as-stipulated Guidelines Range. A sentence of home confinement is fair, just, and
reasonable given Mr. Ilori’s good record during his period of home confinement, Mr.
Ilori’s role in the offense conduct, and in light of the evidence of his character and
history, including: (i) his perseverance in the face of a challenging upbringing; (ii) his
recent efforts to devote himself to his family, and the positive contributions he has since
made to his family, friends, and community; and (iii) the difficult circumstances that led
to his involvement in the offense conduct.
Mr. Ilori realizes that he made a mistake participating in the conspiracy and that
he must take responsibility for his bad decision. However, compared to his co-
defendants, Mr. Ilori’s role in the conspiracy was minimal, and he was drawn into the
sting operation due to financial hardship and desperation. We submit that the
circumstances of his offense, taken together with the factors described above,
demonstrate a lack of potential recidivism or risk to his community, and the proposed
sentence of home confinement is sufficient, but not greater than necessary, to effectuate
the purposes of the criminal law. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).
I. Mr. Ilori’s History and Characteristics Warrant Leniency
A. Mr. Ilori Suffered Abuse Throughout his Childhood and
Overcame Difficult Circumstances
Adedayo was born in 1978 in Redwood City, California. PSR ¶ 76.1 Although he
was born in the United States, Adedayo spent most of his childhood in Nigeria. Id. ¶ 78.
Adedayo’s childhood was rough – he was not close with his biological father, who had a
life apart from Adedayo and his family. Id. ¶ 79. Adedayo’s biological father was not
financially or emotionally supportive of Adedayo or his family. Id. Although Adedayo
and his father have recently reconciled after his father suffered from a stroke, Adedayo
was heavily impacted by his father’s absence throughout his childhood. Id.
1 Citations to “PSR” refer to the Presentence Report dated July 8, 2021.
2
Case 1:20-cr-00378-LJL Document 97 Filed 09/29/21 Page 3 of 6
September 29, 2021 Hon. Lewis J. Liman
When Adedayo was approximately three years old, his mother married Adedayo’s
stepfather, who abused Adedayo and his mother, both verbally and physically. Id. ¶ 80.
Additionally, his stepfather was largely absent from the family, and was often away from
home and did not provide much support for the family. Id. Partially due to the absence
of both his biological father and stepfather, Adedayo was raised in a low income
environment, which was exacerbated by a struggling national economy at the time. Id. ¶
82. As his uncle writes, Adedayo would go about “begging for food” as a hungry child,
but still remained “humble and quiet” and “very respectful.” See Ex. 3, Letter from
Benjamin Ejelonu.
Despite these challenging circumstances, Adedayo did what he could to help his
family. He would perform chores around the home and helped prepare the daily meals
for the family while his mother was working. PSR ¶ 82. Adedayo enjoyed a close
relationship with his mother, which he maintains to this day. Id.
When Adedayo was 12 years old, however, his mother left Nigeria to pursue an
employment opportunity in Saudi Arabia. Id. ¶ 83. At this point, Adedayo lived with his
step-grandmother, who—like Adedayo’s stepfather—verbally abused Adedayo. Id.
Adedayo’s mother confirms that his step-grandmother treated Adedayo difficultly and
with “wickedness.” See Ex. 2, Letter from Aminat Bakare. In order to escape this
abusive environment, Adedayo emigrated to the United States with the help of his
friends, eventually securing employment at a fast food restaurant and saving enough
money to move into his own apartment. PSR ¶ 84.
Despite a childhood plagued by abuse and without the support of a stable family
or father figure, Adedayo was able to start a career as a personal fitness trainer, and was
even eventually able to start his own personal fitness company. Id. ¶¶ 97, 98. While
financial difficulties with his company ultimately led to his participation in the instant
offense, Adedayo is committed to returning to his business and doing everything he can
to see it succeed.
B. Mr. Ilori is Devoted to His Family, Friends, and Community
Adedayo is devoted to his family, who love and care for him deeply. Family has
long been the most important thing to Adedayo, as he grew up in trying conditions that
forced him to grow closer to those who truly cared for him. As his step-father writes,
Adedayo was there for him and his family, and helped provide and take care of the kids.
See Ex. 4, Letter from Muslim Adesoye Bakare. His family has also suffered from recent
tragedy, as both his aunt and uncle died, leaving Adedayo with two nephews, a niece, an
elderly mother, and his 86-year-old grandmother, all who “depend on [Adedayo’s]
support.” Id.
3
Case 1:20-cr-00378-LJL Document 97 Filed 09/29/21 Page 4 of 6
September 29, 2021 Hon. Lewis J. Liman
His uncle also confirms that he is a “good boy, a good man, a good son, a good
brother, and a good husband and father again.” See Ex. 3, Letter from Benjamin
Ejelonu. His uncle also forcefully believes that he “would bounce back to a good life,
becoming a good and dependable citizen” and notes that he “has been of immense
assistance” to his uncle throughout his life. Id.
Adedayo’s mother writes that Adedayo has finally “realized his misdeeds and the
need to get focused and discipline[d] to embrace” his future. See Ex. 2, Letter from
Aminat Bakare. She longs to be with him again as she gets older and suffers from
various medical issues that she needs his support to overcome. Id.
Finally, Adedayo’s wife writes that he is a “great” and “amazing” father, who has
an incredible relationship with his children, who he helps with their homework, bonds
with through physical activity, and picks up every day from school. See Ex. 5, Letter
from Wunmi Fadipe-Ilori. For Adedayo, his children are his priority. Id. Adedayo is
also a supportive husband, as he has encouraged his wife to obtain her Bachelor’s degree
and to pursue investment licenses so that she can become a financial advisor. Id.
Adedayo is “beyond committed as a father and husband” and is an essential part of his
family. Id. Adedayo’s daugther, T.I., writes that Adedayo “has been nothing but a good
father to me and my brother” and that, despite being busy with his career, is “still able to
nurture and love everyone.” See Ex. 6, Letter from T.I. Adedayo’s family is deeply
supportive of him and looks forward to their futures together with him.
Given Adedayo’s close ties to his family, and the fact that he has successfully been
on home confinement since he was arrested, a sentence of home confinement is
appropriate here, as it will allow Adedayo to continue to pursue his business and support
his loving family, who depend on him. Home confinement also makes sense here, given
the ongoing concerns regarding COVID-19, especially in light of the Delta variant surge.
II. The Proposed Sentence Is Fair In Light of the Nature and
Circumstances of the Offense and Sufficiently Addresses the Needs for
Deterrence and Punishment
Pursuant to U.S.C § 3553(a)(1), this Court must consider the nature and
circumstances of the offense in determining an appropriate sentence. While Adedayo
understands that the Government would have attempted to prove the offense conduct as
described in the “Offense Conduct” section of the Presentence Report if he had gone to
trial, Adedayo disputes much of the Government’s portrayal of the facts as described
therein.
To be sure—Adedayo does not deny that he engaged with Mr. Chancy and an
undercover agent (the “UC”) posing as a corrupt underwriter to submit fraudulent
4
Case 1:20-cr-00378-LJL Document 97 Filed 09/29/21 Page 5 of 6
September 29, 2021 Hon. Lewis J. Liman
business loans. Adedayo disputes, however, the extent of the involvement attributed to
him, and certain acts that are baselessly attributed to him, as opposed to Mr. Chancy,
Mr. Albarella, the UC, or the confidential source (the “CS”).
First, Adedayo disputes being directly involved in “eight fraudulent business loan
applications.” PSR ¶ 18. While Adedayo was involved in preparing certain loan
applications submitted in January 2020, he was not directly involved in the loan
applications submitted in February 2020, except as a member of the broader conspiracy
started with the submission of January 2020 loan applications. While certain
documents Adedayo may have prepared in the past were used by Mr. Chancy in
connection with the February 2020 loan applications, see id. ¶ 37, Adedayo disputes
being actively involved with those applications when they were submitted in February
2020. And while Mr. Chancy may have called Adedayo when he was at the HSBC bank
branch to open a bank account, Adedayo disputes actually providing Mr. Chancy with
the Missouri identification card that Mr. Chancy had on his personal cellphone. Id. ¶ 39.
Second, much of the Government’s allegations are based on Mr. Chancy’s
unreliable account as to what Adedayo supposedly did in furtherance of the conspiracy.
See, e.g., id. ¶ 23 (“CHANCY reported that ILORI had opened business bank accounts at
three different banks, using the identities of other people. According to CHANCY,
ILORI used driver’s licenses with real identifying information that had been altered with
different photographs.”). To the extent these allegations are unverified by supporting
evidence, they should be discounted as unreliable.
Third, Adedayo disputes that his June 28, 2019 arrest by the NYPD was in
connection with the current offense conduct. See id. ¶ 27. Adedayo is still fighting those
charges, and believes he will be found innocent.
Fourth, while Adedayo takes full responsibility for his participation in the
conspiracy, he was brought into the conspiracy by Mr. Chancy. Following a Fatico
hearing on July 29, 2021, the Court held that it cannot be determined that it was Mr.
Chancy who initiated the fraudulent loan scheme and further credited the defense
theory that it was in fact the Government’s CS who “initiated the scheme and first
mentioned to Chancy that he could use his position as a bank manager to commit fraud.”
See Dkt. No. 87. After the CS initiated the scheme with Mr. Chancy, Mr. Chancy then
drew Adedayo into the scheme. To the extent this was taken into account for Mr.
Chancy’s sentencing, it should also be taken into account for Adedayo’s sentencing.
Fifth, the Court should consider that the CS—who was working with the
Government for his own benefit—influenced Adedayo and Mr. Chancy to use real
identifications belonging to actual victims, with the likely goal of increasing the criminal
exposure Adedayo and Mr. Chancy would face. The CS—likely with the same goal—also
5
Case 1:20-cr-00378-LJL Document 97 Filed 09/29/21 Page 6 of 6
September 29, 2021 Hon. Lewis J. Liman
influenced Adedayo and Mr. Chancy to increase the amount sought in the loan
applications. While the value of using loss amount as a proxy for culpability and thus
jail time is debatable in any context, it is especially questionable here, where the loss
amount was influenced by the CS and where there was no risk of actual loss given the
Government’s involvement from the onset. See, e.g., United States v. Corsey, 723 F.3d
366, 377 (2d Cir. 2013) (Underhill, J., concurring) (arguing that the loss guideline is
“fundamentally flawed,” especially where the entire loss amount “consists of intended
loss” and where the underlying conduct is not dangerous). We ask that the Court
consider this in determining Adedayo’s sentence.
Finally, Adedayo played a significantly less central role in the scheme than Mr.
Chancy, who was responsible for bringing Adedayo into the scheme and who was
involved in all of the loan packages at issue. Accordingly, Mr. Ilori’s sentence should be
lesser than Mr. Chancy’s, who received a sentence of 30 months. See Dkt. No. 92;
United States v. Frias, 521 F.3d 229, 236 n.8 (2d Cir. 2008) (district court may consider
similarities and differences among co-defendants when imposing a sentence).
III. Conclusion
For all the foregoing reasons, we respectfully ask that the Court impose a
sentence of home confinement.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Brooke E. Cucinella
Brooke E. Cucinella
Enclosure
cc: Cecilia Vogel, Esq.
6
File and source
- File
- gov.uscourts.nysd.540905.97.0.pdf
- Size
- 131,670 bytes
- SHA-256
- ed5d96b2a29bf3065e495d7161024b3c4040a00c5d6bed22f3650440032bc33c
- Original
- PACER (login required)