Court filing
United States’s Memorandum in Aid of Sentencing — United States v. Bell (Dkt. 14, D.D.C.)
Summary
The United States's Memorandum in Aid of Sentencing in United States of America v. James Kyle Bell, No. 21-CR-00284 (JDB), in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, dated November 23, 2021, ahead of sentencing set for December 3, 2021. The government alleges that the defendant created political action committees that purported to support both major presidential candidates but did nothing for them, and used multiple shell companies to seek millions of dollars in government-backed loans. It asks the Court to impose incarceration consistent with the agreed-upon guideline range under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and to enter restitution and forfeiture orders consistent with the plea agreement. It is signed by Assistant United States Attorneys John W. Borchert and Elizabeth A. Aloi.
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
Filed November 23, 2021 in James Kyle Bell; one of 5 filings from this case.
Record facts
| Court | U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia |
|---|---|
| Filed | 2021-11-23 |
Cite this document
“United States’s Memorandum in Aid of Sentencing — United States v. Bell (Dkt. 14, D.D.C.).”
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, No. 1:21-cr-00284, Doc. 14, filed 2021-11-23. Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/court-filings/us-v-james-kyle-bell/2021-11-23-united-states-s-memorandum-in-aid-of-sentencing-dkt-14/
, SHA-256 03a114af530baace11e1f9318e03743b0b3fe99577234e9207db88d7219def72.Full text
Case 1:21-cr-00284-JDB Document 14 Filed 11/23/21 Page 1 of 15
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v. No. 21-CR-00284 (JDB)
JAMES KYLE BELL,
Sentencing: December 3, 2021
Defendant.
UNITED STATES’S MEMORANDUM IN AID OF SENTENCING
When the United States faced the challenges of a presidential election and the terror of a
global pandemic, the defendant seized the opportunity to cheat American voters and taxpayers.
The defendant created scam political action committees (“PACs”) which purported to raise funds
in support of both major presidential candidates but, in fact, did nothing to support those
candidates. And the defendant used multiple shell companies to seek millions of dollars in
government-backed loans based on a superabundance of lies—his companies, in fact, had no
employees, no business operations, and no need for the government’s assistance during the
pandemic. Given the nature and seriousness of the defendant’s offense, the government requests
that the Court sentence the defendant to a period of incarceration consistent with the agreed-upon
guideline range. Such a sentence is also warranted in light of the sentencing factors outlined in
18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).
BACKGROUND
The defendant’s scheme revolved around two scam PACs and five separate shell
companies. (Dkt. 5 ¶¶ 1-2.) 1 First, the defendant registered a PAC called the Keep America
1
“Dkt.” refers to the docket entries in this case. “PSR” refers to the Presentence Investigation Report.
Case 1:21-cr-00284-JDB Document 14 Filed 11/23/21 Page 2 of 15
Great Committee (“KAGC”) with the Federal Election Commission (“FEC”) in Washington,
D.C. (Dkt. 5 ¶ 3.) Even though KAGC purported to support the re-election of then-president
Donald Trump (Dkt. 5 ¶ 7), the defendant also registered a PAC called the Best Days Lie Ahead
Committee (“BDLAC”) which supported the election of then-candidate Joseph Biden. (Dkt. 5
¶ 19.) The defendant sought donations nationwide for both PACs using online platforms and
email solicitations. 2 (Dkt. 5 ¶¶ 7-9, 20-22.) The six shell companies were all registered with the
State of Nevada, Division of Corporations: Echo Three LLC, Myson Rules LLC, Red Five LLC,
Bella Threads LLC, and 5K Media LLC. 3
The Scam PACs
The defendant himself registered KAGC with the FEC on January 7, 2020. (Dkt. 5 ¶ 3.)
He created two websites that solicited donations to KAGC: keepamericagreatcommittee.com and
trump2020maga.com. As the defendant admitted in entering his guilty plea, much of the content
on KAGC’s websites was copied without permission from other websites supporting President
Trump’s reelection—to the point of copying proprietary source code verbatim and pirating
copyrighted materials. (Dkt. 5 ¶ 7.) The defendant also used an email marketing company to
send solicitations to no less than 42,000 recipients. (Dkt. 5 ¶ 8.)
The defendant has admitted that KAGC’s email marketing “contained material
misrepresentations.” (Dkt. 5 ¶ 9.) The marketing materials had “the appearance of solicitations
from the Trump Campaign containing the official campaign logo.” (Dkt. 5 ¶ 9.) And the emails
made entirely false promises that “donations will be instantly 5X-MATCHED!” (Dkt. 5 ¶ 9.)
2
The defendant also registered a PAC called “Red Five,” but the government does not believe that the defendant
ever used it to raise funds. (Dkt. 5 ¶ 41.)
3
The defendant also registered a corporation named “Keep America Great Committee LLC” which he used to open
bank accounts to receive donations from KAGC. (Dkt. 5¶ 6-7.)
2
Case 1:21-cr-00284-JDB Document 14 Filed 11/23/21 Page 3 of 15
Based on this false marketing, the defendant received no less than $246,000 on behalf of KAGC
between January and October 2020. 4
At the same time that the defendant was purportedly raising funds to support the
president’s reelection, the defendant raised thousands of dollars on behalf of BDLAC which
supposedly supported the election of Joseph Biden. (Dkt. 5 ¶ 19.) The defendant created a
website to solicit donations called bestdayslieaheadcommittee.com. (Dkt. 5 ¶ 20.) The
defendant purchased 33 different advertisements on Google to promote BDLAC at a cost of
$22,000. (Dkt. 5 ¶ 21.) The defendant has admitted that he raised approximately $100,000 in
donations on behalf of BDLAC by using an online portal maintained by another—legitimate—
PAC, although he ended up refunding those donations when that PAC removed him from its
portal. (Dkt. 5¶ 22.)
The FEC is the federal agency whose mission is to protect the integrity of the federal
campaign finance process by providing transparency and fairly enforcing and administering
federal campaign finance laws. (Dkt. 1 ¶ 1.) However, during the course of the scheme the
defendant repeatedly lied to the FEC. He told the FEC that KAGC’s address was located at 1300
Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, D.C., which it was not (Dkt. 5 ¶ 12); that KAGC used a
bank located in New York, which it did not (Dkt. 5 ¶ 12); that KAGC had not refunded any
contributions to donors, which was false (Dkt. 5 ¶ 18); that KAGC had received only $28,650 in
receipts, while KAGC’s bank accounts showed receipts of substantially more (Dkt. 5 ¶ 14-15);
and that KAGC, for the July 2020 quarterly reporting period, had only $23,4999 in
disbursements, which was far less than the $90,000 in disbursements from KAGC’s bank
accounts. (Dkt. 5 ¶ 17.)
4
The government has totaled all of the contributions to KAGC made through two payment processors.
3
Case 1:21-cr-00284-JDB Document 14 Filed 11/23/21 Page 4 of 15
The Fake Companies and PPP Loans
In March 2020, Congress passed the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security
(“CARES”) Act to provide emergency financial assistance to the millions of Americans who
suffered the economic effects caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. (Dkt. 1 ¶ 5.) One source of
economic relief provided by the CARES Act was the authorization of up to $349 billion in
forgivable loans to small businesses for job retention and certain other expenses, through the
Paycheck Protection Program (“PPP”). (Dkt. 1 ¶ 5.) The supporting documentation requirement
was deliberately minimal and required only one years’ worth of a company’s tax records. If a
participating lender approved a PPP loan application, the Small Business Agency (“SBA”)
would 100% guarantee the value of the loan. (Dkt. 1 ¶ 7.) The amount of money that a business
could borrow under the PPP was determined based on the business’s average monthly payroll
and its number of employees. (Dkt. 1 ¶ 6.)
On five separate occasions during 2020, the defendant submitted PPP loan applications
which were riddled with fraudulent statements on behalf of shell companies that he owned or
controlled. (Dkt. 5 ¶¶ 23-51.) The defendant applied for a loan on behalf of “Echo Three LLC”
and told the lender his company had 83 employees and an annual payroll of over $2.3 million.
(Dkt. 5 ¶ 24.) Echo Three LLC’s application included a fraudulent IRS Form W-3 which
included those numbers. (Dkt. 5 ¶ 24.) In fact, the defendant had at most six employees and
never had a payroll over $2 million. (Dkt. 5 ¶ 25.) Nonetheless, the defendant received a PPP
loan in the amount of $485,016 for Echo Three LLC which was guaranteed by the taxpayers.
(Dkt. 5 ¶ 27.)
4
Case 1:21-cr-00284-JDB Document 14 Filed 11/23/21 Page 5 of 15
The defendant also used his wife’s name and signature to apply for a PPP loan for
“Myson Rules LLC.” (Dkt. 5 ¶ 34.) In the application, the defendant claimed that this company
had 74 employees with an annual payroll of $2.3 million. (Dkt. 5 ¶ 34.) The defendant, again,
submitted a false IRS Form W-3 in support of the application. (Dkt. ¶ 35.) In fact, Myson Rules
never had 74 employees and never had an annual payroll over $2 million. (Dkt. 5 ¶ 35.)
Nonetheless, Myson Rules LLC received a government-backed PPP loan in the amount of
$492,754 based on these false statements. (Dkt. 5 ¶ 36.)
In approximately April 2020, the defendant applied for a PPP loan for a Nevada company
he controlled called “Red Five LLC.” (Dkt. 5 ¶ 38.) This application included a completely fake
IRS Form 940 employer tax return for year 2019 in which the defendant claimed the company
had an annual payroll of $490,500. (Dkt. 5 ¶ 38.) In fact, Red Five LLC had no payroll
expenditures at all—let alone a payroll of almost $500,000. (Dkt. 5 ¶ 39.) The defendant
received a loan of $112,187 through the PPP for Red Five LLC.
The defendant submitted a fourth application for PPP funding on behalf of “Bella
Threads LLC,” using his wife’s name. (Dkt. 5 ¶¶ 42-43.) In the company’s application, the
defendant represented that the company had an annual payroll of $239,423. (Dkt. 5 ¶¶ 43-44.)
That payroll amount was false but, nonetheless, the defendant received a PPP loan in the amount
of $49,879 for Bella Threads LLC. (Dkt. 5 ¶¶ 44-45.)
Finally, in May 2020, the defendant applied for a PPP loan for “5K Media LLC” which
he claimed had 41 employees with an annual payroll of $2.5 million. (Dkt. 5 ¶ 46-47.) In fact,
5K Media never had more than six employees and never had a payroll approaching that amount.
(Dkt. 5 ¶ 48.) The defendant requested a PPP loan in the amount of $521,625. (Dkt. 5¶ 47.)
5
Case 1:21-cr-00284-JDB Document 14 Filed 11/23/21 Page 6 of 15
However, the defendant contacted his lender and withdrew the application for 5K Media LLC
before the loan could be funded. (Dkt. 5 ¶ 50-51.)
Guilty Plea
The defendant agreed to enter a pre-indictment plea to an Information charging him with
one count of Wire Fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343. (PSR ¶ 4.) In entering a plea to that
count, the defendant admitted that he had created and operated the two scam PACs at issue—
KAGC and BDLAC—and that he had submitted fraudulent PPP loan applications for five
different companies. (PSR ¶¶ 12-13.) The defendant further admitted that he co-mingled PPP
loan proceeds with donations to his scam PACs, and diverted funds for his personal benefit.
(Dkt. 5 ¶ 28-32.) The Information to which the defendant pleaded guilty identified eight
different instances in which the defendant used the interstate wires to transmit information to the
FEC and the SBA in furtherance of his scheme. (Dkt. 1 ¶ 23.)
For purposes of the sentencing guidelines, the parties have agreed that the actual and
intended loss amount in this case is over $1.5 million. (Dkt. 4 at 2.) That loss amount is
calculated as follows:
Total Contributions to KAGC (PSR ¶ 64) $246,751.45
Total Contributions to BDLAC (PSR ¶ 33) $100,000.00
PPP Loan to Echo Three LLC (PSR ¶ 38) $485,016.00
PPP Loan to Myson Rules LLC (PSR ¶ 47) $492,754.00
PPP Loan to Red Five LLC (PSR ¶ 51) $112,187.00
PPP Loan to Bella Threads LLC (PSR ¶ 56) $49,879.00
PPP Loan to 5K Media LLC (PSR ¶ 58) $521,625.00
TOTAL $2,008,212.45
The provisions of the Mandatory Victim Restitution Act apply in this case. (PSR ¶ 64.) And,
although the parties have not stipulated to a restitution amount, the plea agreement provides that
6
Case 1:21-cr-00284-JDB Document 14 Filed 11/23/21 Page 7 of 15
the Court will consider whether, and in what amount, mandatory restitution applies. (Dkt. 4 at
7.)
As part of his plea agreement, the defendant has agreed to forfeit his criminal proceeds to
the government. (PSR ¶ 147.) The plea agreement reflects an agreement by the parties that the
actual proceeds of the defendant’s scheme total $1,386,588.25. 5 The defendant will forfeit
$4,900 which is currently being held in trust by his counsel. (Dkt. 4 at 9.) The defendant will
also forfeit $519,128.06 in funds that were seized by the government as criminal proceeds from
bank accounts that the defendant controlled. (Dkt. 4 at 9.) And the defendant has agreed to the
entry of a forfeiture money judgment of $862,560.19 which reflects the remaining amount of
proceeds. (Dkt. 4 at 9; PSR ¶ 147.)
SENTENCING GUIDELINES
As the Court is well aware, although the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines are advisory,
sentencing courts “must consult those Guidelines and take them into account when sentencing.”
United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 261 (2005). Thus, at sentencing a court “must first
calculate the Guidelines range applicable to the defendant. Nelson v. United States, 555 U.S.
350, 351 (2009); see also Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 49-50 (2007). Pursuant to the plea
agreement in this matter, the parties have agreed that the following sentencing guidelines should
apply:
U.S.S.G. Description Levels
Provision
§ 2B1.1(a)(1) Base offense level 7
§ 2B1.1(b)(1) Actual and intended loss more than $1.5 million +16
5
This amount is the sum total of the following: all donations to KAGC ($246,751.45), the PPP loan to Echo Three
LLC ($485,016), the PPP loan to Myson Rules LLC ($492,754), the PPP loan to Red Five LLC ($112,187), and the
PPP loan to Bella Threads LLC ($49,879). The proceeds of the scheme do not include the amounts refunded to
BDLAC donors and the PPP loan application that the defendant made and withdrew on behalf of 5K Media LLC—
although those amount are properly included in the intended loss for purposes of the sentencing guidelines.
7
Case 1:21-cr-00284-JDB Document 14 Filed 11/23/21 Page 8 of 15
U.S.S.G. Description Levels
Provision
§ 2B1.1(b)(2)(A) Offense involved more than ten victims or was committed +2
through mass marketing
§ 2B1.1(b)(9) Misrepresentation that the defendant was acting on behalf of a +2
charitable, educational, religious, or political organization
§ 2B1.1(b)(10) Offense involved sophisticated means +2
§ 2B1.1(b)(17)(A) Defendant derived gross receipts over $1 million from one or +2
more financial institutions
(PSR ¶ 146.) These guidelines yield an adjusted offense level of 31. (PSR ¶ 78). In the plea
agreement, the government agreed that the defendant should receive a two-point reduction for
acceptance of responsibility. (PSR ¶ 80.) The government also believes that the defendant
should receive an additional one-point reduction under the guidelines for providing the Court and
the government with timely notice prior to indictment of his intention to enter a guilty plea.
(PSR ¶ 81.) The probation office has correctly calculated that the resulting total offense level is
28. (PSR ¶ 82.)
The government at this time has no reason to dispute the probation office’s calculation
that the defendant’s criminal history score falls in Category I. (PSR ¶ 85.) With an Offense
Level of 28 and a Criminal History of Category I, the guidelines recommend a sentence of 78
months to 97 months of incarceration. (PSR ¶ 146.)
STATUTORY FACTORS
As the Court is also well aware, after calculating the applicable Guidelines range, a
sentencing court must then consider that range as well as the sentencing factors set forth in 18
U.S.C. § 3553(a) and determine a sentence that is appropriate and reasonable for the individual
defendant. Nelson, 555 U.S. at 351; see also United States v. Hughes, 401 F.3d 540, 546 (4th
Cir. 2005). With respect to that section’s enumerated factors, of particular relevance here are
the “nature and circumstances of the offense,” the need for the sentence “to reflect the
8
Case 1:21-cr-00284-JDB Document 14 Filed 11/23/21 Page 9 of 15
seriousness of the offense” and provide “just punishment,” “the history and characteristics of
the defendant,” the need “to promote respect for the law,” the need to “avoid unwarranted
sentence disparities,” and the need for the sentence “to afford adequate deterrence to criminal
conduct.” 18 U.S.C. §§ 3553(a)(1), (a)(2)(A), (a)(2)(B), (a)(6), (a)(7).
Nature and Circumstances of the Offense, and its Seriousness
The defendant’s crime was serious by any measure. At a time when the United States
was acutely focused on a presidential election and amid a global pandemic that has killed over
700,000 people in America, the defendant decided to take advantage of an opportunity for
profit by casting a web of falsehoods. The defendant’s PACs were nothing more than a
sophisticated confidence trick that cheated only people who had hoped to participate in our
electoral process through campaign donations—a sacred privilege afforded to every American.
The defendant targeted no less than 42,000 people with email messages promoting his scam.
(PSR ¶ 19.) KAGC received donations from at least 3,400 victims who gave less than $75 on
average. Although financial losses to each individual donor might appear quite modest, those
donations reflect each victim’s passionate belief that their money – however modest – could
be used to benefit a greater cause. The defendant targeted and exploited these victims. Instead
of using donations to KAGC to support the re-election of Donald Trump, the defendant
diverted the funds for his own use and benefit. And the defendant cynically also targeted
victims who intended to give money to support the candidacy of Donald Trump’s primary
rival, Joseph Biden.
Crimes like these breed distrust of our democratic institutions. When victims lose their
political contributions, they lose their voice in our public discourse. Indeed, it is for this
precise reason that our legal system recognizes that such contributions are tantamount to
9
Case 1:21-cr-00284-JDB Document 14 Filed 11/23/21 Page 10 of 15
protected political speech. See McCutcheon v. FEC, 527 U.S. 185 (2014). When voters
believe that they have no voice in a political system, powerlessness and alienation follows.
These serious harms reach far beyond the low-dollar loss amounts incurred by each victim.
Additionally, at the same time that the defendant was operating his scam PACs, he
further capitalized on the moment to dupe multiple lenders into giving him $1.1 million of
taxpayer-backed PPP loans. The CARES Act designed the PPP to provide funds quickly and
easily to qualifying individuals. Congress wanted to help small business owners and their
employees whose livelihoods were jeopardized by the unprecedented crisis facing Americans.
The defendant abused this process not just once; but on five separate occasions. He
submitted completely fake tax and payroll documents for his five different shell companies.
The defendant lied about the number of employees for each company. He lied about the
businesses’ annual payroll. And, because PPP funds were limited (and ran out), the defendant
undoubtedly prevented other legitimate applicants from receiving funding.
These considerations weigh in favor of a substantial period of incarceration.
History and Characteristics of the Defendant
The defendant agreed to plead guilty without arrest and without indictment. Thus, he
deserves credit for accepting responsibility early and saving the government considerable
resources in preparing this case for presentation to a grand jury and a trial. The sentence
recommended by the United States reflects such acceptance because it incorporates a downward
adjustment by three levels for acceptance of responsibility pursuant U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1.
However, it is worth mention that the conduct described in the Statement of Offense does
not reflect the totality of instances in which the defendant sought to take advantage of the
taxpayers during the pandemic. In addition to committing PPP loan fraud, the defendant also
10
Case 1:21-cr-00284-JDB Document 14 Filed 11/23/21 Page 11 of 15
submitted applications to the SBA for the COVID-19 Economic Injury Disaster Loan (“EIDL”)
program on behalf of shell companies that he controlled.
Application Date Company Name DBA Name Applicant Loan Amount
March 30, 2020 Red Five Inc. Red Five Inc. James Bell $418,000
July 1, 2020 Red Five Inc. Red Five LLC James Bell $130,000
July 5, 2020 Nailed It LLC Nailed It LLC James Bell $119,720
Although none of these loans was ever funded by the SBA, they shed further light on the
defendant’s intention to cheat the taxpayers and to profit from the government’s response to the
pandemic.
Additionally, since entering his guilty plea in May, the defendant has failed fully to
respond to the government’s inquiries regarding his cryptocurrency holdings. In his interview
with the probation office, the defendant claimed that he and his wife had no more than $3,000 in
Bitcoin holdings. (PSR ¶ 132.) However, as the government noted in its response to the PSR,
the government is aware that the defendant invested no less than $72,000 in cryptocurrency
between March and May 2020 using the currency exchange Coinbase. (PSR at 30.) The
defendant’s investments with Coinbase came directly from one of the defendant’s bank accounts
that he used to receive the proceeds of the scheme in this case. The cryptocurrency that the
defendant says he purchased, Bitcoin, has increased in value by over 300% since June 2020.
On September 2, 2021, the government asked that the defendant provide an accounting of
his cryptocurrency holdings, along with the key codes and wallet identifiers that he has used to
trade cryptocurrency. At the request of defense counsel, the government has produced copies of
11
Case 1:21-cr-00284-JDB Document 14 Filed 11/23/21 Page 12 of 15
the defendant’s bank records that show he invested $72,000 of his criminal proceeds in
cryptocurrency. 6 However, to date, the defendant has provided the government with nothing in
response—not even a proffer.
Promotion of Respect for the Law,
General Deterrence, and Avoiding Disparities
The government’s recommended sentence in this case—incarceration at the low end of
the agreed-upon guideline range—will promote respect for the law and provide for general
deterrence. At their core, the defendant’s scam PACs were a highly sophisticated form of
consumer fraud perpetrated using the internet. The FBI’s Internet Crime Complaint Center
(“IC3”) has reported that during 2019 it received more than 400,000 complaints of internet
fraud. IC3 also reports that these scams caused reported losses of more than $3.5 billion. 7
Notwithstanding the efforts of law enforcement, only a fraction of these schemes result in
successful prosecution. Accordingly, the need for general deterrence for internet fraud
schemes is critical.
Additionally, this case involves fraud on a government program that was motivated by
greed at a time when millions of Americans were suffering from the economic impact of a
global pandemic. As the pandemic spread, so too did fraud related to the PPP program and
other programs designed to provide critical economic assistance. Actors like the defendant
who seek to defraud these programs not only drain the program of limited funding; they make
it more difficult for administrators of government and other relief programs to get aid to
6
The transfers were made from the defendant’s Bank of America account x2519 which the defendant has admitted
he used to receive PPP loan funds. (Dkt. 5 ¶¶ 37, 45.) The transfers to Coinbase were as follows: March 23 ($250),
March 24 ($1,000), March 24 ($30), April 20 ($315), April 22 ($7,000), April 30 ($1,000), April 30 ($9,000), May 4
($13,000), May 5 ($635), May 6 ($767), and May 29 ($40,000). The total of these Bitcoin purchases is $72,997.
7
Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2019 Internet Crime Report at 12 (available athttps://ic3.gov/Media/PDF/
AnnualReport/2019_IC3Report.pdf).
12
Case 1:21-cr-00284-JDB Document 14 Filed 11/23/21 Page 13 of 15
individuals that qualify for and need it. The government’s recommended sentence of
incarceration in this case is thus appropriate to send a message to other offenders that there are
serious consequences for defrauding government pandemic relief programs.
The government’s recommended sentence will not create an unwarranted sentencing
disparity. This case represents a unique instance in which the defendant’s scheme involves
both the operation of scam PACs and the fraudulent receipt of large amounts of PPP loan
funds. Although a relatively small number of PPP loan defendants have been sentenced in
cases nationwide, the judges of other districts have not hesitated to sentence such defendants to
substantial terms of imprisonment that are consistent with the guideline range in those cases.
See, e.g., United States v. David Hines, No. 21-CR-20011 (S.D. Fla. May 12, 2021) (78 months
of incarceration; guideline range of 63-78 months); United States v. Ganell Tubbs, No. 20-CR-
193 (E.D. Ark. March 15, 2021) (41 months of incarceration; guideline range of 41-51
months); United States v. Benjamin Rafael, No. 21-CR-20161 (S.D. Fla. July 14, 2021) (18
months of incarceration; guideline range of 12-18 months). At the same time, the handful of
judges who have sentenced scam PAC defendants have uniformly imposed substantial
incarceration. See, e.g., United States v. Kelley Rogers, No. 19-CR-270 (E.D. Va. Jan 17,
2020) (36 months of incarceration); United States v. Tierney, No. 18-CR-804 (S.D.N.Y. March
15, 2019 (24 months of incarceration); United States v. Harold R. Taub, No. 19-CR-804 (July
24, 2019) (36 months of incarceration). 8 Consequently, the government’s recommended
sentence in this case would be in line with the types of sentences that courts have found
appropriate in both scam PAC and PPP loan fraud matters.
8
Although the sentences in each of these scam PAC cases appear to have varied from the guideline range, none of
these defendants also faced sentencing for financial institution fraud or defrauding the government as does Mr. Bell.
Nonetheless, courts have sent a clear message that scams targeting donors to political causes—even standing
alone—should be met with years of imprisonment.
13
Case 1:21-cr-00284-JDB Document 14 Filed 11/23/21 Page 14 of 15
CONCLUSION
The crime here is uniquely egregious. The defendant conned voters seeking to participate
in our democratic process while simultaneously stealing government resources earmarked for
pandemic relief. For all of the foregoing reasons, the government submits that an appropriate
sentence in this case is for the defendant to serve a period of incarceration at the bottom of the
guideline range, and that the Court also enter orders of restitution and forfeiture consistent with
the plea agreement.
Respectfully submitted,
MATTHEW M. GRAVES
United States Attorney
By: ___________________________________
JOHN W. BORCHERT (Bar No. 472824)
ELIZABETH A. ALOI
Assistant United States Attorneys
Fraud & Public Corruption Section
555 Fourth Street, NW
Washington, D.C. 20530
(202) 252-7679
November 23, 2021
14
Case 1:21-cr-00284-JDB Document 14 Filed 11/23/21 Page 15 of 15
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on this 23rd day of November 2021, I caused a copy of the foregoing
to be served on counsel for the defendant via the court’s ECF system.
_______________________________
JOHN W. BORCHERT
Assistant United States Attorney
15File and source
- File
- 14.pdf
- Size
- 368,744 bytes
- SHA-256
- 03a114af530baace11e1f9318e03743b0b3fe99577234e9207db88d7219def72
- Our copy
- 14.pdf