Court filing
Government’s Sentencing Memorandum — United States v. Dimassa (Dkt. 245, D. Conn.)
Summary
Prosecutors ask for a sentence within the guideline range of 27-33 months for John Bernardo, a West Haven housing specialist who pleaded guilty on June 14, 2022 to conspiracy to commit wire fraud with Michael DiMassa. The memorandum says the two formed Compass Investment Group, LLC on January 27, 2021, and that West Haven issued thirteen checks totaling $636,783.70 to the company for services never provided. Bernardo received $48,927.25 from that scheme and, according to DiMassa, about 10K in cash kickbacks from John Trasacco, so the government seeks restitution of $58,927.25. It rejects Bernardo's request for a minor-role reduction and a departure based on age and medical condition.
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 January 31, 2023 in Michael Dimassa.; one of 6 filings from this case.
Record facts
| Court | U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut |
|---|---|
| Filed | 2023-01-31 |
Cite this document
“Government’s Sentencing Memorandum — United States v. Dimassa (Dkt. 245, D. Conn.).”
U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut, No. 3:22-cr-00033, Doc. 245, filed 2023-01-31. Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/court-filings/us-v-john-trasacco/2023-01-31-government-s-sentencing-memorandum-dkt-245/
, SHA-256 88487e31e8976d78dd0af7b7373f974ec9da7e6371a7940858382bfedffa6615.Full text
Case 3:22-cr-00033-OAW Document 245 Filed 01/31/23 Page 1 of 9
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA : Case No. 3:22cr33 (OAW)
:
v. :
:
JOHN BERNARDO : January 31, 2023
GOVERNMENT'S SENTENCING MEMORANDUM
Introduction
During the pandemic, John Bernardo conspired with Michael DiMassa to
steal money from the citizens of West Haven that was designated for COVID relief.
He should be sentenced to a term of incarceration within the applicable Guideline
range.
Procedural History
On June 14, 2022 the defendant pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to
commit wire fraud. In the plea agreement, the parties agreed that the defendant’s
base offense level under U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1 is seven and 14 levels are added because
the loss exceeded $550,000.
After subtracting three levels for acceptance of responsibility, the final
offense level is 18. With a CHC of I, the defendant is exposed to term of
incarceration of 27-33 months and a fine $10,000 to $100,000.
The defendant now argues that he is a minimal or minor participant in the
conspiracy and thus should receive a lesser sentence. See Def’s Sentencing Memo
1
Case 3:22-cr-00033-OAW Document 245 Filed 01/31/23 Page 2 of 9
at 1 (Doc 157). Further, he argues that a downward departure is warranted based
on his age and medical condition. Id. at 4.
The government believes that the defendant is neither a minor participant in
the wire fraud conspiracy nor do his circumstances meet the standard for a
downward departure. Thus, Court must determine what is a fair and just sentence
under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). For the reasons stated below, the government believes
a sentence of incarceration within the applicable Guideline range is warranted in
this case.
Sentencing is scheduled for March 22, 2023 at 10:00 am.
Restitution
The defendant personally received $48,927.25 from the conspiracy with
DiMassa involving Compass Investments. The remainder was taken by DiMassa.
In addition, DiMassa indicated that Bernardo received approximately 10K in cash
from Mr. Trasacco as a kickback for facilitating the fraud. Thus, the Court should
issue an order of restitution for $58,927.25.
To date, the defendant has not paid any restitution, although his attorney
has discussed the mechanics of refinancing the defendant’s house with government
counsel.
Offense Conduct
In early 2021, the defendant was employed by West Haven as a Housing
Specialist in the Office of Community Development. PSR ¶ 9. During that time,
West Haven received over a million dollars in Covid relief funds to help that
2
Case 3:22-cr-00033-OAW Document 245 Filed 01/31/23 Page 3 of 9
municipality cope with the ongoing pandemic. DiMassa and the defendant worked
together to steal a significant portion of that money.
On January 27, 2021, the defendant and Michael DiMassa formed Compass
Investment Group, LLC. They were the only two principals of the company.
Bernardo’s home address was listed as the business address. His home address was
also listed on the bank account for Compass and both he and DiMassa were listed as
authorized signatories. Compass had no business purpose and was created solely to
defraud West Haven.
DiMassa had received authority to approve expenditures of West Haven’s
Covid relief funds. He submitted requests for payment to the City of West Haven
for services by Compass Investment Group, when no such services were provided. The
requests listed alleged services such as COVID-19 Legal + Lobbying + Site work for
COVID-19 Clinic, Consulting Service-Legislative Review Executive Orders – COVID-
19, Consulting Service-Support Staff Services, Monitors/Security Site (April 2021-
May 2021), and Consulting Service Lobbying Service – COVID-19 Federal.
These requests for payment caused the City of West Haven to issue checks to
Compass Investment Group. In total, the City of West Haven issued thirteen checks
totaling $636,783.70 to Compass Investment Group even though it received none of
the services described on the invoices.
In an apparent effort to make Compass Investments appear to be a legitimate
company, the defendant arranged for some of the proceeds to be issued as fraudulent
paychecks and transferred to a retirement account for his benefit. PSR ¶ 14. In all,
3
Case 3:22-cr-00033-OAW Document 245 Filed 01/31/23 Page 4 of 9
he deposited over $48,000 into his accounts.
In addition to the fraud involving Compass Investments, DiMassa engaged in
other schemes to defraud West Haven of Covid relief funds. One involved John
Trasacco. The defendant introduced John Trasacco to DiMassa at a cigar shop. The
three of them often frequented Doma restaurant in Branford. While at Doma,
Trasacco kicked back a portion of the proceeds he and DiMassa stole from West
Haven’s Covid funds, believed to be a total of $10,000, in cash to Bernardo on two
occasions.
Further, Bernardo played a role in the evolution of DiMassa’s schemes involving
Trasacco. At one point, Trasacco, Dimassa and the defendant met to discuss a new
scheme in which Trasacco would bill West Haven for Covid cleaning services by
allegedly using an ultraviolet light. They agreed to a 40/40/40 split of the money,
meaning each of the three of them would receive 40K from the fraud, with additional
amount being given to Trasacco. The next day, Trasacco sent DiMassa an invoice
for about $184,000, which was eventually submitted to West Haven. The check for
184K was issued by West Haven and was cashed by Trasacco. Shortly thereafter,
DiMassa and Bernardo were arrested. It does not appear as if Trasacco ever gave
either of them any of the proceeds from that fraud.
The Defendant was Not a Minor Participant
The defendant argues that he deserves a reduction for minor role because he
received less money from the Compass Investments scheme than DiMassa. But that
ignores the fact that the defendant’s participation was essential for the operation of
4
Case 3:22-cr-00033-OAW Document 245 Filed 01/31/23 Page 5 of 9
the scheme. His address was the official corporate address for Compass
Investments. He was a principal in the fictious company that had no business
purpose and produced nothing. His home served as the mailing address for the fake
company’s bank account. He was involved in setting up the fake payroll and
retirement accounts using the stolen Covid money. He routinely met with both
DiMassa and Trasacco at Doma. The defendant was involved in planning to steal
Covid money from West Haven via the UV light scheme and was slated to receive
$40,000.
Indeed, when the federal investigation went overt, the defendant
communicated directly with both DiMassa and Trasacco in order to discuss the
involvement of law enforcement. On October 7, 2021, Bernardo and DiMassa
called Trasacco using Bernardo’s phone to report the federal investigators were in
West Haven City Hall and, according to DiMassa, “the jig was up.” Both left City
Hall that day.
Further, call records indicate that on October 8, 2021 (the following day),
Bernardo’s and Trasacco’ s phones had 8 separate contacts, for a total of 94 minutes.
One call lasted 41 minutes. On October 9, 2021, the phones had three sperate
contacts for a total of 91 minutes, with two different calls each lasting 45 minutes.
This significant amount of interaction at a critical juncture with another individual
who was also stealing money from West Haven does not support the defendant’s
contention that he was a minor player.
5
Case 3:22-cr-00033-OAW Document 245 Filed 01/31/23 Page 6 of 9
A Departure is not Warranted under U.S.S.G. § § 5H1.1 or 5H1.4
Section 5H1.1 specifically states “[a]ge may be a reason to depart downward
in a case in which the defendant is elderly and infirm and where a form of
punishment such as home confinement might be equally as effective and less costly
than incarceration.” This simply does not apply to this case. The defendant does
not allege that he is infirm –he routinely had drinks with both Trasacco and
DiMassa at both a cigar shop and the bar at a restaurant. Until the time of his
arrest, he worked full time for West Haven. And, as discussed below, given the
seriousness nature of this theft of city funds by a city employee, home confinement
would not be just punishment under § 3553(a).
Further § 5H1.4 indicates that “[a]n extraordinary physical impairment may
be reason to depart downward; e.g. in the case of a seriously infirm defendant, home
detention may be as efficient as, and less costly than imprisonment.” Facts to
support such a departure are simply not present in this case.
Analysis of the § 3553(a) Factors
Section 3553(a) directs the district court to consider a number of factors in
imposing a fair and just sentence. Each criminal case is different and emphasizes
different combinations of § 3553(a) factors. In this matter, the government
believes the most important § 3553(a) factors are the (1) the specific nature and
circumstances of the offense, (2) promoting respect for the law; (3) just punishment
and (4) general deterrence.
6
Case 3:22-cr-00033-OAW Document 245 Filed 01/31/23 Page 7 of 9
The Nature and Circumstances of the Offense
The defendant’s crime constitutes of a serious offense. The defendant, a
municipal employee, stole city money. But what makes this crime even more serious
is that the money was designed to help residents cope with a pervasive pandemic.
Funds that should have been used to set up testing clinics or provide PPE was used
by the defendant for his personal pleasure. He frequented both a cigar bar and a
restaurant. He took some of the money and set up a retirement account for himself.
A Guideline sentence of incarceration is warranted.
The Sentence Must Promote Respect for the Law, Provide Just
Punishment and Offer General Deterrence
The sentence in this case must promote respect for the law. Simply put, a
municipal employee who steals a significant amount of public funds should go to
jail. And considering the funds were specifically earmarked to address an ongoing
historic pandemic, a significant period of incarceration is particularly warranted to
promote respect for the law and provide just punishment.
Additionally, the Court should consider general deterrence. In essence, this
was a crime committed by an employee who purposefully and repeatedly exploited
shortcomings in West Haven’s financial management system to steal public money.
A sentence of incarceration will serve to inform others who contemplate similar
crimes – that is fraud by public employees against the people they are employed to
serve – that such actions will result a felony conviction and a significant term of
incarceration.
7
Case 3:22-cr-00033-OAW Document 245 Filed 01/31/23 Page 8 of 9
Conclusion
After considering the Sentencing Guidelines and the other sentencing factors
under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), the Court should impose a term of incarceration within
the applicable Guideline range and order the defendant to pay $58,927.25 in
restitution.
Respectfully submitted,
VANESSA ROBERTS AVERY
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
/s
RAY MILLER
ASSISTANT UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
FEDERAL BAR NO. CT 20451
157 CHURCH STREET, 23RD FLOOR
NEW HAVEN, CT 06510
(203) 821-3700
8
Case 3:22-cr-00033-OAW Document 245 Filed 01/31/23 Page 9 of 9
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
This is to certify that on January 31, 2023 a copy of the foregoing
Memorandum was filed electronically. Notice of this filing will be sent by email to
all parties by operation of the Court’s electronic filing system or by mail on anyone
unable to accept electronic filing as indicated on the Notice of Electronic Filing.
Parties may access this filing through the Court=s CM/ECF System.
/s
Ray Miller
Assistant U.S. Attorney
9File and source
- File
- 245.pdf
- Size
- 144,528 bytes
- SHA-256
- 88487e31e8976d78dd0af7b7373f974ec9da7e6371a7940858382bfedffa6615
- Our copy
- 245.pdf