Government’s Sentencing Position — U.S. v. Jaworska (E.D. Va.)

Record facts

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Alexandria Division · No. 1:20-cr-00180-CMH · Doc. 47 · 2020-11-13 · Docket on CourtListener

Full text

1 
 
 
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 
EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA 
Alexandria Division 
 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA  
) 
CRIMINAL NO. 1:20-cr-180 
 
 
 
 
 
 
) 
 
 
v. 
 
 
 
) 
Sentencing Date: November 20, 2020 
 
 
 
 
 
 
) 
MONIKA MAGDALENA JAWORSKA, 
) 
Hon. Claude M. Hilton 
 
 
 
 
 
 
) 
 
 
 
Defendant. 
 
 
 
) 
 
POSITION OF THE UNITED STATES WITH RESPECT TO SENTENCING 
 
The United States of America, through its attorneys, G. Zachary Terwilliger, United 
States Attorney; Kimberly Shartar and William Fitzpatrick, Assistant United States Attorneys, in 
accordance with 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and the United States Sentencing Commission, Guidelines 
Manual (“Guidelines” or “U.S.S.G.”), files this Position of the United States with Respect to 
Sentencing of Defendant Monika Magdalena Jaworska. 
The United States submits that the Probation Officer correctly calculated the Sentencing 
Guidelines level to be 17, which results in a 24 to 30 months advisory Guidelines range.  Based 
on the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), the United States requests that this Court impose a 
sentence of time served, two years of supervised release, order restitution in the amount of 
$220,573, and order forfeiture of certain bank accounts and a portion of the cash seized at the 
defendant’s arrest as detailed in the agreed upon forfeiture order. 
 
Case 1:20-cr-00180-CMH   Document 47   Filed 11/13/20   Page 1 of 9 PageID# 169

2 
 
 
I. 
BACKGROUND1  
The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (“CARES”) Act is a federal law 
enacted in or around March 2020 and designed to provide emergency financial assistance to the 
millions of Americans who are suffering the economic effects caused by the COVID-19 
pandemic.  One source of relief provided by the CARES Act was the authorization of forgivable 
loans to small businesses for job retention and certain other expenses through a program referred 
to as the Paycheck Protection Program (“PPP”).  A PPP loan application must be processed by a 
participating financial institution (the lender).  If a PPP loan application is approved, the 
participating financial institution funds the PPP loan using its own monies, which are 100% 
guaranteed by the Small Business Administration (“SBA”).  PPP loans are obtained by 
submitting an application to a financial institution along with supporting documentation as to the 
business’s payroll expenses.  PPP loan proceeds must be used by the business for certain 
permissible expenses—payroll costs, interest on mortgages, rent, and utilities.  The PPP allows 
the interest and principal on the PPP loan to be entirely forgiven if the business spends the loan 
proceeds on these expense items within a designated period of time.  The CARES Act also 
authorizes the SBA to provide Economic Injury Disaster Loans (“EIDL”) to eligible small 
businesses experiencing substantial financial disruption due to the COVID-19 pandemic.  
Pursuant to the CARES Act, the SBA is authorized to issue advances of up to $10,000 to small 
businesses within three days of applying for an EIDL.  Unlike PPP loan applications, EIDL 
applications are submitted directly to the SBA.  EIDL funds can be used for payroll expenses, 
                                                 
1The PSR and the Statement of Facts (“SoF”) signed by the defendant, Dkt. 41, adequately set 
forth the offense conduct in this case. 
Case 1:20-cr-00180-CMH   Document 47   Filed 11/13/20   Page 2 of 9 PageID# 170

3 
 
 
sick leave, production costs, and business obligations, such as debts, rent, and mortgage 
payments. 
Between April 13, 2020, and May 6, 2020, the defendant, Monika Magdalena Jaworska, 
(hereinafter “the defendant” or “Jaworska”) and her husband and co-conspirator, Tarik Jaafar 
(“Jaafar”)2, submitted eighteen PPP loan applications for four businesses, which were merely 
shell companies, to twelve financial institutions.  Of the approximately $6.6 million sought, the 
financial institutions disbursed approximately $1.4 million.  Additionally, between April 7, 2020, 
and April 15, 2020, the defendant and Jaafar submitted two EIDL loan applications for two of the 
shell entities to the SBA.  As a result, one $10,000 EIDL advance was obtained from the SBA.3 
  On May 19, 2020, law enforcement visited the home addresses of record, located in 
northern Virginia, for the defendant and Jaafar.  At one of the addresses, the law enforcement 
officer could tell people were present; however, no one answered the door when he knocked.  
Nonetheless, he left his card at the location.  As a result of this visit, the United States made 
contact with Jaafar’s first defense attorney.  Counsel for the United States informed Jaafar’s 
counsel that both Jaworska and Jaafar were targets of the investigation.  Knowing he and his wife 
were both under investigation, and despite making plans to meet with the government in-person 
for a second planned meeting, Jaafar purchased one-way tickets for himself, Jaworska, and their 
two children, to fly from New York to Poland on Saturday, June 20, 2020.  
                                                 
2 Jaafar was sentenced on November 13, 2020.  Case number 1:20-cr-185.  Documents related to 
his case will be referred to as “Jaafar Dkt.”  
3 However, as set forth below, Jaafar was only able to withdraw approximately $30,000 of the 
amounts disbursed. 
Case 1:20-cr-00180-CMH   Document 47   Filed 11/13/20   Page 3 of 9 PageID# 171

4 
 
 
The defendant was arrested on or about Saturday, June 20, 2020, on a criminal complaint 
charging her with conspiracy to commit wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1349.  
Specifically, the defendant and Jaafar were arrested in the parking garage across from Terminal 7 
of John F. Kennedy International (“JFK”) airport, where Polish Airlines is located, with 18 bags.  
The defendant had her United States and Polish passports on her person.  In the various bags, law 
enforcement found $49,875.65 in cash, approximately 14 cell phones, and multiple laptops.  On 
September 3, 2020, the defendant pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to defraud the United 
States and to defraud various financial institutions in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371.  Dkt. 40.  
Defendant was in custody for the time period between her arrest in New York, on June 20, 2020, 
and when she entered her plea, on September 3, 2020.  Dkt. 8, 42.  As such, she has served 
approximately 75 days in jail.  
II.  
THE APPROPRIATE GUIDELINE RANGE 
 
As this Court is aware, following the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. 
 
Booker, the Sentencing Guidelines are now advisory. 543 U.S. 220, 264 (2005).  “In the wake 
 
of Booker . . . the discretion of sentencing court is no longer bound by the range prescribed by the 
guidelines.  Nevertheless, a sentencing court is still required to ‘consult [the] Guidelines and take 
them into account when sentencing.’”  United States v. Hughes, 401 F.3d 540, 546 (4th Cir. 
2005) (quoting Booker, 543 U.S. at 264).  In fact, the Fourth Circuit has noted that “a district 
court shall first calculate (after making the appropriate findings of fact) the range prescribed by 
the guidelines.”  United States v. Hughes, 401 F.3d 540, 546 (4th Cir. 2005).  Thus, “sentencing 
courts are not left with unguided and unbounded sentencing discretion.”  United States v. Green, 
436 F.3d 449, 455 (4th Cir. 2006).  
Case 1:20-cr-00180-CMH   Document 47   Filed 11/13/20   Page 4 of 9 PageID# 172

5 
 
 
 
Here, the United States agrees that the appropriate Guidelines range with respect to 
incarceration is 24 to 30 months.  The total offense level of 17 results from a base offense level 
of 6, increased by 14 levels for the corresponding to loss of over $550,000 but less than 
$1,500,000,4 and a 3 level reduction for the defendant’s acceptance of responsibility and timely 
notification to the United States of her intention to plead guilty.5  The United States asks this 
Court to adopt the PSR’s findings and advisory Guidelines range.  
III.  THE FACTORS SET FORTH IN SECTION 3553(A) AND RECOMMENDED 
SENTENCE 
 
 
After calculating the appropriate guidelines range, “the court must ‘determine whether a 
sentence within that range . . . serves the factors set forth in § 3553(a) and, if not, select a 
sentence [within statutory limits] that does serve those factors.”  United States v. Moreland, 437 
F.3d 424, 432 (4th Cir. 2006) (quoting Green, 436 F.3d at 455).  Those factors include the nature 
of the offenses, the characteristics of the defendant, and the need for the sentence to reflect the 
seriousness of the offense, afford deterrence, protect the public, provide the defendant with 
needed educational or other training, and the need for unwarranted sentencing disparities among 
                                                 
4 While the defendant sought approximately $6.4 million in loans, the PPP loan program allows 
for individuals and businesses to seek multiple PPP loans from various lenders at the same time.  
However, once a loan is funded, the other applications must be withdrawn.  The investigating 
agents found that the defendant did not seek additional PPP loans for an entity once the entity 
had already received a PPP loan.  As such, the government agreed to limit the loss to the $1.4 
disbursed by the lenders. 
 
5 As noted here, the PSR includes a three-level decrease for acceptance of responsibility.  In this 
respect, the United States agrees that the defendant qualifies, pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1(a), for 
a two-level reduction.  In addition, the defendant timely notified the United States of her 
intention to plead guilty, thus permitting the United States to avoid preparing for trial and to 
allocate its resources more efficiently.  Accordingly, the United States hereby moves, pursuant to 
§ 3E1.1(b), to decrease the defendant’s offense level by one additional level. 
Case 1:20-cr-00180-CMH   Document 47   Filed 11/13/20   Page 5 of 9 PageID# 173

6 
 
 
defendants with similar records who have been found guilty of similar conduct.  18 U.S.C. § 
3553(a).  The Court need not weigh the factors equally, but must consider each of them.  United 
States v. Fowler, 948 F.3d 663, 674 (4th Cir. 2020).   
The defendant and her husband took advantage of two special programs meant for 
American businesses struggling amidst unprecedented economic disruption due to the COVID-
19 pandemic.  Despite not having operating businesses, they applied for PPP and EIDL funds.  
These were not one off mistakes, instead the defendant, along with her husband, applied for 
eighteen PPP loans from twelve financial institutions and filed two EIDL applications with the 
SBA.  The PPP loan applications included fake employment tax returns and payroll documents 
which claimed the business had a number of employees.  These acts exploited the fact that the 
PPP program was designed to release funds as quickly as possible in order to provide a life-line 
to businesses across the country. 
Because of early detection of their crimes by law enforcement, the defendant and her 
husband did not enjoy the use of the fraudulently obtained funds.  Within a mere four to five 
weeks of obtaining the funds, law enforcement knocked on their door.  The banks later froze 
the fraudulently obtained funds.  The defendant’s husband was only able to withdraw 
approximately $30,000 in cash from the fraud proceeds and some of the funds went to various 
banking fees.  Dkt. 41 at ¶ 15.  Notwithstanding law enforcements quick actions, the funds 
likely would have disappeared.  And if not for law enforcement learning of their potential 
flight, the defendant and her husband would be oversees never likely to face the consequences 
of their crime.   
Case 1:20-cr-00180-CMH   Document 47   Filed 11/13/20   Page 6 of 9 PageID# 174

7 
 
 
The defendant clearly participated in the fraud.  Her name was listed on many of the 
PPP loan applications, Dkt. 2 at ¶14, she opened at least one of the bank accounts in which 
fraud proceeds were transferred to, Dkt. 41 at ¶17c, and she was involved in multiple phone 
calls with lenders and exchanged emails with lenders.  Dkt. 2 at ¶¶13, 32.  However, her 
husband and co-conspirator, Jaafar, appears to be the more sophisticated individual.  Jaafar has 
a PhD in Economics and worked for at least fifteen years for some of the most premier banks 
in this country, including: Citibank, Sun Trust, and Lehman Brothers.  Jaafar Dkt. 58.  ¶¶82, 
86-91.  Additionally, according to Secretary of State records, Jaafar is listed as the individual 
who formed three of the four shell entities.  Dkt. 41, ¶12.  In contrast, Ms. Jaworska appears to 
be the less culpable of the two.  First, she lacks the banking background of her husband.  
Further, it was Jaafar who withdrew $30,000 in cash from the bank, Id. at ¶15, and who 
purchased the plane tickets to Poland. Dkt. 46 at ¶41.  This court sentenced Jaafar, who 
pleaded guilty to the same charge with the same overall loss amount, to a term of 12 months 
and two years of supervised released.  In order to avoid unwarranted disparities among 
similarly situated defendants, Jaworska should be sentenced to more than 12 months of 
incarceration.  However, given that Jaworska seems to be less culpable than her husband, along 
with the fact that she appears to be the sole caretaker of the couple’s two children, the 
government recommends a sentence of time served and two years of supervised release.  This 
sentence aims to avoid the children being placed in foster-care or with other family members.  
IV. 
FORFEITURE AND RESTITUTION 
While some of the funds were returned by the banks to the lenders, the lenders still 
have not been made whole.  As result there are fraud proceeds in bank accounts controlled by 
Case 1:20-cr-00180-CMH   Document 47   Filed 11/13/20   Page 7 of 9 PageID# 175

8 
 
 
the defendant and her husband that must be forfeited and there is also outstanding restitution 
due to the lenders and the SBA.  
Pursuant to the plea agreement, Dkt. 40 at ¶10, the defendant and the government have 
agreed to the attached consent forfeiture order which includes forfeiture totaling $220,573.  
Ex. 1.  Further, pursuant to the plea agreement, Defendant has agreed to pay mandatory 
restitution pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §3663A(c)(1)-(c)(2).  Dkt. 40 at ¶7 and 9.  Attached is the 
government’s proposed restitution order for restitution totaling $220,573.  Ex. 2.   
CONCLUSION 
For the reasons stated, the United States respectfully requests this court to sentence 
Monika Jaworska to a period of incarceration of time served and 2 years of supervised release.  
Such a sentence is reasonable and accounts for each of the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. 
§ 3553(a).  Finally, the government requests that the court enter the agreed upon consent 
forfeiture order and the Government’s proposed order restitution. 
 
G. Zachary Terwilliger 
United States Attorney 
 
 
 
/s/ 
 
 
 
 
Kimberly Shartar 
William Fitzpatrick 
Assistant United States Attorneys 
2100 Jamieson Avenue 
Alexandria, VA 22314 
(703) 299-3700 
Case 1:20-cr-00180-CMH   Document 47   Filed 11/13/20   Page 8 of 9 PageID# 176

 
 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 
 
I hereby certify that on November 13, 2020, I electronically filed the foregoing with the 
Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system, which will send a notification of that electronic filing 
(NEF) to all counsel of record: 
 
 
 
 
By:  
                  /s/  
 
 
Kimberly Shartar 
Assistant United States Attorney 
United States Attorney’s Office 
Justin W. Williams U.S. Attorney’s Building 
2100 Jamieson Avenue 
Alexandria, VA 22314 
Telephone: 703-299-3700 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Email: kimberly.m.shartar@usdoj.gov 
 
 
 
Case 1:20-cr-00180-CMH   Document 47   Filed 11/13/20   Page 9 of 9 PageID# 177

File and source

File

004_ECF_47_gov.uscourts.vaed.483673.47.0.pdf

Size

83,115 bytes

SHA-256

5bd4f7da213d61ac504be14796bf83329ea731b6fccdb78093f284aa1e6ae288

Our copy

004_ECF_47_gov.uscourts.vaed.483673.47.0.pdf

Original

storage.courtlistener.com