Court filing
Defendant's Revised Supplemental Sentencing Memorandum — United States v. Adedayo Ilori
Summary
A revised supplemental sentencing memorandum, in letter form dated March 1, 2022, filed by defense counsel Brooke Cucinella of Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP for Adedayo Ilori in United States v. Ilori, No. 1:20-cr-00378-LJL, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, as Doc. 127. It asks Judge Lewis J. Liman to proceed with sentencing on March 3 and to limit the sentence to the conduct in Count 1, to which the memo states Mr. Ilori pled guilty, rather than allegations in a separate case, No. 21-cr-00746. The memo recounts a plea agreement stipulating a Guidelines range of 51 to 63 months and argues that his role in the loan scheme was smaller than a co-defendant's. It asks the Court to impose a sentence of 30 months. The filing is 12 pages and attaches Exhibit A.
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. 127 · Docket on CourtListener
Full text
Case 1:20-cr-00378-LJL Document 127 Filed 03/01/22 Page 1 of 12
Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP
425 LEXINGTON AVENUE
NE W YORK , NY 10017-3954
T E LE P H ONE : +1-212-455-2000
F A CSIMILE : +1-212-455-2502
Dir ect Di al E-M ail A ddr es s
+1 - 21 2- 455- 30 70 br oo ke .cuci nel la@ st bl aw. com
REVISED SENTENCING MEMORANDUM
BY ECF
March 1, 2022
The Honorable Lewis J. Liman
United States District Judge
Southern District of New York
500 Pearl St.
New York, NY, 10007
Re: United States v. Ilori, No. 20-cr-378 (S.D.N.Y.)
Dear Judge Liman:
We respectfully submit this supplemental sentencing memorandum on
behalf of our client, Mr. Adedayo Ilori, the defendant in the above-captioned action
(“Mr. Ilori” or “Adedayo”).
As described in our initial sentencing memorandum,1 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. On April 8, 2021, Mr.
Ilori pled guilty pursuant to a plea agreement in which the parties, at that time,
stipulated to a United States Sentencing Guidelines (the “Guidelines”) range of 51 to
63 months (the “Guidelines Range”).
On October 8, 2021, ahead of the scheduled sentencing, a search warrant was
executed against Mr. Ilori and he was subsequently arrested for alleged violations of
his pretrial release. The Government asserts that it had been investigating a series
1 We submitted an initial sentencing memorandum on behalf of Mr. Ilori on
September 29, 2021. See Dkt. No. 97.
Case 1:20-cr-00378-LJL Document 127 Filed 03/01/22 Page 2 of 12
-2- March 1, 2022
of loans fraudulently obtained through the United States Small Business
Administration Paycheck Protection Program (“PPP”) by a man named Chris
Recamier, which led them to Mr. Ilori. Dkt No. 99. Mr. Ilori was indicted on
December 9, 2021 for his involvement in the alleged PPP scheme. The indictment
charged Mr. Ilori and co-defendant Mr. Recamier with six offenses, including wire
fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343. See Case No. 21-cr-00746, Dkt No. 6. This
case is currently pending before Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil.
Despite these developments, we respectfully request that the parties proceed
with the sentencing hearing on March 3, and focus on the charges to which Mr. Ilori
pled guilty, rather than the allegations made in connection with the new case, which
is pending before Judge Vyskocil, for the reasons explained in further detail below.
We also submit additional argument on what constitutes a fair and appropriate
sentence for Mr. Ilori in light of his limited role in the latter aspects of the loan
scheme for which he is charged in this action.
I. The Conduct At Issue In Mr. Ilori’s Case Pending Before Judge
Vyskocil Should Be Litigated Separately
At sentencing, the Court should not hear evidence pertaining to Mr. Ilori’s
alleged violations of pretrial release because they involve conduct and evidence that
is at issue, and that Mr. Ilori intends to dispute, in the case pending before Judge
Vyskocil.
The Government has informed us that Mr. Ilori’s purported violations of his
pretrial release include that Mr. Ilori purchased coffee using a debit card in the name
of an alleged victim of the PPP scheme and that Mr. Ilori was observed driving a
Mercedes leased by Mr. Recamier using the identity of a different alleged victim,
among other things. These allegations are closely intertwined with the PPP loan
scheme at issue in the second case (the “PPP Case”), and the weighing of evidence
regarding this conduct—and Mr. Ilori’s defense of that alleged conduct—should be
handled in Judge Vyskocil’s courtroom rather than as part of this sentencing
proceeding.
Mr. Ilori makes this request for a number of reasons. First, it would be
premature—and likely prejudicial—to require Mr. Ilori to devise a legal strategy to
challenge the evidence in the PPP Case at this time. While we have reviewed discovery
provided to us by the Government and consider the evidence pertaining to Mr. Ilori
to be primarily circumstantial, we are not representing Mr. Ilori in his case before
Judge Vyskocil. Further exacerbating our concern is the fact that Mr. Ilori has only
been able to meet with this attorney in the PPP Case once so far (last week), and has
not had the opportunity to review the Government’s discovery because of, among
other reasons, the impact of the national lockdown. See Steven Rodas, N.J. prisons,
halfway houses suspend visits due to COVID omicron wave, NJ.com (Jan. 7, 2022),
https://www.nj.com/coronavirus/2022/01/nj-prisons-halfway-houses-suspend-
visits-due-to-covid-omicron-wave.html.
Case 1:20-cr-00378-LJL Document 127 Filed 03/01/22 Page 3 of 12
-3- March 1, 2022
We cannot predict how Mr. Ilori’s attorney will advise him to proceed in that
case and moreover, we do not want to be in the position of providing conflicting
advice or raising arguments that ultimately contradict his legal strategy before Judge
Vyskocil. We also suffer from the inherent limitations that a pending criminal case
would inevitably impose on a hearing that would proceed before it including, but not
limited to, our inability to call certain witnesses. As one example, we have reason to
believe that Mr. Recamier, Mr. Ilori’s co-defendant in the PPP Case, has made
statements that contradict the Government’s view of the evidence relating to that
case. Mr. Recamier’s lawyer, however, has explained that, given the pending charges,
he cannot at this time put in an affidavit or testify. Moreover, any presentation of
evidence on the PPP scheme in this Court would be duplicative of the forthcoming
criminal proceedings before Judge Vyskocil. Accordingly, Mr. Ilori does not seek to
have a Fatico hearing at this time, as he intends to defend himself against the charges
in the PPP Case in connection with that case, and respectfully asks that his sentence
in this case be limited to the conduct for which he pled guilty.
II. The Proposed Sentence Is Fair In Light Of The Circumstances
Of Mr. Ilori’s Involvement In The Offense
For the reasons set forth here and in our initial sentencing submission, we
respectfully request that the Court impose a sentence pursuant to the United States
Sentencing Guidelines (the “Guidelines”) of 30 months. While we recognize that Mr.
Ilori has a criminal history, while Mr. Chancy did not, it is our position that this range
is appropriate given Mr. Ilori’s role in the offense conduct, especially when viewed
vis-à-vis Mr. Chancy who received a sentence of 30 months.
Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1), this Court must consider the nature and
circumstances of the offense in determining an appropriate sentence. As explained
in his initial sentencing memorandum, Mr. Ilori does not deny that he engaged with
Mr. Chancy and an undercover agent (the “UC”) to submit fraudulent business loans.
In evaluating Mr. Ilori’s culpability, however, this Court should consider Mr. Ilori’s
role in the scheme as a whole, especially as compared to Mr. Chancy. While Mr. Ilori
was involved in preparing certain, $5,000 loan applications in January 2020, he was
not actively involved in the loan applications submitted in February 2020, and
overall, his role was much less central to the scheme than that of Mr. Chancy. PSR ¶¶
32, 37.2
Mr. Ilori was not present at the February 2020 meetings between Mr. Chancy,
the CS, and others regarding additional loan applications and the opening of an
allegedly fraudulent bank account to launder those proceeds. On February 18, 2020,
Mr. Chancy and the confidential source (“CS”)—not Mr. Ilori—met and discussed four
loan applications (of $250,000 per loan) that Mr. Chancy intended to submit to the
UC. Id. ¶¶ 36, 37; see also Compl. ¶ 14(a). Then, Mr. Chancy—not Mr. Ilori—emailed
2 Mr. Ilori’s limited involvement in the scheme is reflected in the PSR. Even under
the Government’s best set of facts, Mr. Ilori is responsible for preparing two of the
five loans in the first set, and only one of the loans in the second set. PSR ¶ 42.
Case 1:20-cr-00378-LJL Document 127 Filed 03/01/22 Page 4 of 12
-4- March 1, 2022
four loan applications to the UC, including one listing Mr. Chancy as the loan
applicant. PSR ¶ 37. Mr. Chancy also mailed the applications to the UC at a mailbox
in Manhattan. Compl. ¶ 14(b). Mr. Ilori did not.
On February 26, the CS and Mr. Chancy met at the HSBC Bank where Mr.
Chancy worked. PSR ¶ 39. Mr. Ilori was not present. While Mr. Chancy may have
called Mr. Ilori asking him if he had an identity to be used to open a fraudulent bank
account, Mr. Ilori disputes providing Mr. Chancy with the Missouri identification
card that Mr. Chancy had on his personal cellphone. Id. ¶ 39. Immediately after the
meeting between Mr. Chancy and the CS, the CS met with co-conspirator Michael
Albarella (a manager at HSBC) and discussed opening a fraudulent bank account to
launder the loan money. Id. ¶ 40. On February 27, Mr. Chancy, the CS, Mr. Albarella,
and another undercover agent (“UC-2) met at the HSBC bank to open the fraudulent
bank account. PSR ¶ 41. Again, Mr. Ilori was not present.
In addition, Mr. Ilori is absent from a number of telephone calls and text
messages between Mr. Chancy, on the one hand, and the CS or UC, on the other hand,
coordinating the submission of the February 2020 loan applications and receipt of
the loan proceeds. See, e.g., USAO_0000603 (recording of February 17, 2020
telephone call between Mr. Chancy and the CS); USAO_0000633 (recording of
February 24, 2020 telephone call between Mr. Chancy and the CS regarding opening
an account); USAO_000625 (recording of March 2, 2020 telephone call between Mr.
Chancy and the CS regarding receipt of loan proceeds). Similarly, text messages
between Mr. Chancy and the UC indicate that Mr. Chancy—not Mr. Ilori—primarily
coordinated the scheme involving the $250,000 loans. For example, on February 19,
2020, Mr. Chancy sent a text message to the UC confirming he emailed the UC emails
the loan packages, and Mr. Chancy followed up with the UC the next day about the
loan term sheets. See USAO_000742; USAO_0016705-07; USAO_0016718.
Moreover, Mr. Ilori’s limited role in the February 2020 loan applications and
bank account is consistent with the fact that Mr. Chancy wanted to restrict Mr. Ilori’s
continuing involvement in the scheme. See, e.g., USAO_0000377 (recording of
January 13, 2020 telephone call between Mr. Chancy and CS in which Mr. Chancy
asks the CS not to deal with Mr. Ilori); USAO_0000408 (recording of January 16,
2020 telephone call between Mr. Chancy and CS discussing cutting Mr. Ilori out of
the scheme).
Relatedly, with respect to loss amount, the value of the first set of January
2020 loans was $20,000. PSR ¶ 33. By contrast, the value of the second set of loans
was reportedly $1,000,000. PSR ¶ 38. Considering the value of the loans attributed
to Mr. Ilori’s involvement in the first scheme, his Guidelines range would be only 15
– 21 months.3
3 Even assuming the Government’s best theory of the facts, Mr. Ilori is responsible
only for the preparation of two, $5,000 loans and one, $250,000 loan. PSR ¶ 42.
This would result in Guidelines range for Mr. Ilori of 41 – 53 months.
Case 1:20-cr-00378-LJL Document 127 Filed 03/01/22 Page 5 of 12
-5- March 1, 2022
Mr. Chancy 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). Mr. Chancy was
responsible for bringing Mr. Ilori into the scheme in the first place and—unlike Mr.
Ilori—was directly involved in all of the loan packages at issue in January and
February 2020. For these reasons, we submit that a sentence of 30 months is
appropriate.
III. Mr. Ilori Experiences PTSD Symptoms That Contribute to His
Behavior And He Expresses Motivation to Participate In
Treatment
In executing “perhaps the most difficult task of a trial court judge,” the Second
Circuit has ask sentencing judges to “have some understanding of ‘the diverse frailties
of humankind’” and to exercise “a ‘generosity of spirit, that compassion which causes
one to know what it is like to be in trouble and in pain.’” United States v. Singh, 877
F.3d 107, 121 (2d Cir. 2017) (citations omitted). To aid this Court in gaining a fuller
understanding of who Mr. Ilori is, we submitted our initial sentencing memorandum
which describes the reasons why his history and characteristics warrant leniency. See
Ex. A.
In addition, we submit a report from psychiatrist Eric Goldsmith, M.D., who
conducted a psychiatric evaluation of Mr. Ilori to assess his overall psychiatric
condition following his second arrest for alleged fraud. See Ex. A (Dr. Goldsmith
Report). Dr. Goldsmith has diagnosed Mr. Ilori with “complex PTSD” and concluded
that Mr. Ilori evidences “dissociative symptoms” which “can best be understood as
can be best understood as identification with the state of mind that he had as a child,
when he was exposed to deprivation and traumas and forced to survive.” Id. at 4–5.
Dr. Goldsmith’s expert opinion is that “[w]ith ongoing treatment, Mr. Ilori’s trauma-
based symptoms will improve and his risk for criminal recidivism will be reduced.”
Id. at 6. Dr. Goldsmith reports that Mr. Ilori “is motivated to participate in mental
treatment.” Id.
IV. Conclusion
For all the foregoing reasons, we respectfully ask that the Court impose a
sentence of 30 months.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Brooke Cucinella
Brooke Cucinella
cc: Counsel of record (via ECF)
Case 1:20-cr-00378-LJL Document 127 Filed 03/01/22 Page 6 of 12
Exhibit A
Case 1:20-cr-00378-LJL Document 127 Filed 03/01/22 Page 7 of 12
Case 1:20-cr-00378-LJL Document 127 Filed 03/01/22 Page 8 of 12
Case 1:20-cr-00378-LJL Document 127 Filed 03/01/22 Page 9 of 12
Case 1:20-cr-00378-LJL Document 127 Filed 03/01/22 Page 10 of 12
Case 1:20-cr-00378-LJL Document 127 Filed 03/01/22 Page 11 of 12
Case 1:20-cr-00378-LJL Document 127 Filed 03/01/22 Page 12 of 12
File and source
- File
- gov.uscourts.nysd.540905.127.0.pdf
- Size
- 664,590 bytes
- SHA-256
- 899e8605a4ed38d9a7f43805ac9957197f28f86e81ce448e1b128f5e85730c04
- Original
- PACER (login required)