Court filing
Government’s Sentencing Position for Defendant Manuel Asadurian — United States v. Asadurian (Dkt. 27, C.D. Cal.)
Summary
The government's sentencing position for Manuel Asadurian in United States v. Asadurian, No. 2:22-cr-00388-DSF, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, filed January 23, 2023 as Document 27 by Assistant U.S. Attorney Scott Paetty, ahead of a February 13, 2023 hearing before Hon. Dale S. Fischer. It states that between approximately April 2020 and January 2021 Asadurian conspired with Jeffrey Scott Hedges and a loan consultant to defraud the SBA and its lenders, and fraudulently obtained PPP and EIDL funds using falsified documents. The government asks for 51 months imprisonment, three years of supervised release, restitution of $1,071,222 and a $100 special assessment.
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 23, 2023 in Manuel Asadurian; one of 2 filings from this case.
Record facts
| Court | U.S. District Court for the Central District of California |
|---|---|
| Filed | 2023-01-23 |
Cite this document
“Government’s Sentencing Position for Defendant Manuel Asadurian — United States v. Asadurian (Dkt. 27, C.D. Cal.).”
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, No. 2:22-cr-00388, Doc. 27, filed 2023-01-23. Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/court-filings/us-v-manuel-asadurian/2023-01-23-government-s-sentencing-position-for-defendant-manuel-asadur-dkt-27/
, SHA-256 1ec76d57ff4baccf81cef5655d5d924da7f61195f1416cb4f85395958112f1e7.Full text
Case 2:22-cr-00388-DSF Document 27 Filed 01/23/23 Page 1 of 8 Page ID #:118
1 E. MARTIN ESTRADA
United States Attorney
2 MACK E. JENKINS
Assistant United States Attorney
3 Chief, Criminal Division
SCOTT PAETTY (Cal. Bar No. 274719)
4 Assistant United States Attorney
Deputy Chief, Major Frauds Section
5 1100 United States Courthouse
312 North Spring Street
6 Los Angeles, California 90012
Telephone: (213) 894-6527
7 Facsimile: (213) 894-6269
E-mail: scott.paetty@usdoj.gov
8
Attorneys for Plaintiff
9 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
11 FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
12 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. CR 22-388-DSF
13 Plaintiff, GOVERNMENT’S SENTENCING POSITION
FOR DEFENDANT MANUEL ASADURIAN
14 v.
Hearing Date: February 13, 2023
15 MANUEL ASADURIAN, Hearing Time: 8:30 a.m.
aka “Manny,” Location: Courtroom of the
16 Hon. Dale S. Fischer
Defendant.
17
18
Plaintiff United States of America, by and through its counsel
19
of record, the United States Attorney for the Central District of
20
California and Assistant United States Attorney Scott Paetty, hereby
21
submits its position regarding the sentencing of defendant MANUEL
22
ASADURIAN (“defendant”).
23
This position is based upon the attached memorandum of points
24
and authorities, the Presentence Report disclosed by the United
25
//
26
27
28
Case 2:22-cr-00388-DSF Document 27 Filed 01/23/23 Page 2 of 8 Page ID #:119
1 States Probation Office (CR 26), the files and records in this case,
2 and such further evidence and argument as the Court may permit.
3 Dated: January 23, 2023 Respectfully submitted,
4 E. MARTIN ESTRADA
United States Attorney
5
MACK E. JENKINS
6 Assistant United States Attorney
Chief, Criminal Division
7
8
SCOTT PAETTY
9 Assistant United States Attorney
10 Attorneys for Plaintiff
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
Case 2:22-cr-00388-DSF Document 27 Filed 01/23/23 Page 3 of 8 Page ID #:120
1 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
2 For the reasons set forth below, the government recommends a
3 sentence of 51 months’ imprisonment to be followed by a three-year
4 term of supervised release, a restitution order in the amount of
5 $1,071,222, and a special assessment of $100.
6 I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
7 A. The Fraudulent Scheme
8 Between approximately April 2020 and January 2021, defendant
9 MANUEL ASADURIAN (“defendant”) conspired with Jeffrey Scott Hedges
10 and a loan consultant to carry out a scheme to defraud the Small
11 Business Administration (“SBA”) and its affiliated lenders of
12 approximately $1,620,122 in funds intended for COVID-19 pandemic
13 relief.1 Through the use of defunct companies and falsified
14 documents, defendant fraudulently obtained federal disaster relief
15 funds from the Paycheck Protection Program (“PPP”) and Economic
16 Injury Disaster Loan (“EIDL”) program, which were programs aimed to
17 help small businesses suffering from the economic impacts of the
18 COVID-19 pandemic. As part of the scheme, defendant applied for PPP
19 and EIDL loans by making materially false representations about the
20 entities’ payroll, revenue, and operating expenses. In furtherance
21 of his fraud, and to further conceal the fraudulent proceeds,
22 defendant also applied for and received funds related to an EIDL loan
23 in the name of another person. Defendant then misused the PPP and
24 EIDL loan proceeds for his own personal benefit.
25
26
27 1 Hedges has pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit wire fraud
affecting a financial institution and aggravated identity theft in
28 related case, United States v. Jeffrey Scott Hedges, 22-85-DSF, and
is scheduled to be sentenced on January 30, 2023.
Case 2:22-cr-00388-DSF Document 27 Filed 01/23/23 Page 4 of 8 Page ID #:121
1 Over the course of the scheme, defendant applied for a total of
2 12 loans totaling approximately $1,620,122 and in fact received
3 approximately $1,071,222 in loan proceeds to which he was not
4 entitled. (PSR ¶¶ 11-19; Plea Agreement (CR 6) ¶ 10).)
5 B. Procedural History
6 Defendant signed a plea agreement whereby he agreed to plead
7 guilty to a single-count Information charging conspiracy to commit
8 wire fraud affecting a financial institution, in violation of 18
9 U.S.C. §1343.2 (PSR ¶¶ 1-2.) Defendant subsequently appeared before
10 this Court on October 3, 2022 and entered a plea of guilty. (CR 19.)
11 II. THE PRESENTENCE REPORT
12 The Probation Office found that defendant’s total offense level
13 is 24, based on a base offense level of 7 (U.S.S.G. §§ 2X1.1(a),
14 2B1.1(a)(1)), a 16-level upward adjustment for a loss amount between
15 $1,500,000 and $3,500,000 under U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(1)(I), a two-
16 level upward adjustment for sophisticated means under U.S.S.G.
17 § 2B1.1(b)(10), a two-level upward adjustment for the unlawful and
18 unauthorized transfer or use of any means of identification under
19 U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(11)(C)(i), and a reduction for acceptance of
20 responsibility under U.S.S.G. 3E1.1(a)-(b). (PSR ¶¶ 28-42.) The
21 government concurs in the Probation Office’s calculation of
22 defendant’s total offense level.
23 The Probation Office calculated defendant’s criminal history
24 category as I based on zero criminal history points. (PSR ¶ 47.)
25 The government concurs in the Probation Office’s calculation of
26 defendant’s criminal history. With an offense level of 24 and a
27
28 2The government requests that the Court incorporate the plea
agreement into the proceedings at the sentencing hearing.
2
Case 2:22-cr-00388-DSF Document 27 Filed 01/23/23 Page 5 of 8 Page ID #:122
1 criminal history category of I, defendant’s applicable advisory
2 guidelines sentencing range is 51-63 months. (PSR ¶ 96.)
3 III. ARGUMENT
4 A. The Seriousness of the Offense and the Need to Provide Just
Punishment Support the Government’s Recommended Sentence
5
6 Defendant’s criminal conduct in this case is serious, as he
7 fraudulently sought to obtain pandemic-related loans offered to
8 address emergency and disaster relief to those businesses affected by
9 the COVID-19 pandemic.
10 The COVID-19 pandemic was a serious public health crisis, and it
11 had profound economic ramifications. Defendant’s exploitation of the
12 crisis not only cost the government, the SBA, and affiliated lenders
13 time and money, but also diverted funds that could have been used the
14 way PPP loans were intended: to assist struggling businesses and to
15 keep people employed. Instead, defendant used fake documents,
16 falsified supporting information, and defunct companies to take money
17 that was earmarked for legitimate small businesses and dissipate it
18 for his own personal enrichment. And this was not a victimless
19 crime. In the interest of pushing out relief funds to businesses and
20 individuals in need as the pandemic was gripping the nation, the
21 government and its affiliated lenders relied heavily on the good
22 faith and fair dealing of American citizens who applied for relief
23 funds. But instead of working with the system, defendant took
24 advantage of it by lying and cheating. Moreover, the PPP and EIDL
25 programs were not a limitless pot of money. By taking money he was
26 not entitled to, defendant defrauded taxpayers who helped fund the
27 program and the SBA which guarantees these loans, and also
28
3
Case 2:22-cr-00388-DSF Document 27 Filed 01/23/23 Page 6 of 8 Page ID #:123
1 potentially made it more difficult for legitimate loan applicants to
2 obtain pandemic relief funds.
3 Furthermore, defendant’s fraud was not an impulsive one-off; he
4 applied for 12 different loans to which he knew he was not entitled,
5 and knowingly submitted false documents attesting to these defunct
6 companies, payroll expenses, tax payments, and other financial
7 information. As such, defendant’s conduct, which through the
8 diversion of relief money caused direct harm to a vulnerable public,
9 warrants a meaningful custodial sentence.
10 B. The Need for Deterrence Supports the Government’s
Recommended Sentence
11
Defendant’s age and lack of recent criminal history supports the
12
conclusion that he is unlikely to recidivate. However, defendant
13
exhibited opportunistic criminal tendencies when confronted with a
14
chance to obtain money from a government relief program under seemingly,
15
at the time, less than stringent controls and even worked with others to
16
facilitate his crimes. This fact necessitates a degree of specific
17
deterrence and thus supports the government’s recommended custodial
18
sentence.
19
A significant sentence is also necessary to provide general
20
deterrence. Defendant’s actions warrant commensurately significant
21
consequences, both due to the seriousness of the offense and as a
22
general deterrent to send a message to the broader public that taking
23
advantage of a national emergency to enrich oneself at the public
24
expense will result in serious consequences. Given that criminal
25
conduct like defendant’s is typically more difficult to detect and
26
prosecute than sudden crimes of passion or opportunity, there is a
27
greater need for general deterrence. See, e.g., United States v.
28
4
Case 2:22-cr-00388-DSF Document 27 Filed 01/23/23 Page 7 of 8 Page ID #:124
1 Martin, 455 F.3d 1227, 1240 (11th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks
2 omitted)); United States v. Heffernan, 43 F.3d 1144, 1149 (7th Cir.
3 1994) (“Considerations of (general) deterrence argue for punishing more
4 heavily those offenses that either are lucrative or are difficult to
5 detect and punish, since both attributes go to increase the expected
6 benefits of a crime and hence the punishment required to deter it.”).
7 Here, the government’s proposed sentence will help to deter other
8 fraudsters, like defendant, who believe that they can generate income
9 through fraudulent schemes against government agencies during a time of
10 crisis.
11 C. The Need to Avoid Unwarranted Sentencing Disparities Among
Similarly Situated Defendants Supports the Government’s
12 Recommended Sentence
13 Section 3553(a)(6) directs the Court to consider “the need to
14 avoid unwarranted sentence disparities among defendants with similar
15 records who have been found guilty of similar conduct.” The
16 Government therefore notes for the Court’s awareness that one
17 defendant, Jeffrey Scott Hedges, in related case (22-CR-85-DSF) is
18 set for sentencing on January 30, 2023 for similar conduct. In light
19 of all the relevant facts, the government believes that a sentence of
20 51 months imprisonment for this defendant would avoid any unwarranted
21 sentencing disparities.
22 D. Restitution
23 Restitution is applicable pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3663A.
24 (PSR ¶¶ 106-107.) The Mandatory Victim Restitution Act (“MVRA”)
25 requires a district court to order restitution when (1) a defendant
26 commits an “offense against property,” and (2) there is an
27 identifiable “victim.” 18 U.S.C. § 3663A(a)(1), (c)(1). The scheme
28 to submit fraudulent PPP and EIDL loan applications to the SBA and
5
Case 2:22-cr-00388-DSF Document 27 Filed 01/23/23 Page 8 of 8 Page ID #:125
1 affiliated lenders is an offense against the property of the United
2 States. The MVRA provides for “restitution to each victim in the
3 full amount of each victim’s losses,” and restitution must be
4 determined “without consideration of the economic circumstances of
5 the defendant.” 18 U.S.C. § 3664(f)(1)(A). The amount of
6 restitution due in this case, measured by the amount that the
7 defendant received in PPP and EIDL loan proceeds, is $1,071,222.
8 (PSR ¶¶ 91, 106; Plea Agreement ¶ 6.)
9 IV. CONCLUSION
10 For the foregoing reasons, the government believes that a
11 sentence of 51 months imprisonment, a three-year term of supervised
12 release, a restitution order in the amount of $1,071,222, and a
13 special assessment of $100 is sufficient, but not greater than
14 necessary, to comply with the purposes of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6File and source
- File
- 27.pdf
- Size
- 351,153 bytes
- SHA-256
- 1ec76d57ff4baccf81cef5655d5d924da7f61195f1416cb4f85395958112f1e7
- Our copy
- 27.pdf