Court filing
Defendant’s Sentencing Memorandum — U.S. v. Mohan (W.D. Wash.)
Filed July 13, 2021 in U.S. v. Mohan; one of 15 filings from this case.
Record facts
| Court | U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington |
|---|---|
| Filed | 2021-07-13 |
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington · No. 2:21-cr-00041-JCC · Doc. 54 · 2021-07-13 · Docket on CourtListener
Full text
Case 2:21-cr-00041-JCC Document 54 Filed 07/13/21 Page 1 of 119
The Honorable John C. Coughenour
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE
8
9
10
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
11
12
13
14
Plaintiff,
v.
No. 2:21-cr-00041-JCC
MUKUND MOHAN’S
SENTENCING MEMORANDUM
MUKUND MOHAN,
Defendant.
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
SENTENCING MEMORANDUM
No. 2:21-cr-00041-JCC
501 East Pine Street, Suite 201
Seattle, Wash ington 98122
phone 206.516.3800 fax 206.516.3888
Case 2:21-cr-00041-JCC Document 54 Filed 07/13/21 Page 2 of 119
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1
2
I.
INTRODUCTION ............................................................................... 1
3
II.
CASE OVERVIEW AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ....................... 4
III.
THE SENTENCING GUIDELINES OVERSTATE THE
SERIOUSNESS OF THESE OFFENSES ......................................... 6
IV.
THE CRIMINAL CONDUCT IS ENTIRELY OUT OF
CHARACTER FOR THE DEFENDANT ........................................... 9
4
5
6
7
8
A.
Mr. Mohan’s Upbringing and Educational Background......... 9
9
B.
Mr. Mohan’s Marriage and Family Life. ............................... 10
10
C.
Mr. Mohan’s Professional Life. .............................................. 12
D.
Mr. Mohan’s Character – Devotion to Family;
Generosity to Friends and Business Associates; and,
a Lack of Self-Worth. .............................................................. 14
11
12
13
14
V.
A SENTENCE OF SIXTY DAYS IMPRISONMENT
AVOIDS SENTENCING DISPARITY ............................................. 18
VI.
A SENTENCE OF SIXTY DAYS IMPRISONMENT
ADDRESSES THE NEED FOR BOTH GENERAL AND
SPECIFIC DETERRENCE .............................................................. 28
15
16
17
18
21
VII. WHEN VIEWED HOLISTICALLY, A SENTENCE OF
SIXTY-DAYS IMPRISONMENT COUPLED WITH A
THREE-YEAR TERM OF SUPERVISED RELEASE AND A
$100,000 FINE IS SUFFICIENT, BUT NOT GREATER
THAN REQUIRED TO PUNISH MR. MOHAN ............................. 32
22
VIII. CONCLUSION .................................................................................. 34
19
20
23
24
25
26
SENTENCING MEMORANDUM
No. 2:21-cr-00041-JCC – Page i
501 East Pine Street, Suite 201
Seattle, Wash ington 98122
phone 206.516.3800 fax 206.516.3888
Case 2:21-cr-00041-JCC Document 54 Filed 07/13/21 Page 3 of 119
I.
1
2
INTRODUCTION
Defendant Mukund Mohan respectfully submits this Sentencing
3
Memorandum to assist the Court in determining an appropriate
4
sentence. For the reasons set forth below, we believe that Mr. Mohan
5
should be sentenced to a sixty-day term of imprisonment to be followed
6
by a three-year term of Supervised Release.
7
Mr. Mohan has agreed to the forfeiture of all the loan proceeds
8
seized by the government on July 23, 2020, the date when it executed a
9
search warrant at his residence. The aggregate of all seized funds is
10
$1,770,055.80. Mr. Mohan has also agreed to the entry of an order of
11
restitution for $1,786,357, the total of all loan proceeds Mr. Mohan
12
received. He has already paid the difference – $16,301.16 – into the
13
Registry of the Clerk of the Court to fully complete the anticipated
14
restitution obligation and ensure that all banks are fully repaid. Finally,
15
Mr. Mohan has agreed to recommend and pay a stipulated fine of
16
$100,000. 1
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
1 The $100,000 fine is the consequence of Mr. Mohan facing the very real prospect that
some or all of the forfeited funds might not be restored to the victim lenders by the
government, thereby necessitating the separate payment of a potentially staggering
amount of restitution. This phenomenon, sometimes dubbed the “double whammy,” is
somewhat surprisingly authorized by law. See, e.g., United States v. Newman, 659
F.3d 1235, 1241-43 (9th Cir. 2011) (because forfeiture and restitution serve different
purposes – one for punishment, the other to make the victim whole – defendant must
pay both; district court may not reduce forfeiture because of an order of restitution to a
victim or because the victim already has been made whole); abrogation recognized by
United States v. Chow, 772 F. App’x. 429 (9th Cir. 2019), United States v. Baras, 624 F.
App’x. 560 (9th Cir. 2015) (same); United States v. Gonzalez-Torres, 656 F.App’x. 844
(9th Cir. 2016) (the Attorney General, not courts, has the authority to transfer
forfeited funds to compensate victims, i.e., to restore forfeited funds). The Attorney
General has delegated his authority to the Chief of the Money Laundering and Asset
Recovery Section (“MLARS”) of the Department of Justice. 28 C.F.R. § 9.1(b)(2).
(cont. next page)
SENTENCING MEMORANDUM
No. 2:21-cr-00041-JCC – Page 1
501 East Pine Street, Suite 201
Seattle, Wash ington 98122
phone 206.516.3800 fax 206.516.3888
Case 2:21-cr-00041-JCC Document 54 Filed 07/13/21 Page 4 of 119
1
We believe that this recommended sentence is appropriate for a
2
number of reasons. First, the conduct that is at the center of this
3
prosecution and related missteps during the same period were episodic in
4
nature, occurred in the midst of the pandemic, and contrast sharply with
5
the defendant’s otherwise unblemished professional and familial
6
reputation. Clearly, for approximately two months beginning in late
7
April 2020, Mr. Mohan’s conduct was irresponsible and misguided. He
8
seriously abused an important pandemic relief program and he exhibited
9
callous disregard for the truth, business ethics, and his own professional
10
integrity. His conduct cannot be called aberrational because his
11
wrongdoing required thought and planning and because he repeated it
12
multiple times. Nevertheless, as family members, business associates,
13
and friends uniformly attest in their letters of support, such conduct was
14
shockingly at odds with the immensely talented, intelligent, and selfless
15
man they knew before the late Spring 2020 and with the man they are
16
convinced Mr. Mohan is today.
17
Second, our recommended sentence is the sentence imposed in
18
United States v. Zhang, 2:20-cr-00169-RAJ (W.D. Wash.), which we
19
believe to be factually identical in all material aspects. Nationally, we
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
(cont. from previous page)
Although there appear to be few instances nationwide when MLARS has actually
exercised this authority and declined to restore forfeited funds to a victim – indeed, we
have been unable to identify any other PPP loan fraud case, of the eighty or more such
cases prosecuted outside this District, in which there is any mention of this forfeiture/
restoration issue – this United States Attorney’s office lacks the authority to firmly
commit to restoration of all forfeited funds. To provide some greater certainty, we
sought an advisory opinion from MLARS. That opinion assured Mr. Mohan of full
restoration if there was no material change in his financial situation and if the Court
imposed, and he paid, a $100,000 fine. Thus, he stipulated to the $100,000 fine to
avoid the double whammy of having to pay a large portion or all the $1,786 Million in
anticipated restitution, an obligation that would have caused dire financial
consequences for him and his family.
SENTENCING MEMORANDUM
No. 2:21-cr-00041-JCC – Page 2
501 East Pine Street, Suite 201
Seattle, Wash ington 98122
phone 206.516.3800 fax 206.516.3888
Case 2:21-cr-00041-JCC Document 54 Filed 07/13/21 Page 5 of 119
1
believe that our recommended sentence is reasonable when compared to
2
the more aggravated, but factually similar case of United States v.
3
Jaafar, 1:20-cr-185-CMH (EDVA, 2020). More generally, dissimilar facts
4
in other PPP loan fraud cases which have been sentenced render them of
5
little value in structuring the sentence for Mr. Mohan.
6
Third, our recommended sentence addresses both the need for
7
specific deterrence of Mr. Mohan and the general deterrence of others.
8
Regarding specific deterrence, we believe that Mr. Mohan has already
9
taken the requisite steps to ensure that he will never re-offend. These
10
steps include (1) stopping his wrongdoing voluntarily almost two months
11
before he was contacted by law enforcement; (2) expressing his heartfelt
12
remorse and contriteness to the Court and to his family, friends, and
13
business associates; and (3) beginning mental health counseling on his
14
own accord shortly after the initiation of criminal proceedings and
15
continuing this counseling with Lonnie Kaman, a mental health
16
counselor experienced in working with those who have been charged with
17
crimes. As for general deterrence, we submit that a sixty-day term of
18
imprisonment, especially when coupled with Mr. Mohan’s downfall from
19
corporate executive to unemployed felon, will deter all but the most
20
hardened deviants from committing a similar offense.
21
Fourth, when viewed holistically, the sentence of sixty days
22
imprisonment, a three-year term of supervised release with special
23
conditions for continued mental health counseling, financial monitoring,
24
and community service, a $100,000 fine, and the possibility that he will
25
be held responsible for all or a portion of the anticipated restitution order
26
is sufficient but not greater than required to punish Mr. Mohan for his
SENTENCING MEMORANDUM
No. 2:21-cr-00041-JCC – Page 3
501 East Pine Street, Suite 201
Seattle, Wash ington 98122
phone 206.516.3800 fax 206.516.3888
Case 2:21-cr-00041-JCC Document 54 Filed 07/13/21 Page 6 of 119
1
wrongdoing. In succeeding paragraphs, we address each of these reasons
2
in greater detail.
3
II.
4
Mr. Mohan was charged in a two-count Information with a wire
CASE OVERVIEW AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
5
fraud offense in violation of 18 USC § 1343 and a money laundering
6
offense in violation of 18 USC § 1957(a). The essence of the wire fraud
7
offense is not in dispute. During an approximate one-month period
8
beginning in late April and continuing into early June 2020, Mr. Mohan
9
applied for a series of eight Payroll Protection Program (“PPP”) loans
10
under the CARES Act. This legislation was enacted in the early months
11
of the COVID-19 pandemic to provide relief to businesses experiencing
12
financial hardship. 2 Mr. Mohan applied for these loans in the names of
13
various startup businesses that he had either created in the past or
14
acquired as “shelf corporations” through which he generally intended to
15
develop high-tech business concepts. At the time he submitted the loan
16
applications, however, the businesses were little more than concepts in
17
his mind; none satisfied the prerequisites for PPP loans as on-going
18
businesses with significant revenue and payroll expenses. The loan
19
applications were supported by false payroll records and employment tax
20
returns.
21
22
Two of the eight applications were duplicates and one, for an entity
called Vangal, was withdrawn. The first loan was funded by Bank of
23
24
25
26
2 PPP loans allow qualifying small businesses and other organizations to receive loans
with a maturity of two years and an interest rate of 1%. PPP loans must be used by
businesses on payroll costs, interest on mortgages, rent, and utilities. The program is
designed such that the principal and interest on such loans is forgiven if the business
spends the loan proceeds on the designated expense items within a specific period of
time and uses at least a certain percentage of the loan proceeds on payroll expenses.
SENTENCING MEMORANDUM
No. 2:21-cr-00041-JCC – Page 4
501 East Pine Street, Suite 201
Seattle, Wash ington 98122
phone 206.516.3800 fax 206.516.3888
Case 2:21-cr-00041-JCC Document 54 Filed 07/13/21 Page 7 of 119
1
America in the name of a startup business called Zuput on May 1, 2020.
2
Additional loans were extended to four other entities, all created and
3
administered by Mr. Mohan. What is particularly striking about this
4
conduct, however, and generally sets it apart from most fraud cases, and
5
especially from other PPP loan fraud cases, is that Mr. Mohan had no
6
plan for what to do with the loan proceeds which he received. Indeed, he
7
had never sought legitimate funding for any of these entrepreneurial
8
pursuits. 3 In short, his conduct was simply irrational.
9
Almost all the loan proceeds simply sat in accounts in which they
10
were deposited until, some two months later, the government seized
11
them. There was no frivolous spending on luxury items and no funding
12
of a drug or gambling addiction. More importantly, there was no loss to
13
the public or the lenders. Mr. Mohan’s behavior is indicative of twisted
14
or distorted thinking and possibly underlying mental health concerns,
15
but not greed or avarice. He was not attempting to enrich himself.
16
Regrettably, although Mr. Mohan stopped applying for more loans
17
as abruptly as he had started this activity about one month earlier, he
18
did not return the funds. Rather, it appears that Mr. Mohan was simply
19
frozen in space not knowing how to extricate himself from his self-
20
inflicted mess. This stupor was broken approximately two months later
21
when law enforcement knocked on his door. Mr. Mohan promptly
22
fainted.
23
24
25
26
3 Ironically, Probation asserts that Mr. Mohan’s lack of use of the ill-gotten gain is
somehow an aggravating circumstance. We respectfully disagree. Although there is
no question that Mr. Mohan’s actions in applying for these loans which were intended
to help struggling businesses keep the doors open were reprehensible, we question how
his criminal conduct is made worse because he preserved the funds. It was this nonuse that preserved the funds so that they were available for the government to seize
and eventually restore to the public trust.
SENTENCING MEMORANDUM
No. 2:21-cr-00041-JCC – Page 5
501 East Pine Street, Suite 201
Seattle, Wash ington 98122
phone 206.516.3800 fax 206.516.3888
Case 2:21-cr-00041-JCC Document 54 Filed 07/13/21 Page 8 of 119
1
The money laundering offense is based on Mr. Mohan’s transfer of
2
approximately $231,000 of the loan proceeds from a business account in
3
the name of the borrowing entity to an account held by Mr. Mohan. More
4
than two months after most of these funds were transferred, however,
5
this money also remained untouched. These funds were intact when
6
seized by the government in late July, and again, there was no loss.
7
In the approximately two months he had possession of the loan
8
proceeds, Mr. Mohan spent less than one percent of the total he had been
9
lent. Notably, when the government intervened and seized the
10
remaining funds, the total deficit amounted to a little over $16,000. 4
11
On March 10, 2021, Mr. Mohan entered pleas of guilty to the
12
charged offenses pursuant to the terms of a Plea Agreement. Sentencing
13
is set for July 20, 2021, at 9:00 a.m. Significantly, Mr. Mohan has
14
cooperated with the government in its prosecution of him from day one,
15
making clear from the outset that he did not wish to contest the charges.
17
THE SENTENCING GUIDELINES OVERSTATE THE
SERIOUSNESS OF THESE OFFENSES
18
While once mandatory, the Sentencing Guidelines are now strictly
19
advisory and are entitled to no presumptive weight over other legitimate
20
sentencing factors. United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 224 (2005);
16
21
22
23
24
25
26
III.
4 It is impossible to directly correlate expenditures from the Zuput account directly
with the deposit of the Bank of America loan proceeds of $150,000 (the first loan),
which occurred on May 1, 2020. The expenditures roughly equal the amount of the
deficiency – all of which is traceable to the Zuput account – when funds were seized.
The first expenditure greater than $500 after this deposit was for the purchase of a
shelf corporation for $1,395 on May 6. Thereafter, the next such expenditure, a
$10,000 donation to the University of Maryland, occurred two weeks later and was
followed in close proximity by a vendor payment for Vangal of $2,500, payroll related
expenses for Zuput of $4,995.72 and $1,613, and another purchase of a shelf
corporation for $2,695. These expenditures in aggregate slightly exceed the” $16,300
shortfall when the government seized funds from Mr. Mohan’s accounts in late July.
SENTENCING MEMORANDUM
No. 2:21-cr-00041-JCC – Page 6
501 East Pine Street, Suite 201
Seattle, Wash ington 98122
phone 206.516.3800 fax 206.516.3888
Case 2:21-cr-00041-JCC Document 54 Filed 07/13/21 Page 9 of 119
1
Nelson v. United States, 555 U.S. 350, 352 (2009). In Pepper v. United
2
States, 562 U.S. 476, 487-488 (2011), the Supreme Court stated, “It has
3
been uniform and constant in the federal judicial tradition for the
4
sentencing judge to consider every convicted person as an individual and
5
every case as a unique study in the human failings that sometimes
6
mitigate, sometimes magnify, the crime and the punishment to ensue.”
7
quoting Koon v. United States, 518 U.S. 81, 113 (1996). The Court in
8
Pepper added that “Underlying this tradition is the principle that ‘the
9
punishment should fit the offender and not merely the crime,’” quoting
10
Williams v. United States, 337 U.S. 241, 247 (1949).
11
The Guideline range is just one factor to consider in sentencing.
12
The Guidelines are not even considered presumptively reasonable. See,
13
e.g., Nelson v. United States, 555 U.S. 350, 352 (2009) (“The Guidelines
14
are not only not mandatory on sentencing courts; they are also not to be
15
presumed reasonable.” (Emphasis included.) “[T]he Guidelines should be
16
the starting point and the initial benchmark.” United States v. Gall, 552
17
U.S. 38, 49 (2007).
18
Pursuant to the terms of the Plea Agreement, the parties agreed
19
1) the base offense is 7; 2) the loss amount is between $1,500,000 and
20
$3,500,000, resulting in a 16-level upward adjustment; 3) the
21
sophisticated means adjustment is applicable, adding two additional
22
levels; 4) the money laundering offense pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1957(a)
23
adds one additional level; and, 5) that Mr. Mohan has accepted
24
responsibility and qualifies for a three (3) level decrease pursuant to
25
USSG § 3E1.1. With these adjustments, the total offense level is 23. Mr.
26
Mohan has no criminal history. With a criminal history category of I
SENTENCING MEMORANDUM
No. 2:21-cr-00041-JCC – Page 7
501 East Pine Street, Suite 201
Seattle, Wash ington 98122
phone 206.516.3800 fax 206.516.3888
Case 2:21-cr-00041-JCC Document 54 Filed 07/13/21 Page 10 of 119
1
(zero criminal history points), the applicable guideline range is 46 to 57
2
months.
3
Although we acknowledge that this guideline calculation is correct
4
under applicable law, we believe that this range greatly overstates the
5
serious of the offense and provides ample reason for this Court to impose
6
a substantially lower sentence. Because the total offense level in fraud
7
cases is so heavily influenced – we believe unjustly in this case – by the
8
loss amount, it tends to unfairly push the sentencing range much higher
9
than warranted by the offense conduct where there is no actual loss.
10
Thus, in this case, the adjustment attributable to loss comprises over
11
60% of the total offense level. This may be reasonable where the
12
fraudulent conduct has resulted in significant losses or even in cases
13
where the funds were put at risk. Yet here, the bulk of the loan proceeds
14
were secured in bank accounts from the time of receipt and no victim will
15
lose a dime because of Mr. Mohan’s actions.
16
If the adjustment for loss amount in this case is based on no loss or
17
a loss of $16,000, it either does not increase the base offense (zero loss) or
18
increases it by four levels (loss greater than $15,000). Applying these
19
alternate loss adjustments, with all other factors remaining constant, the
20
Sentencing Guideline range is either 0 to 6 months or 6 to 12. We believe
21
these ranges provide a fairer and more just assessment of Mr. Mohan’s
22
criminal conduct and are consistent with our sentencing
23
recommendation. This fact alone provides the Court with an obvious
24
basis for a variance from the guideline range and lends support to our
25
recommendation of a sixty-day term of imprisonment.
26
SENTENCING MEMORANDUM
No. 2:21-cr-00041-JCC – Page 8
501 East Pine Street, Suite 201
Seattle, Wash ington 98122
phone 206.516.3800 fax 206.516.3888
Case 2:21-cr-00041-JCC Document 54 Filed 07/13/21 Page 11 of 119
1
Mr. Mohan’s Sentencing Guideline range is also based on a one-
2
level increase because he pleaded guilty to a money laundering offense.
3
Again, we do not dispute the technical applicability of this adjustment –
4
Mr. Mohan certainly moved a portion of the loan proceeds from one
5
account to another – but suggest it unnecessarily adds to the inflation of
6
Mr. Mohan's total offense level. There is no evidence that Mr. Mohan
7
initiated these transfers to conceal the money or to make it more difficult
8
to recover. He simply on one occasion moved the proceeds from one
9
account to another. The government may counter that this was done to
10
facilitate investments, but the evidence contradicts this argument. Once
11
transferred, none was invested; it was still there when the government
12
seized it almost two months later. This conduct hardly seems to have
13
made Mr. Mohan’s crime worthy of greater punishment, yet that is
14
exactly the affect its inclusion in the Guideline calculation has on the
15
sentencing range.
IV.
16
17
18
19
A.
THE CRIMINAL CONDUCT IS ENTIRELY OUT OF
CHARACTER FOR THE DEFENDANT
Mr. Mohan’s Upbringing and Educational Background.
Mr. Mohan, who is age 48, was born in Thrichy, India. His parents
20
provided him with a loving home, but not one without extremely high
21
demands for Mr. Mohan. His father was a very successful businessman,
22
who Mr. Mohan’s mother described as a “superstar.” As noted, Mr.
23
Mohan’s father expected excellence from his son and anything short of
24
that was a disappointment to him. His mother, who passed away in
25
2013, was described by Mr. Mohan as a loving, generous, selfless, “people
26
person.” Nevertheless, he shared with the Probation Officer assigned to
SENTENCING MEMORANDUM
No. 2:21-cr-00041-JCC – Page 9
501 East Pine Street, Suite 201
Seattle, Wash ington 98122
phone 206.516.3800 fax 206.516.3888
Case 2:21-cr-00041-JCC Document 54 Filed 07/13/21 Page 12 of 119
1
prepare the Presentence Report that she would whack him with a
2
wooden ruler on the wrist or in the face when his performance did not
3
measure up to his parents’ high expectations. In a 2013 blog, Mr. Mohan
4
wrote that he came from a family of very high achievers. In contrast, he
5
explains that he was just a mediocre student and writes that although he
6
would not call himself a black sheep, he was “a pig in a family of sheep.”
7
https://bestengagingcommunities.com/2013/06/08/how-to-punch-above-
8
your-weight-class/, Exhibit A (comments omitted). We believe that this
9
feeling of despondency or a lack of self-worth provides insight into what
10
led Mr. Mohan to depart from his generally successful professional career
11
so abruptly and inexplicably in the midst of the pandemic.
12
Mr. Mohan graduated from the University of Mysore in 1993 with
13
a Bachelor’s in Engineering degree. The next year he emigrated to the
14
United States. He continued his education at the University of
15
Maryland, Baltimore Campus, completing all course requirements for his
16
Master’s Degree, but choosing to pursue an employment opportunity at
17
Cisco, in San Jose, California, before finishing his thesis and receiving
18
his advanced degree – an objective he never achieved.
19
B.
20
Mr. Mohan’s Marriage and Family Life.
Mr. Mohan married Vinita Ananth in 1997. She, like Mr. Mohan,
21
was born in India and emigrated to the United States in 1994. They both
22
became United States citizens in 2007. Like Mr. Mohan, Ms. Ananth is
23
an engineer. She has been employed at Microsoft for approximately four
24
years and currently supervises a team of program managers delivering
25
cloud services to customers. She previously held management positions
26
SENTENCING MEMORANDUM
No. 2:21-cr-00041-JCC – Page 10
501 East Pine Street, Suite 201
Seattle, Wash ington 98122
phone 206.516.3800 fax 206.516.3888
Case 2:21-cr-00041-JCC Document 54 Filed 07/13/21 Page 13 of 119
1
at Chef Software, Apptio, and Mercury Interactive (later acquired by
2
Hewlett Packard).
3
Mr. Mohan and Ms. Ananth have four children of whom they are
4
immensely proud. Thrisha is nineteen years old and a sophomore at
5
American University in Washington, D.C., studying economics and
6
international relations. She has previously worked as a campaign staffer
7
on the Susan Delbene and Manka Dhingra campaigns. Rishab is
8
seventeen years old and a junior at the International School in Bellevue.
9
He has been selected to play for the United States’ Under-19 Men’s
10
Cricket team. Tara and Richa, the two youngest children, are twins who
11
are fifteen years old, and were adopted by Mr. Mohan and Ms. Ananth
12
from an orphanage in India in 2011. They also attend the International
13
School where, Mr. Mohan notes, that Tara is a mostly “A” student and
14
Richa is a gifted artist who has her own collection on Etsy through which
15
she has made sales.
16
Mr. Mohan and his wife chose to adopt their twin daughters while
17
living in India after an earlier tsunami had left scores of children
18
orphaned. They initially responded to this natural disaster with the
19
donation of funds, but later decided the need in their home country was
20
extreme and they were able to make a more substantial commitment of
21
their lives. They worked through an adoption coordination agency and,
22
when they met the twins, chose to adopt them both, possibly providing
23
these young girls with an otherwise unlikely opportunity for better lives
24
because in India, it is apparently more difficult to place female orphans
25
due to cultural biases. The challenges that Mr. Mohan and his wife faced
26
SENTENCING MEMORANDUM
No. 2:21-cr-00041-JCC – Page 11
501 East Pine Street, Suite 201
Seattle, Wash ington 98122
phone 206.516.3800 fax 206.516.3888
Case 2:21-cr-00041-JCC Document 54 Filed 07/13/21 Page 14 of 119
1
in adopting their twin daughters are recognized in a letter from one of
2
Mr. Mohan’s childhood friends:
7
We are all aware of the fact that in today’s time and age, when
both spouses work, life can be busy and resources limited; and
here I mean not only financial but also more importantly,
emotional and mental - but despite the odds, and despite a
perfectly blessed and a complete family(a son and a daughter)
Mukund had the courage and desire to adopt two baby girls goes to say a lot about the character of this person. . .
8
. . .
9
Honestly, I am yet to find another couple in my life who have
that big a heart and the courage to take that leap of faith, or
the confidence in themselves to do it that fair and square.
Today the kind of life that Mukund and Vinita have given the
two girls is a pure selfless karma not many of us can take
credit for.
3
4
5
6
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Letter from Radhika Mukhija, Exhibit C-18. 5 They have provided all
their children with a safe, nurturing home and look forward to
supporting them through their present and future college years.
C.
Mr. Mohan’s Professional Life.
18
At the time of his arrest, Mr. Mohan was the Chief of Technology
19
and Head of Sales for BuildDirect, a Canadian e-commerce business. In
20
this position, he led a team of more than 100 persons and earned a salary
21
of more than $200,000 annually. His employment, which had begun in
22
April 2018, was abruptly terminated when these criminal charges
23
24
25
26
5 Exhibit C consists of twenty-three letters of support written by family members,
friends, and professional associates. The first four letters are written by Mr. Mohan’s
wife, Vinita, his oldest daughter, Thrisha, his father, Narayan, and his sister, Rashmi,
and are numbered C-1 through C-4. The remaining letters are written by friends,
professional associates, and other family members and are numbered C-5 through
C-23.
SENTENCING MEMORANDUM
No. 2:21-cr-00041-JCC – Page 12
501 East Pine Street, Suite 201
Seattle, Wash ington 98122
phone 206.516.3800 fax 206.516.3888
Case 2:21-cr-00041-JCC Document 54 Filed 07/13/21 Page 15 of 119
1
surfaced. Obviously, Mr. Mohan’s successful employment history makes
2
his wrongdoing even more difficult to comprehend. At the same time, it
3
lends support to our contention that Mr. Mohan’s obsession with
4
attaining higher professional recognition was a primary cause of his
5
downfall. In his own eyes, he just didn’t measure up to the high ideals
6
which had been instilled in him by his overly demanding parents. His
7
past employment history lends more support to this assertion.
8
Fortunately, Mr. Mohan now understands the mental challenge
9
that he must overcome and is working with his counselor to regain his
10
self-respect and dignity. We will discuss the significant steps he has
11
taken in this regard later in this memorandum.
12
Previously, Mr. Mohan had worked for a few months as a
13
consultant for Mactores, a Bellevue consulting business; for Amazon as
14
the Director of Product Management for approximately fourteen months;
15
and, for more than five years at Microsoft overseeing its outreach
16
program to promising startup businesses. He began his Microsoft
17
engagement in 2011 in Bangalore, India as the CEO of a Microsoft
18
subsidiary, Microsoft Accelerator, and then moved back to the United
19
States in 2014 to run another Microsoft subsidiary, Microsoft Ventures.
20
He left Microsoft in December 2016 when he was recruited to join
21
Amazon. He has explained this move and more generally his overall
22
frustration and restlessness with the traditional employment model in
23
which an employee works for a single employer for year after year,
24
opining that “Microsoft is where you go to die.”
25
26
SENTENCING MEMORANDUM
No. 2:21-cr-00041-JCC – Page 13
501 East Pine Street, Suite 201
Seattle, Wash ington 98122
phone 206.516.3800 fax 206.516.3888
Case 2:21-cr-00041-JCC Document 54 Filed 07/13/21 Page 16 of 119
2
Mr. Mohan’s Character – Devotion to Family; Generosity to
Friends and Business Associates; and, a Lack of Self-Worth.
3
Outside his professional life, Mr. Mohan also has much to offer. He
1
D.
4
is a loving spouse and parent who takes a prominent role in the home.
5
Those who know Mukund well, including his family, friends, and
6
business associates all describe Mr. Mohan’s life as one anchored in
7
strong moral values, an unwavering commitment to his wife and four
8
children, and an enthusiasm for helping others in his community and in
9
the business. Mr. Mohan’s sister, Rashmi Mohan, speaks movingly of his
10
commitment to family in this passage from a letter she has written on
11
her brother’s behalf:
12
13
14
15
16
He is one of the very few fathers I know who is truly an equal
partner and parent. He is an exceptional cook and has been a
role model of industriousness to his children. He has always
shared the load at home and has managed his career and
household responsibilities with alacrity.
Letter from Rashmi Mohan, Exhibit C-4.
17
His oldest daughter, Thrisha Mohan, who is nineteen years old and
18
a student at American University in Washington, D.C., writes movingly:
21
Since my childhood, my dad has instilled in me the values of
service and hardwork . . . Throughout my life, my dad has
supported me and raised me to be diligent and work hard
toward my goals.
22
Letter of Thrisha Mohan, Exhibit C-2. Ms. Mohan expands on the
23
influence that her father has had on her pursuit of a career in the public
24
sector, stating:
19
20
25
26
SENTENCING MEMORANDUM
No. 2:21-cr-00041-JCC – Page 14
501 East Pine Street, Suite 201
Seattle, Wash ington 98122
phone 206.516.3800 fax 206.516.3888
Case 2:21-cr-00041-JCC Document 54 Filed 07/13/21 Page 17 of 119
He constantly encouraged me to question my current beliefs
and learn more in order to understand the most significant
problems that needed to be addressed. His guidance
influenced my decision to work in [the] Public Sector and
ensure that equity is at the center of decision-making in
Washington.
1
2
3
4
5
6
Id. She concludes that Mr. Mohan motivated her to work in political
7
campaigns in Washington State and to “fight for the rights and resources
8
of our most vulnerable communities” and finishes her letter by stating:
While the aspects of his life that I list in this letter do not
absolve him of responsibility, they show a pattern of
compassion, altruism, and kindness that is strikingly genuine
and has bettered hundreds of lives.
9
10
11
12
13
Id.
Mr. Mohan’s wife, Vinita Ananth, describes him as “a model and
14
caring husband and father” and an “adoring parent” who constantly
15
checks in on their four children. Letter of Vinita Ananth, Exhibit C-1.
16
His friend and fellow-cricket enthusiast, Bhargava Vadapalli, states:
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
I found him to be a committed parent. He was always
available to help all kids, not just his own, be it throwing
balls, cheering them on the sidelines, giving them a pep-talk,
running errands, scouting/planning for practices and game,
lifting energy or whatever was required, It was clear that
Mukund was the confidant “uncle” to the kids on the field and
he lifted everyone’s energy on and off the field with his
positivity and brought the club together with a joyous spirit.
Letter of Bhargava Vadapalli, Exhibit C-21.
24
Others who know Mr. Mohan well consistently remark about his
25
generosity and genuine interest in helping others. Arun Vaidyanath, a
26
friend observes that Mr. Mohan’s personal values and beliefs come from
SENTENCING MEMORANDUM
No. 2:21-cr-00041-JCC – Page 15
501 East Pine Street, Suite 201
Seattle, Wash ington 98122
phone 206.516.3800 fax 206.516.3888
Case 2:21-cr-00041-JCC Document 54 Filed 07/13/21 Page 18 of 119
1
strong morals influenced and imbued into him by his parents and family,
2
and “[i]t is with this value system that Mukund jumps in whole-
3
heartedly to help anyone in need.” Letter of Arun Vaidyanath, Exhibit
4
C-22. This trait is again emphasized by the man who hired him at
5
Microsoft India, who writes:
11
Mukund has since become a great friend, a good sounding
board and a wise counsel for me on so many fronts. I have
reached out to him so many times over the years when faced
with a difficult decision at work, an investment decision or a
career choice. He has always been available to listen and is
always generous with his time to guide me through any
situation, with no expectation of anything in return. He can
see the good in people and help them bring their best to work.
12
Letter of Amaresh Ramaswamy, Exhibit C-20. Given this generosity of
13
time and commitment to his fellow man, it is not surprising that all have
14
expressed shock and disbelief that he strayed so abruptly from his life-
15
long values.
6
7
8
9
10
16
Mr. Mohan describes himself as an entrepreneur whose capacity
17
for new ideas is in constant over-drive, while his ability to follow-through
18
is mostly absent. He acknowledges that he is envious of successful
19
entrepreneurs, not because they have realized significant financial gain,
20
but because they have earned the accolades of their peers.
21
Indeed, Mr. Mohan wrote another blog in 2013 entitled, “How to
22
deal with startup failure. A personal story.” In this blog, Mr. Mohan
23
provides considerable insight into his persona and his struggles to create
24
and develop. In part he writes: “Since I tend to tinker a lot, I have also
25
failed at many of my side projects. In fact, I have the distinction of not
26
having succeeded in any of my side projects in the last 4 years (4 side
SENTENCING MEMORANDUM
No. 2:21-cr-00041-JCC – Page 16
501 East Pine Street, Suite 201
Seattle, Wash ington 98122
phone 206.516.3800 fax 206.516.3888
Case 2:21-cr-00041-JCC Document 54 Filed 07/13/21 Page 19 of 119
1
projects.).” https://bestengagingcommunities.com/2013/06/09/how-to-
2
deal-with-startup-failure-a-personal-story/, Exhibit D. He then provides
3
a litany of his failures with such business ideas as a website to provide
4
pricing transparency for various product and an ecommerce business to
5
market various goods. Id.
6
When the pandemic struck, he learned from his entrepreneurial
7
friends who had ongoing businesses that they had obtained PPP loans.
8
He leaped into his short-lived fraud scheme with minimal to no thought
9
about what he would do with the loan proceeds and no thought about the
10
consequences. After procuring the five PPP loans, he stopped. There
11
was simply no next step to take because he had no plan. His wrongdoing
12
stopped as abruptly as it began.
13
His perceived lack of self-worth may suggest the motivation for his
14
episodic conduct. Possibly his upbringing together with the pressure
15
which Mr. Mohan placed on himself to fulfill his long-held dream of
16
successfully developing a startup business, led to his downfall. He acted
17
not for economic gain but rather for the recognition of his peers that he
18
has the intellect and the management skill to succeed in this arena. We
19
believe this obsession is at the core of his wrongdoing.
20
The government may point to Mr. Mohan’s parallel deceitful
21
conduct in two consulting contracts in which he created false identities as
22
further evidence that he is a serial fraudster. We believe this conduct
23
which occurred at almost the same time as he was applying for the PPP
24
loans is simply more evidence of his unhealthy mental state in mid-2020.
25
He used fictitious names to qualify for two sets of small consulting
26
projects for which he possessed the requisite expertise but lacked the
SENTENCING MEMORANDUM
No. 2:21-cr-00041-JCC – Page 17
501 East Pine Street, Suite 201
Seattle, Wash ington 98122
phone 206.516.3800 fax 206.516.3888
Case 2:21-cr-00041-JCC Document 54 Filed 07/13/21 Page 20 of 119
1
necessary credentials. Mr. Mohan procured these contracts in the names
2
of fictitious persons and then satisfactorily performed the work, for which
3
he received a total of approximately $2,000. Again, there was flawed
4
thinking, but no economic loss. Mr. Mohan did not act for the money, but
5
rather to satisfy his pursuit of more professional acclaim. As with the
6
PPP loan fraud, Mr. Mohan stopped on his own accord.
7
V.
8
A SENTENCE OF SIXTY DAYS IMPRISONMENT
AVOIDS SENTENCING DISPARITY
9
As the Court may already be aware, Mr. Mohan’s case is one of a
10
plethora of cases nationwide involving PPP loan fraud. There are four
11
such cases, including Mr. Mohan’s case, in this District alone. One such
12
case, United States v. Zhang, 2:20-cr-00169-RAJ (WDWA 2020), has been
13
sentenced and, we submit, offers important guidance for the sentencing
14
in this case. The third PPP loan fraud case in this District, United States
15
v. Hsu, 2:20-cr-00191-JLR (WDWA 2020) is set for sentencing on August
16
10. The remaining case, United States v. Shibley, 2:20-cr-00174-JCC
17
(WDWA 2020), is currently set for trial on November 15, 2021.
18
Nationally, the cases that have already reached the sentencing stage
19
provide a mosaic of varying facts and circumstances and of sentences
20
imposed. Most are factually dissimilar to the present case and offer little
21
guidance.
22
In this section, we think it most helpful to initially focus on the
23
single PPP loan fraud case which has been sentenced in this District.
24
Factually, the Zhang case has many striking similarities to the present
25
case. Mr. Zhang sought a series of loans based on fraudulent
26
information, including four PPP loans for amounts ranging from
SENTENCING MEMORANDUM
No. 2:21-cr-00041-JCC – Page 18
501 East Pine Street, Suite 201
Seattle, Wash ington 98122
phone 206.516.3800 fax 206.516.3888
Case 2:21-cr-00041-JCC Document 54 Filed 07/13/21 Page 21 of 119
1
$325,000 to $600,000. The government took the position that the total
2
intended loss, after accounting for some duplicate loan applications, was
3
$943,500. This conduct occurred over a two-month period. Only the
4
$325,000 loan was funded, but the funds never reached the defendant’s
5
accounts because of an account numbering issue. The remaining loan
6
applications were canceled by the defendant, but only after one potential
7
lender had questioned him about false information which he had
8
provided.
9
In addition, Mr. Zhang also pursued and received several Economic
10
Injury Disaster Program Loans (“EIDL”) and privately funded COVID
11
relief loans totaling $16,500. 6 On the day the defendant received some of
12
the initial loan proceeds, he initiated a series of transfers, including an
13
$11,000 transfer to his investment account. 7 The Plea Agreement
14
included a provision that the defendant pay restitution of $16,500.
15
By comparison, Mr. Mohan sought approximately $1.7 Million,
16
after accounting for duplicate and withdrawn loans. Although Mr.
17
Mohan received more in loan proceeds, each spent about the same
18
amount of the ill-gotten gain, i.e., $16,500. Mr. Zhang also tapped into a
19
separate pandemic assistance loan program – the EIDL program
20
intended for restaurant workers and downtown business owners – with a
21
6 The EIDL program is a parallel program designed to provide economic relief to small
24
businesses that are currently experiencing a temporary loss of revenue. EIDL
proceeds can be used to cover a wide array of working capital and normal operating
expenses, such as continuation of health care benefits, rent, utilities and fixed debt
payments. If an applicant also obtains a loan under the PPP, the EIDL funds cannot
be used for the same purpose as the PPP funds.
25
7 Unlike this case, Mr. Zhang was not charged with, or required to enter a guilty plea
22
23
26
to, a money laundering offense, although the facts seem to support such a charge. This
difference reduced his total offense level by one level and his guideline range by six
months, from 37-46 months to 31-41 months.
SENTENCING MEMORANDUM
No. 2:21-cr-00041-JCC – Page 19
501 East Pine Street, Suite 201
Seattle, Wash ington 98122
phone 206.516.3800 fax 206.516.3888
Case 2:21-cr-00041-JCC Document 54 Filed 07/13/21 Page 22 of 119
1
series of false loans in the names of himself, his wife, and both of his
2
parents. Mr. Mohan did not do this.
3
Mr. Zhang, like Mr. Mohan, was a well-educated computer
4
engineer. After his graduation with a Master’s Degree from the
5
University of Florida, Mr. Zhang had worked at several high-tech
6
businesses, including Amazon. At the time of his criminal conduct, he
7
was employed as an engineer for Lyft. Mr. Mohan has a similar
8
employment history. Moreover, each had a sizeable income at the time of
9
their respective offenses with Mr. Zhang earning more than $19,000 per
10
month, or just about the same amount that Mr. Mohan earned at
11
BuildDirect.
12
Mr. Zhang argued in his Sentencing Memorandum that,
13
notwithstanding the Sentencing Guideline calculation of a loss figure
14
between $550,000 and $1,500,000, his loss was fairly viewed as only the
15
$16,500 he actually received. The government countered that the sole
16
reason for the defendant canceling the other loan applications and not
17
receiving the loan proceeds was because he had been caught by a lender.
18
On this record, the government recommended a 33-month term of
19
imprisonment and a $100,000 fine, while Probation – in striking contrast
20
to this case – and the defendant recommended a non-custodial sentence.
21
In part, Mr. Zhang argued that a collateral consequence of his conviction
22
was likely to be deportation. Judge Jones sentenced the defendant to a
23
sixty-day term of imprisonment, a three-year term of Supervised Release,
24
a $5,000 fine, and restitution of $16,500.
25
26
Probation defends its starkly different sentencing
recommendations in these two factually similar cases on two grounds:
SENTENCING MEMORANDUM
No. 2:21-cr-00041-JCC – Page 20
501 East Pine Street, Suite 201
Seattle, Wash ington 98122
phone 206.516.3800 fax 206.516.3888
Case 2:21-cr-00041-JCC Document 54 Filed 07/13/21 Page 23 of 119
1
(1) that Mr. Zhang did not pose a risk to the community because he was
2
likely to be deported following his sentence and, therefore, a custodial
3
sentence was not necessary to protect the community, while Mr. Mohan
4
will be staying in the community, and (2) that it did not believe a
5
custodial sentence was necessary to deter Mr. Zhang from further
6
criminal conduct, while it worried that Mr. Mohan, who remains
7
committed to entrepreneurial efforts and intends to remain an
8
established part of the technological and financial communities, poses a
9
risk to the public.
10
We respectfully submit that these two grounds are tenuous at best.
11
First, relying on the likelihood of deportation as a basis for
12
recommending a non-custodial sentence for a non-citizen implicates both
13
discriminatory and practical concerns. Such a rationale would mean that
14
non-citizens should be sentenced to non-custodial sentence while citizens
15
should be incarcerated for the same criminal conduct. This is
16
fundamentally unjust and results in criminal sentences based on status.
17
Moreover, it is clearly erroneous to assume that a non-citizen whose
18
criminal conduct may lead to deportation proceedings will be dispatched
19
to his/her country of birth expeditiously. In reality, such deportation
20
proceedings often involve years of litigation while the subject remains at
21
liberty on whatever visa brought him to this country in the first place.
22
Indeed, the Court clearly recognized that Mr. Zhang was going nowhere
23
soon because it imposed as a special condition of Supervised Release, a
24
requirement of 120 hours of community service to be completed in the
25
first two years of Supervised Release.
26
SENTENCING MEMORANDUM
No. 2:21-cr-00041-JCC – Page 21
501 East Pine Street, Suite 201
Seattle, Wash ington 98122
phone 206.516.3800 fax 206.516.3888
Case 2:21-cr-00041-JCC Document 54 Filed 07/13/21 Page 24 of 119
1
Second, as discussed in greater detail later in this memorandum,
2
there is no evidentiary basis for the speculation that Mr. Mohan poses a
3
risk to reoffend. His technological expertise and his enthusiasm for
4
entrepreneurial pursuits say nothing about his propensity to again
5
commit fraud. His many years of professional accomplishment and his
6
selfless generosity and mentoring say a great deal about the likelihood of
7
Mr. Mohan successfully rebuilding his life. His on-going work with
8
Lonnie Kaman lends strong support to this conclusion. The record is
9
simply devoid of support for the concern that he will reoffend.
10
In short, we do not believe there is any legitimate basis for
11
Probation to have recommended a non-custodial sentence for Mr. Zhang,
12
but a two-year custodial sentence for Mr. Mohan. Such a disparity is
13
precisely the sort of factor that Section 3553a is intended to guard
14
against.
15
We believe that Probation was on target with its non-custodial
16
sentencing recommendation for Mr. Zhang. The sentence imposed in
17
that case suggests that the Court generally agreed with the
18
recommendation. For the reasons set forth above, we believe that Mr.
19
Mohan should receive the same sixty-day term of imprisonment which
20
the Court imposed in the Zhang case. There is no rational justification
21
for a different sentence in this case.
22
If, on the other hand, this Court finds that one or more of the facts
23
distinguishing these two cases requires an enhanced sentence for Mr.
24
Mohan, we respectfully urge that the enhancement be no more than one
25
or two additional months of incarceration. There are simply too many
26
similarities to justify a disparity in sentences of the proportion
SENTENCING MEMORANDUM
No. 2:21-cr-00041-JCC – Page 22
501 East Pine Street, Suite 201
Seattle, Wash ington 98122
phone 206.516.3800 fax 206.516.3888
Case 2:21-cr-00041-JCC Document 54 Filed 07/13/21 Page 25 of 119
1
recommended by Probation. If the facts of these two cases are adjudged
2
to be dissimilar, the separation should be measured in months rather
3
than years.
4
Of the myriad of PPP loan fraud cases prosecuted nationally, the
5
facts of one such case – United States v. Jaafar, 1:20-cr-185-CMH
6
(EDVA, 2020) – lends further support to our recommendation of a short
7
term of incarceration. In the EDVA case, Tarik Jaafar and his wife,
8
Monika Magdalena Jaworska, submitted eighteen fraudulent PPP loan
9
applications for four businesses, all of which were shell companies, to
10
twelve financial institutions. (Mr. Mohan submitted less than half of the
11
number of fraudulent loan applications to five financial institutions.) In
12
total, Mr. Jaafar sought $6.6 Million. (Mr. Mohan sought approximately
13
$3.4 Million, after accounting for duplicate and withdrawn loan
14
applications, for five businesses.) Mr. Jaafar received $1.4 Million. (Mr.
15
Mohan received $1,786.357.) Mr. Jaafar also applied directly to the
16
Small Business Administration for two EIDL loans and received one
17
$10,000 advance. (Mr. Mohan did not seek any EIDL loans.)
18
Mr. Jaafar was highly educated, having earned a doctorate in
19
economics from the University of Strasbourg. From 2001 to 2018,
20
according to the government’s Sentencing Memorandum, he worked in
21
the very financial industry that he later admitted to victimizing, holding
22
positions in several well-known banks. He earned over $200,000 per year
23
when last employed. He had apparently been unemployed since
24
sometime in 2019. (Mr. Mohan is likewise well-educated and has held
25
significant positions in the high-tech world.)
26
SENTENCING MEMORANDUM
No. 2:21-cr-00041-JCC – Page 23
501 East Pine Street, Suite 201
Seattle, Wash ington 98122
phone 206.516.3800 fax 206.516.3888
Case 2:21-cr-00041-JCC Document 54 Filed 07/13/21 Page 26 of 119
1
In many respects, the cases of Mr. Jaafar and Mr. Mohan are
2
virtually indistinguishable. One pronounced difference, however, is that
3
after Mr. Jaafar learned of the investigation, he purchased one-way
4
tickets for himself, his wife, and two children to fly from New York to
5
Poland. They were arrested in a parking garage across from Terminal 7
6
at John F. Kennedy International Airport where the Polish airline was
7
located. They had 18 bags, almost $50,000 in cash, and numerous cell
8
phones and laptops in their possession at the time they were arrested.
9
Mr. Jaafar was detained for five months pending his guilty plea and
10
sentencing. (Mr. Mohan answered the door when visited by agents
11
serving a search warrant at his residence, voluntarily appeared the next
12
day for his initial appearance, and has remained in compliance with the
13
terms of his pretrial release.) According to Mr. Jaafar’s Sentencing
14
Memorandum, all loan proceeds were frozen before being withdrawn
15
except for $30,000, which was recovered when he was arrested. He
16
represented that he did not spend any of the money.
17
Mr. Jaafar pleaded guilty to a single conspiracy count in violation
18
of Title 18, United States Code, Section 371. (Mr. Mohan pleaded guilty
19
to both wire fraud and money laundering offenses.) The sentencing
20
guideline range for Mr. Jaafar was 24 to 30 months, without adjustments
21
for sophisticated means or the money laundering conviction. In Jaafar,
22
the government recommended a 24-month sentence. (Mr. Mohan sought
23
less money than Mr. Jaafar and spent but a fraction of the funds
24
received, yet he has a guideline range of 46 to 57 months. The
25
government is committed to recommending a sentence of 46 months or
26
less – which is almost twice Mr. Jaafar’s guideline range and twice the
SENTENCING MEMORANDUM
No. 2:21-cr-00041-JCC – Page 24
501 East Pine Street, Suite 201
Seattle, Wash ington 98122
phone 206.516.3800 fax 206.516.3888
Case 2:21-cr-00041-JCC Document 54 Filed 07/13/21 Page 27 of 119
1
recommended sentence.) On this record, Mr. Jaafar was sentenced to
2
serve a term of one year imprisonment. 8 No fine was imposed.
3
In short, there is a stark disparity between the outcome for Mr.
4
Jaafar and the sentences recommended by Probation and the government
5
for Mr. Mohan. The two defendants committed virtually the identical
6
crime, involving the use of shell companies and false tax returns. Mr.
7
Jaafar’s offense was more egregious because he sought to defraud a
8
second CARES Act program and, more importantly, because he
9
attempted to flee to a foreign country to avoid prosecution while Mr.
10
Mohan surrendered voluntarily and scrupulously adhered to every term
11
of pretrial release. 9 Moreover, there is no suggestion that Mr. Jaafar’s
12
background or any mental health concern was a factor in his criminality.
13
Mr. Mohan’s sentence should rightly be much less than that imposed
14
against Mr. Jaafar.
15
Further, we believe it noteworthy that the government apparently
16
did not threaten Mr. Jaafar with the “double whammy” even though it
17
appears that he was a substantial wage earner and financially well-off
18
before his arrest. There is no mention in either the government or the
19
defendant’s sentencing memoranda of any restoration issue, even though
20
they agreed on a restitution figure of $220,573. Nor did the government
21
insist that the defendant agree to a fine of any amount and no fine was
22
imposed as part of the sentencing.
23
24
25
8 Ms. Jaworska received a sentence of time served – approximately five months.
26
9 Inexplicably, on this record, Mr. Jaafar was still given credit for accepting
responsibility.
SENTENCING MEMORANDUM
No. 2:21-cr-00041-JCC – Page 25
501 East Pine Street, Suite 201
Seattle, Wash ington 98122
phone 206.516.3800 fax 206.516.3888
Case 2:21-cr-00041-JCC Document 54 Filed 07/13/21 Page 28 of 119
1
As noted, there are a myriad of other PPP loan fraud cases which
2
have been prosecuted nationally. Most of these cases are readily
3
distinguishable from the present case, however. In general, these cases
4
fit into one or more of the following groups:
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
(a)
Some involve substantially greater numbers of loans
or sums of aggregate loan proceeds, more substantial losses to
victims, or other egregious facts, see, e.g., United States v. Hines,
1:21-cr-20011-MGC (SDFL, 2021) (defendant – sentenced to 78
months imprisonment – sought in excess of $13 Million and
received almost $4 Million; restitution = $4,809,307) and United
States v. Lewis, 1:20-cr-336-1 (MDNC, 2021) (defendant –
sentenced to 63-months imprisonment – applied for 68 fraudulent
EIDL loans; operated a separate fraudulent kitchen products
website on which he marketed, but never delivered, items valued
at more than $400,000; operated a separate scheme promising
COVID-19 Relief Funds for a fee, but again failed to provide such
loans);
(b)
Others involve obvious greed and waste (see, e.g.,
United States v. Smith, 2:20-cr-196 (EDWI, 2021) (defendant –
sentenced to 57 months imprisonment – acknowledged case
involved “old fashioned greed” in his sentencing letter; recruited
others to apply for fraudulent PPP loans; took percentage of
fraudulent PPP loans he helped others obtain); United States v.
Hines (defendant purchased Lamborghini)); United States v.
Suber, 2:20-cr-110 (EDVA, 2021) (defendant – sentenced to 24
months imprisonment – withdrew large sums of cash and traveled
to Las Vegas); United States v. Tubbs, 4:20-cr-00193-BSM (EDAR,
2021) (defendant – sentenced to 41 months imprisonment –
applied for, and received, two PPP loans totaling $1,933,262;
immediately upon receipt transferred more than $1 Million to
other bank accounts he controlled; spent $14,000 for debit card
purchases and student loan payments; transferred $150,000 as
purported lottery winnings to a niece; and, the government and
defendant agreed that neither would seek a departure or variance
from the sentencing guidelines);
26
SENTENCING MEMORANDUM
No. 2:21-cr-00041-JCC – Page 26
501 East Pine Street, Suite 201
Seattle, Wash ington 98122
phone 206.516.3800 fax 206.516.3888
Case 2:21-cr-00041-JCC Document 54 Filed 07/13/21 Page 29 of 119
9
(c)
While yet others involve defendants who have
significant criminal records and/or drug addiction issues (see, e.g.,
United States v. Cherry, 4:20-cr-00027 (EDVA, 2021) (defendant –
sentenced to 51 months imprisonment – is a fraud recidivist with
a Criminal History Category of V); United States v. Hines
(defendant had serious drug problem since childhood and multiple
criminal arrests); United States v. Kanan, 3:20-cr-00081-WMC
(WDWI, 2021) (defendant – sentenced to 42 months imprisonment
– has prior federal fraud conviction and stipulated to 41-month
sentence); United States v. Stanley, 1:21-cr-20067 (SDFL, 2021)
(defendants Stanley and Philus – sentenced to 18 months and 30
months, respectively – conspired to submit fraudulent loan
applications; Philus had five criminal history points).
10
None serve as a reasonable guide for the sentencing of Mr. Mohan.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
11
Nevertheless, the government may urge that the Tubbs case is one to
12
which the Court ought to pay particular attention. We disagree. All we
13
really know about Ms. Tubbs is the factual summary offered in
14
subparagraph (b) above. Because neither the government nor the
15
defendant filed a sentencing memorandum, we have no way of knowing
16
what underlying circumstances led to the agreed no departure and no
17
variance provision in the plea agreement or to the sentence. Given this
18
paucity of information, the case provides little guidance for this Court.
19
The government may also suggest that many of these PPP loan
20
fraud cases have resulted in sentences of multiple years rather than the
21
sentences imposed in the Zhang and Jaafar cases and that this should
22
guide this Court. Such a suggestion ignores the requirements of Section
23
3553a, however, that a sentence be molded to the individual case and
24
individual defendant. As already noted, the vast majority of these cases
25
involved substantially larger numbers of loans or greater amounts of loan
26
proceeds; the cases involve the frivolous spending of the loan proceeds;
SENTENCING MEMORANDUM
No. 2:21-cr-00041-JCC – Page 27
501 East Pine Street, Suite 201
Seattle, Wash ington 98122
phone 206.516.3800 fax 206.516.3888
Case 2:21-cr-00041-JCC Document 54 Filed 07/13/21 Page 30 of 119
1
or, the cases involve defendants with criminal histories. Mr. Mohan’s
2
case stands apart and his sentence should as well.
3
4
5
6
VI.
A SENTENCE OF SIXTY DAYS IMPRISONMENT
ADDRESSES THE NEED FOR BOTH GENERAL
AND SPECIFIC DETERRENCE
In addressing the concept of specific deterrence, the Court must
7
rely on such factors as the nature and context of the offense, the
8
defendant’s background and character; his contriteness and
9
remorsefulness; and any articulable facts that reflect the defendant’s
10
efforts to learn from, and move beyond, his wrongdoing.
11
Here, we believe all the evidence portends that Mr. Mohan will
12
rebuild his life and return to his former productive, law-abiding ways.
13
Mr. Mohan readily acknowledges that his actions in submitting false
14
information and made-up documentation for these loans were blatantly
15
wrong. He realizes that these were loans intended by Congress to help
16
existing businesses survive the pandemic; not to provide seed money for
17
new ventures.
18
19
20
21
22
23
I owe a lot of my life, my freedom, and positions in life to the
people and institutions to the USA.
Which is why I am horrified that I cheated the people paying
taxes, hardworking small business owners, bankers, and the
government by acquiring forgivable PPP loans falsely during
the Covid crisis. My actions are unconscionable.
Letter of Mukund Mohan, Exhibit B.
24
What Mr. Mohan did was clearly wrong. He has acknowledged and
25
expressed his remorse for this wrongdoing to his family, his friends, and
26
to all who have trusted him in the business community.
SENTENCING MEMORANDUM
No. 2:21-cr-00041-JCC – Page 28
501 East Pine Street, Suite 201
Seattle, Wash ington 98122
phone 206.516.3800 fax 206.516.3888
Case 2:21-cr-00041-JCC Document 54 Filed 07/13/21 Page 31 of 119
I believe I have a good moral compass, but I failed my family,
friends, colleagues, acquaintances, and people who trusted me.
1
2
3
4
Id.
The lingering question, of course, is whether Mr. Mohan’s mental
5
state may place him at risk of again going “tilt.” In this regard, we
6
believe it appropriate to place great reliance on the opinion of his mental
7
health counselor, whose expertise and experience ideally qualify her to
8
make such an informed assessment. In the following excerpt from her
9
letter to counsel, Ms. Kaman opines:
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
I believe Mr. Mohan takes this situation very seriously and is
extremely remorseful for his poor decision making resulting in
the instant offense. He stated he wants to continue mental
health treatment to better understand himself and to make
sure this never happens again. It is my professional opinion
that with continued mental health treatment, Mukund Mohan
has a low risk of reoffending and poses no danger to the
community.
Letter of Lonnie Kaman, MA, LMHC, Exhibit E.
At this point, there is absolutely no reason to conclude Mr. Mohan
18
will ever reoffend. He has dealt with this set back in a mature and
19
intelligent manner. He has cooperated with the authorities. He has
20
done everything he can to regain the trust and respect of those around
21
him, while making amends for his wrongdoing.
22
Probation reaches the opposite conclusion, but perhaps more as an
23
advocate than as a neutral entity evaluating all the evidence. For
24
example, without evidentiary basis, the justification for their sentencing
25
recommendation rests in part on speculation that Mr. Mohan’s failure to
26
spend the loan proceeds suggests some Machiavellian plan to later file
SENTENCING MEMORANDUM
No. 2:21-cr-00041-JCC – Page 29
501 East Pine Street, Suite 201
Seattle, Wash ington 98122
phone 206.516.3800 fax 206.516.3888
Case 2:21-cr-00041-JCC Document 54 Filed 07/13/21 Page 32 of 119
1
fraudulent paperwork indicating the funds had been spent on permissible
2
expenses and to thereby gain forgiveness of the loans. It also is critical of
3
his continued devotion to entrepreneurship and suggests that this
4
interest, when coupled with his constant comparison to other
5
businessmen’s successes, pose a dangerous combination.
6
This speculation does not appear to be grounded on anything more
7
than conjecture. We submit that a better guide to what may be
8
reasonably expected from Mr. Mohan is his counselor, who has spent
9
multiple sessions with him and has thoroughly come to understand who
10
he is and what mental demons he has been fighting. Thus, we do not
11
believe a lengthy term of imprisonment, or for that matter, any
12
incarceration is required to ensure that Mr. Mohan does not commit
13
further fraud. He had stopped his wrongdoing two months before law
14
enforcement knocked on his door. If he needed any further prodding to
15
turn his life around, it was delivered by that knock on the door and has
16
been further reinforced by these criminal proceedings.
17
We do, however, agree with Probation that requiring Mr. Mohan to
18
participate in a Moral Reconation Therapy program (“MRT”) would
19
provide further insurance of Mr. Mohan’s long-term success. It is our
20
understanding that Ms. Kaman is regarded as having considerable
21
expertise with the MRT program and is prepared to assist Probation and
22
Mr. Mohan in this counseling.
23
In short, Mr. Mohan is anxious to complete whatever sentence the
24
Court deems necessary to impose and then to move forward. He is
25
pragmatic and recognizes that his days of working as an executive with
26
significant technical responsibilities are probably long gone.
SENTENCING MEMORANDUM
No. 2:21-cr-00041-JCC – Page 30
501 East Pine Street, Suite 201
Seattle, Wash ington 98122
phone 206.516.3800 fax 206.516.3888
Case 2:21-cr-00041-JCC Document 54 Filed 07/13/21 Page 33 of 119
1
Nevertheless, he believes his future is bright. He looks forward to
2
supporting his children as they continue their secondary education and
3
their college pursuits. He is also excited about the business opportunities
4
that he sees ahead. One such business endeavor involves Mr. Mohan
5
using his substantial research capabilities to provide investors with
6
detailed analyses of various smaller or more recently founded businesses
7
that have become available to the public through recent IPOs. He has
8
already published many such analyses on an open-source website. This
9
work product has been extremely well-received with more than 35,000
10
respondents. Examples of this analytical work are attached as Exhibit F.
11
Mr. Mohan has been assured by many of his followers – who are aware of
12
his current criminal travails – that they would be willing to pay a
13
monthly subscription fee for his service.
14
The government may point to his use of false identities in his
15
consulting work as a reason for concern that he will reoffend. As we have
16
explained, however, this conduct, which occurred at the same time as the
17
loan fraud and appeared to be similarly grounded in his lack of self-
18
image, was simply another manifestation of an emotional and
19
professional breakdown of sorts. Mr. Mohan simply went “off the rails.”
20
Since this interlude, he has done everything humanly possible to regain
21
his moral compass.
22
General deterrence is an even more nebulous goal. We believe,
23
however, that whatever general deterrence may come from Mr. Mohan’s
24
case has already been achieved by the extensive media attention to the
25
corporate executive’s downfall. No one reading about his criminal
26
prosecution and his concomitant dismissal from his corporate position
SENTENCING MEMORANDUM
No. 2:21-cr-00041-JCC – Page 31
501 East Pine Street, Suite 201
Seattle, Wash ington 98122
phone 206.516.3800 fax 206.516.3888
Case 2:21-cr-00041-JCC Document 54 Filed 07/13/21 Page 34 of 119
1
could believe that crime is worth the risk. There is no reason to believe
2
that any period of incarceration would further cement this deterrence. If,
3
on the other hand being sentenced to some term of imprisonment is
4
needed to deter the public, then we are confident that a sixty-day term of
5
imprisonment will suffice.
6
We should also point out that on much the same record, Probation
7
reached the opposite conclusion regarding whether Mr. Zhang needed to
8
be imprisoned to provide general deterrence. To the extent Probation
9
reasoned that no jail was necessary because it expected him to be
10
deported, the public would have been unlikely to have grasped this
11
nuance. If general deterrence was accomplished in the Zhang case by a
12
recommendation of a non-custodial sentence, then it is impossible to
13
rationalize why a recommendation of two years imprisonment is
14
necessary to accomplish the same purpose in the Mohan case.
18
VII. WHEN VIEWED HOLISTICALLY, A SENTENCE OF
SIXTY-DAYS IMPRISONMENT COUPLED WITH A THREE-YEAR
TERM OF SUPERVISED RELEASE AND A $100,000 FINE IS
SUFFICIENT, BUT NOT GREATER THAN REQUIRED TO
PUNISH MR. MOHAN
19
A sentence that imposes a period of imprisonment, a lengthy term
15
16
17
20
of supervision, several restrictive special conditions of Supervised
21
Release, a fine, and restitution is overwhelming, especially to a man who
22
has never spent a day in jail or under post-conviction supervision.
23
Facing his children and acknowledging his wrongdoing has been among
24
his greatest emotional challenges. The anticipated separation from his
25
family – no matter the duration of the separation – is among his greatest
26
heartaches. While he very much regrets his wrongdoing and
SENTENCING MEMORANDUM
No. 2:21-cr-00041-JCC – Page 32
501 East Pine Street, Suite 201
Seattle, Wash ington 98122
phone 206.516.3800 fax 206.516.3888
Case 2:21-cr-00041-JCC Document 54 Filed 07/13/21 Page 35 of 119
1
understands that he has caused enormous hurt to his wife and each of
2
his children, he is extremely anxious that the period of separation which
3
will come with his imprisonment be as brief as possible.
4
This is especially true because of the unfortunate timing of his
5
sentencing. Mr. Mohan’s only son, will be a senior at the International
6
School and will be heading off to college after the next school year. His
7
adopted twin daughters, who will be sophomores at the International
8
School in the fall, are also entering their final years at home before
9
college. Mr. Mohan very much fears that he will miss the opportunity to
10
spend this last period of time with his son and younger daughters before
11
they are out of the house and off on their own. This is, for every family,
12
an important and emotional time. Because, as many of Mr. Mohan's
13
character reference letters recognize, he has been a devoted parent who
14
has taken an active role in the home raising his children, any period of
15
separation looms very large for him.
16
A sixty-day sentence is itself a significant punishment. When
17
considered in light of the additional year during which Mr. Mohan has
18
had to bear the stress and anxiety of the criminal process and the three
19
years of Supervised Release that will follow his incarceration, the
20
nightmare of his wrongdoing will have been front and center in his life
21
for more than four years.
22
Some may argue that because of Mr. Mohan’s financial standing, a
23
fine of $100,000 is not substantial, but we would respectfully disagree.
24
Such a fine must be viewed in light of the serious collateral consequences
25
that Mr. Mohan has experienced and will continue to experience.
26
Practically speaking, he is no longer employable and his income for many
SENTENCING MEMORANDUM
No. 2:21-cr-00041-JCC – Page 33
501 East Pine Street, Suite 201
Seattle, Wash ington 98122
phone 206.516.3800 fax 206.516.3888
Case 2:21-cr-00041-JCC Document 54 Filed 07/13/21 Page 36 of 119
1
years has been lost. Although Mr. Mohan and his wife have substantial
2
net worth, primarily in the form of two homes which they are purchasing,
3
they also have very high monthly expenses. When one or more college
4
tuitions are added to their financial burden, a $100,000 fine looks very
5
imposing.
6
Thus, we submit that the sentencing recommendation that we have
7
proposed is a very significant punishment for Mr. Mohan’s short-lived
8
period of criminality during which no one suffered a monetary loss. No
9
greater sentence is required or just under the circumstances.
10
VIII. CONCLUSION
11
For the reasons set forth in this memorandum, we respectfully
12
request that the Court sentence Mr. Mohan to a term of sixty-days
13
imprisonment, with a recommendation that such time be served in the
14
camp at FCI Sheridan, Supervised Release for a term of three years with
15
the special conditions recommended by Probation, together with a
16
$100,000 fine, and the mandatory penalty assessments.
17
18
Dated this 13th day of July, 2021.
19
YARMUTH LLP
20
By: s/ Robert Westinghouse
Robert Westinghouse, WSBA No. 6484
501 East Pine Street, Suite 201
Seattle, WA 98122
Telephone: (206) 516-3800
Email: rwestinghouse@yarmuth.com
21
22
23
24
25
Attorneys for Defendant Mukund Mohan
26
SENTENCING MEMORANDUM
No. 2:21-cr-00041-JCC – Page 34
501 East Pine Street, Suite 201
Seattle, Wash ington 98122
phone 206.516.3800 fax 206.516.3888
Case 2:21-cr-00041-JCC Document 54 Filed 07/13/21 Page 37 of 119
EXHIBIT A
7/13/2021
Case 2:21-cr-00041-JCC
Document
54 class
Filed
07/13/21
Page 38 of 119
How to punch above
your weight
| Best
Engaging Communities
Best Engaging Communities
PERSONAL
How to punch above your weight class
JUNE 8, 2013 | MUKUND MOHAN | 20 COMMENTS
I have been mostly an under performer. There’s a big difference between an under performer and an under
achiever – the later does not give 100%, but the former gives “his best” and is still middling.
I have had several teachers and relatives (especially those overachieving uncles) who would always tell me
“You can do more”. They did not tell me I could do be er. They would say I could do more. It was as if they
almost knew I was peaking and still in the middle of the pack.
Whether it was grades, swimming or violin, I was always the “middle of the pack or lower”. I remember
many parent-teacher (PTA) meetings, where my mom would be asked “What does Mukund’s dad do?” and
after my mom mentioned, that he was a superstar, the teacher would be largely incredulous, shake her head
and say “Then why is he just not doing well in <fill in the blanks>”? Back in the ’80s it was okay to be politically incorrect I guess.
It did not help that I came from a family that had very high achievers. I wont call myself the black sheep, its
just that I was a pig in a family of sheep.
Graduating from high school, I was at the “top” of the middle of the pack. Not for the lack of trying.
I realized I was not as smart as most other people in my class. Neither was I really willing to work way too
hard to make up for the lack of smarts. Well, actually I thought I was working harder than most, but I was
not able to get much be er. I was just wanted to flow with the tide and go along for the ride.
Things at college did not change much. Sam Lomonaco (h p://www.csee.umbc.edu/~lomonaco/), who taught
us algorithms, once asked me if I really was from India, since most of the folks he knew from there were “super smart” and he wanted to know why I was not so.
My confidence, was not at a super high when I started working at Cisco. My hiring manager, Mark really
liked me because I knew the one thing that most of the other folks in his team did not. They were largely
“business analysts” and I was the only “developer”.
That’s when I started to hit my stride.
They usually say “In a pack of ducks a swan looks ugly (h p://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ugly_Duckling)“.
In business though it always helps to be the “one with a different perspective”. I was the only one in Mark’s
team asking technical implementation questions when they wanted to build anything.
https://bestengagingcommunities.com/2013/06/08/how-to-punch-above-your-weight-class/
1/
Case 2:21-cr-00041-JCC
Document
54 class
Filed
07/13/21
Page 39 of 119
How to punch above
your weight
| Best
Engaging Communities
My questions were deemed “smart” or really “different” since none of the others had thought of those. I, on
the other hand could not think of any other questions but those.
7/13/2021
The first rule of punching above your weight class is to surround yourself with people who you
complement.
Later you can surround yourself with people who complement you. Early on though, you have to complement them. That way you achieve two things – you avoid “group think” and you really give them a perspective that’s different.
In late 2001, I had a meeting where David Reichman (www.linkedin.com/pub/david-reichman/0/655/157),
(who managed me for a few years) during which it was clear to him that I was “making sh*t up” to answer
his questions. After 30 minutes of grilling he said “If you don’t know, then say you don’t know or just ask
more questions, don’t give dumb answers”.
Boom! That was it. All I did after that was start asking questions, since I was neither smart enough to have answers or disciplined enough to work hard to get those answers. Be er to have smart people give me the
answers.
I learnt the second rule of punching above my weight class – Put yourself in a position where your
biggest weakness becomes your largest strength.
A few years later, I started to be a li le more disciplined. I actually learned to “think” much later in life. I
guess I was a “late bloomer” in the field of “thinking”. My initial years were relegated to doing with the sense
of “I have to do this because <fill in the blanks> – pass exams, get admission, whatever.
In 2006, I had a chance to make new friends at an event called Community 2.0
(h p://www.emergencemarketing.com/2006/11/24/upcoming-community-20-conference/). Francois was the
chairperson of the event. I had dinner with him and others including Chris Carfi, Aaron Strout, Nate Ri er,
Chris Heuer and Lee Lefever. I am not sure who said it but when asked them what the best part of their life
was, even though they were not the super success they’d like to be, they said “That’s because I do things for
myself”.
I then understood the rule three of punching above your weight class – do things for yourself instead of living to other’s expectations.
Steve Jobs has also said this in his famous commencement speech at Stanford.
I now blog so I can go back and read my posts, I play tennis so I can enjoy the outdoors, I meet entrepreneurs so I can learn. That’s possibly selfish, but I figured out that if I am happy that’s all that ma ers to my
mind.
Those who know me well are surprised that it took me so long to “figure this out”. I guess they thought that
coming from a smart family with a super achieving dad, social bu erfly for a mom, an insanely talented sister
and an naturally smart wife, I have it all and I had been blessed, so I should have figured these things out
much earlier.
I seek consolation from the fact that every person takes their own time. Every person is really different and
hits their stride at their own pace. They measure up to others expectations and perceptions much later in their
life, if at all.
https://bestengagingcommunities.com/2013/06/08/how-to-punch-above-your-weight-class/
2/
Case 2:21-cr-00041-JCC
Document
54 class
Filed
07/13/21
Page 40 of 119
How to punch above
your weight
| Best
Engaging Communities
Now when I meet entrepreneurs who are from an excellent pedigree and background, I am more cognizant of
the pressures and internal daemons they face. When I meet entrepreneurs who have on the flip side, not had
the breaks and chance, I try to give them time.
7/13/2021
Mostly though, I apply this learning to the expectations I have of my kids. They will find their groove at some
point. During the journey though, I realize the sense of disappointment I have with them not punching even
at their weight class. Those expectations are the ones that I have to work on the most.
They too, will find their formula at a time that’s right for them. Until then they are doing just fine – for themselves. Which is what ma ers the most.
https://bestengagingcommunities.com/2013/06/08/how-to-punch-above-your-weight-class/
3/
Case 2:21-cr-00041-JCC Document 54 Filed 07/13/21 Page 41 of 119
EXHIBIT B
Case 2:21-cr-00041-JCC Document 54 Filed 07/13/21 Page 42 of 119
Mukund Mohan
6/8/2021
The Honorable John C. Coughenour
United States District Judge
United States Courthouse
700 Stewart St., #16229
Seattle, Washington 98101
Re: United States v. Mukund Mohan, No. CR21-00041JCC
Dear Judge Coughenour:
I came to the United States of America (USA) in August of 1993 as a student to pursue my Master of Science in
Computer Science at University of Maryland, Baltimore County. Before that, I lived and studied in India for 21
years, completing my undergraduate studies in Computer Science at the University of Mysore.
I pursued my career in the San Jose area, working for organizations such as Cisco Systems and Mercury Interactive
(acquired by Hewlett Packard). After becoming a naturalized citizen of the United States (late 2000’s), my family
and I returned to India for 6 years to be with our parents. We returned to the United States in 2014, when I
worked for Microsoft and then at Amazon. Until recently I was a senior executive at an eCommerce company that
is based in Canada.
I owe a lot of my life, my freedom and position in life to the people and institutions in the USA.
Which is why I am horrified that I cheated the people paying taxes, hardworking small business owners, bankers,
and the government by acquiring forgivable PPP loans falsely during the Covid crisis. My actions are
unconscionable. Since the day of my arrest warrant there has not been a single day that I have not regretted and
revisited my actions. I hurt the people that helped me. The same people who willingly took into their fold a young
student, gave me opportunities to grow and thrive. I betrayed them. They have a right to be disappointed, angry,
and disgusted by my actions.
If you look at my history and prior actions, nothing suggests that this should have happened. I believe I have a
good moral compass, but I failed myself, my family, friends, colleagues, acquaintances, and people who trusted
me. Many will be unable to forgive me for my actions. I understand that.
To my family who have endured the social stigma and pain from their classmates and colleagues, I deeply
apologize. For most of them I was a role model, and nothing pains me more than to see them so disappointed in
me. The impact of my actions on them have been more than on anyone else and I am deeply sorry they had to
endure public humiliation. My family has been a source of my strength through this crisis, and I owe a lot of
gratitude to them for helping me forge the path ahead.
To my many friends from school and college, who have known me for over 30 years, I am sorry that I caused you
pain and anguish. Many of you have spent days and weeks questioning “Why would Mukund do this?” and had to
endure the humility of knowing me or looking to defend my actions. I apologize to you. I know you had to try to
explain this to your kids and family as well, especially since most of your kids know me very well.
To the institutions of the USA including the SBA, which has tried to do help businesses at this time of need, only to
be cheated by me, I apologize. Helping businesses was your intent and being distracted by someone who falsified
documents keeps you away from your mission. I showed more than an error in judgment. This was a big mistake
and I take full responsibility. The fact that I have returned all the loan and not used any of it at all will be of little
solace to most people.
Since the complaint and conviction, I have been removed from my position and lost my primary source of income
and am unlikely to be employed again. I understand this is the start of the consequences I must face. What gives
me hope is that I am seeking help to give back more than I have got.
Page | 1
Case 2:21-cr-00041-JCC Document 54 Filed 07/13/21 Page 43 of 119
Mukund Mohan
6/8/2021
Over the last year I have sought professional help with experts such as Lonnie Kaman (licensed psychologist) to
address the issues that led me to this path - envy of successful entrepreneurs and constant comparison to other’s
success. These discussions along with my reflection of the sequence of events that led to these actions are what I
am working daily with gratitude journaling, thoughtful writing and realigning my moral compass to reflect helping
others.
I believe there are multiple ways I can help and make good on the promise to be a force of good. I have started on
some of them including providing free education to help young students affected by Covid. I am helping them
invest in their future by learning about the financial markets and providing them free analysis and information on
Twitter and my blog. Over the last 9 months I had the opportunity to connect with over 40,000 young and firsttime investors and share the basics of analyzing companies, investing in the stock market, and developing an
investment thesis and portfolio.
It gives me immense joy when I see their positive responses and messages to my teaching and content. A big
purpose of my life going forward, is to help young professionals learn and invest for their future. Investment
literacy is what I have chosen to shed light on. Since this is not taught in the formal education system, I find it
rewarding to share my experiences gathered over the years.
Through my writing, speaking, and sharing, I hope to help hundreds of other avoid taking shortcuts to achieve their
goals Shedding light on not going over the proverbial line even for small minor infractions will be the road to being
truthful and honest throughout their life.
Mukund June 8th, 2021
Page | 2
Case 2:21-cr-00041-JCC Document 54 Filed 07/13/21 Page 44 of 119
EXHIBIT C
Case 2:21-cr-00041-JCC Document 54 Filed 07/13/21 Page 45 of 119
CHARACTER REFERENCE LETTERS
No.
Name
C-1
Vinita Ananth
C-2
Thrisha Mohan
C-3
Narayan Mohan
C-4
Rashmi Mohan
C-5
Bharadwaj Ananthan
C-6
Ramadorai Arunkumar
C-7
Manjunath Bangalore
C-8
Mohan Bulusu
C-9
Prasana Iyengar
C-10
Jayashree Jagannath
C-11
Govindarajan Jayanth
C-12
Sunil Jose
C-13
Sreekanth Kannepalli
C-14
Radhica Kanniganti
C-15
Raghuram Madabushi
C-16
Rakesh Mahajan
C-17
Satish Mugulavalli
C-18
Radhika Mukhija
C-19
Godwin Pavamani
C-20
Amaresh Ramaswamy
C-21
Bhargava Vadapalli
C-22
Arun Vaidyanath
C-23
Arthi Vijayaraghavan
U nited States v. Mukund Mohan
No. CR21-041JCC
Case 2:21-cr-00041-JCC Document 54 Filed 07/13/21 Page 46 of 119
Attachment C-1
U nited States v. Mukund Mohan
No. CR21-041JCC
Case 2:21-cr-00041-JCC Document 54 Filed 07/13/21 Page 47 of 119
My name is Vinita Ananth and I’m writing this character reference letter for my
husband Mukund Mohan. We have been married and together for 25 years
and in this span we have lived in the same house, and have known, and seen each
other from all aspects from personal to social to professional. I met Mukund
in 1996 when we attended engineering school while working towards our
bachelor’s degrees. Through the years, we married, set up our residence, had
children and traveled the world. We lived in the Silicon Valley, California for 12
years, subsequently in Bangalore (the Silicon Valley of India) for 6 years, and have
been residing in Clyde Hill, WA for the past 7 years. In the early 2000s, we had 2
beautiful biological children Thrisha (19) and Rishab Mohan (16), and a decade
after our marriage, adopted our lovely twin girls Tara and Richa Mohan (now 15)
from an orphanage in India.
Having known Mukund for a quarter of a century, I’m entirely aware of the
character of my husband, Mukund has always been a person of high standards, a
leader and generous human being.
Being computer engineers, our careers frequently crossed paths(at HP, at
Microsoft, etc.), and I’ve had front row seats to witnessing his professional
journey. The Mukund I know has always sought to share technical practices,
deep knowledge, and industry advancements to engineers, technologists,
marketeers, entrepreneurs through education, sharing what he had learned
openly, selflessly, and supported people in the community who were in need,
and most often without a fee. His vehicles of sharing were myriad – from
teaching STEM at schools, teaching computer network classes in community
colleges, or blogging on his own site (www.bestengagingcommunities.com),
speaking at Industry conferences or in the more recent years through Twitter.
Throughout his career one theme has consistently emerged, Mukund was
beyond generous with sharing his knowledge – if he learned something
new, he was eager to give it back to the universe and democratize that
knowledge.
Outside professional circles, in personal settings, he has been a model and
caring husband, and father to our 4 kids, a favorite brother, a dutiful son/son-
Case 2:21-cr-00041-JCC Document 54 Filed 07/13/21 Page 48 of 119
in-law and friend to hundreds if not thousands. He is the adoring parent who
checks in three to four times a day, making sure the kids had their meals for the
day and is often found in the kitchen preparing our children’s favorite dishes. On
weekends, we enjoyed having friends and family over, Mukund has always been a
warm, high-energy with a great sense of humor, fun, effusive, and generous
host cooking meals, cleaning up, entertaining, and helping our friends and their
children by being a great listener and supporter. He had consistently donated
blood to blood banks. He has always devoted his life to the well being of all
those who touched him. There isn’t a single instance where people can raise their
eyebrows or a finger and, on the contrary, have deeply admired him as someone
who was simple (not materialistic), kind and a person who strived to bring
peace around him.
Mukund has been a person of high moral and ethics in his all life. He has
devoted his life for the wellbeing of others and for those are around him,
which I have always witnessed from him in the multiple occasions of such
situations. The news of the criminal proceedings against him came just like a
tremendous shock to me and my family, since it is something which can never be
expected from a man of such high regard and conduct, and one who cares so
deeply for so many.
I’m fully aware of the charges and his admission of guilt, yet I’m pledging here
with my words towards his character. While I had no awareness prior to the event,
retrospectively I have come to learn what may have led to his actions. The Cares
Act had just been rolled out, and Mukund had been hearing anecdotally about
startups who were receiving approvals for the loans notwithstanding when their
businesses were not adversely affected by COVID but in anticipation of hardship
in the future. Mukund had several startup ideas/engineering projects in flight,
with complete business plans and offshore development in progress, he had
worked very hard until that point and was anxious for ways to make incremental
progress on them. Mukund’s brain is multi-threaded, I’ve always known him to
maintain a list of not just a few but several business ideas, entirely aware that
90% of startups fail. Ill-advised he sought to obtain PPP loans that would help
him continue to build and develop the products to the tune of what may be
Series A funds. The simplicity of paperwork facilitated repetition until he obtained
the amount which could help move his products from pre-prototype to minimum
viable product. Mukund in his circles is known to be a speed hare and a rapid
Case 2:21-cr-00041-JCC Document 54 Filed 07/13/21 Page 49 of 119
thinker, in the past this trait has helped advert several adverse emergency
situations.
I can only speculate at this time, but it is almost impossible believe the Mukund I
know would have kept the funds without returning them to the United States
Government – that is the ordinary and common nature of Loans. The
circumstances that occurred to Mukund were extraordinary and his actions under
the influence during the fated one month at the peak of COVID (a period of
unreasonable fear, doubt and uncertainty for majority of the world) was
unprecedented and confounding, which regrettably led to a series of actions that
are so far from who Mukund has been for the past 49 years.
Mukund, in my humble opinion, is not defined by this mistake, and is far more than
it.
I just hope that this of my character reference letter would give you a better idea
to assess his character and take your decision accordingly. I’m confident that
Mukund will continue to give unconditionally to the world. I’m truly thankful for
the opportunity to share, and to you for taking some time out to read this letter.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Vinita Ananth (Mukund’s wife)
Case 2:21-cr-00041-JCC Document 54 Filed 07/13/21 Page 50 of 119
Attachment C-2
U nited States v. Mukund Mohan
No. CR21-041JCC
Case 2:21-cr-00041-JCC Document 54 Filed 07/13/21 Page 51 of 119
My name is Thrisha Mohan, and I am writing a character reference for my father, Mukund Mohan. I am
nineteen years old and have known my father all my life as he and I have lived together until I enrolled
in American University last year.
Since my childhood, my dad has instilled in me the values of service and hardwork. When we lived in
Bangalore, India, I never thought much of the long hours that my father worked, or the plethora of
meetings and calls he had. In retrospect, those meetings and events were often spent voluntarily
helping students and young professionals alike develop technical skills, functional expertise and build
relationships with others in their domain to begin or further their career. As a ten-year-old, I was often
unaware and oblivious to his impact, nonetheless on the few occasions I was able to see what a
meaningful and helpful presence he was in the lives of hundreds of people, many of whom he did not
even know personally. Once when my dad and I were walking to a neighborhood grocery store, a man,
whom I had never met, stopped his car to thank my dad for his help and support in his career. My dad
had mentored him over Twitter just as he had done for many people through social media, he never
imagined he would personally meet anyone in person. He always believed in helping people regardless
of his personal familiarity with them, because he believes that everyone deserves a helping hand. In his
personal and professional spheres, he carried these values and aimed to build connections and
relationships that would benefit as many humans as possible.
Back in the US, as an eighth grader at Chinook Middle School, my dad volunteered at our school to help
sixth and seventh students who were struggling with math and science classes. He was not volunteering
in my classroom for the benefit of my personal education; he helped students who needed the
additional support. I did not actually realize he was volunteering until a month or so into his work
because he was not loud or boastful about his service, on the contrary he did what he felt was right
without the need for acknowledgement.
Throughout my life, my dad has supported me and raised me to be diligent and work hard towards my
goals. He was able to demonstrate this to me both through his actions and words, always encouraging
me to explore the range of opportunities that were available in the United States, a country in which
“the sky's the limit if you work hard.” My passions steered me towards Politics, and his support led me
to serve my community and engage with its institutions. He constantly encouraged me to question my
current beliefs and learn more in order to understand the most significant problems that needed to be
addressed. His guidance influenced my decision to work in Public Sector and ensure that equity is at the
center of decision-making in Washington. Over the past three years, he motivated me to work in
political campaigns in Washington state and fight for the rights and resources of our most vulnerable
communities. I hope to continue to do so for the rest of my life.
Despite my father’s admirable traits, selfless nature, and commendable actions, he committed a big
mistake, he is only human. Though it is part of human nature to have lapses of judgment, the ideas of
service and community have been clearly a large part of my dad’s life. While the aspects of his life that I
list in this letter do not absolve him of responsibility, they show a pattern of compassion, altruism, and
kindness that is strikingly genuine and has bettered hundreds of lives.
Thank you for your time and consideration in reading this letter.
Sincerely,
Case 2:21-cr-00041-JCC Document 54 Filed 07/13/21 Page 52 of 119
Thrisha Mohan
Case 2:21-cr-00041-JCC Document 54 Filed 07/13/21 Page 53 of 119
Attachment C-3
U nited States v. Mukund Mohan
No. CR21-041JCC
Case 2:21-cr-00041-JCC Document 54 Filed 07/13/21 Page 54 of 119
Case 2:21-cr-00041-JCC Document 54 Filed 07/13/21 Page 55 of 119
Case 2:21-cr-00041-JCC Document 54 Filed 07/13/21 Page 56 of 119
Attachment C-4
U nited States v. Mukund Mohan
No. CR21-041JCC
Case 2:21-cr-00041-JCC Document 54 Filed 07/13/21 Page 57 of 119
The Honorable John C. Coughenour
United States District Judge
United States Courthouse
700 Stewart St., #16229
Seattle, Washington 98101
Re: United States v. Mukund Mohan, No. CR21-00041JCC
Dear Judge Coughenour:
I am Mukund’s only sibling and have known him for the 44 years of my life. He has been my older sibling, my friend, my caretaker, mentor and advisor through every big and small decision.
Through my growing years and our years together as a family I have grown to realize what a special human being he is. We have been lucky enough to live within a 10 minute drive of each other’s homes for
a significant portion of our lives. He has been an integral part of my children’s lives, supporting and
guiding them as only an uncle can.
Mukund and I grew up surrounded by an extended family with very close bonds. Our parents always
taught us the value of hard work and togetherness. As siblings, we hardly ever fought because of how
accommodating and loving he was. At the age of 7, when my parents traveled abroad, we lived with
cousins for a period of 4 weeks. I still remember 11 year old Mukund taking his responsibility of caring
for me very seriously and never letting me be lonely. Even during the summer holidays, he always used
his time wisely - selling local produce from a friend’s farm, building marketing campaigns for an uncle’s
detergent product and inventing creative games to keep all the younger cousins entertained. He was
loved by everyone because he didn’t do any of this for an allowance, but just out of his own love to be
productive and engaged with his community.
Mukund worked very hard to create opportunities for himself. His professional success came from immense discipline, hard work, thirst for learning and a genuine passion for his work. But what is most
commendable is that he always carried people along with him as he grew. I know of 2 specific incidents
where his intuition and ability to create opportunities for others transformed the lives of a cousin and a
friend’s autistic son.
In the first case, our cousin Santosh had not been able to complete his education and was struggling to
find his identity. This had a deep negative impact on Santosh and his parents. Mukund gave him a job,
guided and mentored him through it and also gave him a place to live for a few months until Santosh
was able to land on his own two feet. Today, Santosh has a successful career, is married and has two
young children. To say that his life was transformed by the opportunity that Mukund gave him would
not be an understatement.
In the second case, Mukund’s colleague had an autistic son who was unable to find an internship or
higher education opportunities in India. Mukund created a position for the teenager and helped give
Case 2:21-cr-00041-JCC Document 54 Filed 07/13/21 Page 58 of 119
him a sense of purpose and accomplishment. The boy’s parents were so grateful for Mukund’s ability to
generate meaningful opportunities for their son and others in need.
That’s the Mukund that I know - one who is thoughtful, generous to a fault and will go out of his way to
help others. His most valuable resource was his time, and he has given countless hours of those speaking to young students, entrepreneurs, sharing both his successes and mistakes.
His and Vinita’s decision to adopt their twin daughters in 2012 came as a surprise to most of our family,
but one that they were confident about. They have worked incredibly hard to integrate the children
into all our lives and have made us the richer for it. The twins have transformed into strong, well-adjusted young women - one of whom is an exceptional artist and the other, a great sportsperson.
Mukund has an open, nurturing relationship with all four of his children. He is one of the very few fathers I know who is truly an equal partner and parent. He is an exceptional cook and has been a role
model of industriousness to his children. He has always always shared the load at home and has managed his career and household responsibilities with alacrity.
Mukund and I have always been close and I have been talking to him almost daily since the incident, and
have met him thrice as well. He is sincerely sorry, apologetic and understands the consequences of his
big mistake. Even from his first phone call to me, he has expressed his deep remorse for his actions,
both to me and our father. I am confident that this will remain a one-off incident for Mukund from
which he will learn lessons that he will use from here onwards. He will not only improve his life, but I
am sure he will help others make better choices as well. Our entire family loves Mukund and we will
continue to support him and wish him the best outcome for this case.
Sincerely,
Rashmi Mohan
Email address: r_rashmi@yahoo.com
Case 2:21-cr-00041-JCC Document 54 Filed 07/13/21 Page 59 of 119
Attachment C-5
U nited States v. Mukund Mohan
No. CR21-041JCC
Case 2:21-cr-00041-JCC Document 54 Filed 07/13/21 Page 60 of 119
%KDUDGZDM$QDQWKDQ
1:UG3ODFH
3RUWODQG25
EBDQDQWKDQ#\DKRRFRP
0D\
The Honorable John C. Coughenour
United States District Judge
United States Courthouse
700 Stewart St., #16229
Seattle, Washington 98101
Re: United States v. Mukund Mohan, No. CR21-00041JCC
Dear Judge Coughenour:
0XNXQGLVP\FRXVLQEURWKHUDQG,KDYHNQRZQKLPDOOP\OLIHRI\HDUV0\
HDUOLHVWPHPRULHVRIKLPZHUHZKHQZHXVHGWRYLVLWKLPDQGKLV\RXQJHUVLVWHULQ
%HQJDOXUXGXULQJP\VXPPHUYDFDWLRQV,IHOWYHU\VSHFLDOZLWKWKHPDQGP\DXQW
KLVPRWKHU ZKRVKRZHUHGPHZLWKORYHDIIHFWLRQDQGPHPRUDEOHJLIWV RQHRI
WKHPEHLQJWKH0RQRSRO\JDPHZKLFKEHFDPHDSUL]HGSRVVHVVLRQIRUPDQ\\HDUV
2QKLVZD\WRJUDGXDWHVFKRROLQ0DU\ODQGLQWKHHDUO\ VKHVWRSSHGE\RXUKRPH
LQ0XPEDLDQGVKDUHGKRZPXFKKHZDVORRNLQJIRUZDUGWRH[SDQGLQJKLVWHFKQLFDO
VNLOOVDQGZRUOGYLHZLQWKH86
:KHQ,PRYHGWRWKH86LQWKH V,FDPHWRNQRZRI0XNXQGDVWKHVXSHUKLJK
DFKLHYHULQWKHIDPLO\+HKDGEHHQLQYROYHGLQPDQ\WHFKVWDUWXSVLQWKH%D\$UHD
DQGZDVFRQVLGHUHGDPRGHOIRUPDQ\LQWKDWVSDFH,KDGDIULHQGIURPFROOHJHZKR
XQEHNQRZQVWWRPH KDGFRQQHFWHGZLWK0XNXQGDQGJRWWHQPHQWRUVKLSIURPKLP
RQKLVWHFKVWDUWXS7KURXJKDOORIWKLV,IRXQG0XNXQGWRUHPDLQYHU\JURXQGHG
DQGKLVDIIHFWLRQIRUPHQHYHUFKDQJHG,QKHPDGHDVSHFLDOWULSWRDWWHQGP\
ZHGGLQJLQ,QGLDZKLFKPHDQWDORWWRPH
,QZKHQKHPRYHGEDFNWRWKH86ZHVWDUWHGPHHWLQJPXFKPRUHRIWHQDVKH
ZDVLQ6HDWWOHDQGZHZHUHLQ3RUWODQG$VZLWKPHKHKDVGHYHORSHGDVSHFLDOERQG
ZLWKP\VRQ5DMLY5DMLYORYHVDQGDGRUHVKLVXQFOHDQGLVDOZD\VH[FLWHGWREHZLWK
KLP:HDOVRJUHZYHU\FORVHWRKLVHQWLUHIDPLO\LQFOXGLQJKLVZLIH9LQLWDDQGWKHLU
NLGV7KH\DGRSWHGRIWKHLUNLGV P\QLHFHV5DMLDQG0DKL LQ$GRSWLRQLV
QRWYHU\FRPPRQLQRXUFXOWXUHDQGIRUWKDW,KDYHGHYHORSHGDYHU\KLJKUHJDUGIRU
WKHLUIDPLO\(YHQWKRXJK0XNXQGDQG9LQLWDKDGYHU\VXFFHVVIXOFDUHHUVWKH\
UHPDLQHGYHU\KXPEOHDQGXQDVVXPLQJ
:KHQ,IRXQGRXWDERXWWKHLVVXHWKDWKHZDVFKDUJHGZLWKLQ,ZDVGHHSO\
VDGGHQHGDQGIUDQNO\VKRFNHG$V,KDYHWKRXJKWPRUHDERXWLW,KDYHFRQFOXGHG
Case 2:21-cr-00041-JCC Document 54 Filed 07/13/21 Page 61 of 119
WKDWLWZDVDRQHRIIPLVWDNHDQGGRHVQRWWDNHDZD\IURPDOOKLVDFFRPSOLVKPHQWV
SURIHVVLRQDODQGSHUVRQDO ,QWKHODVW\HDUZHKDYHWDONHGDQGPHWVHYHUDOWLPHV
DQG,FDQVD\ZLWKRXWDGRXEWWKDWKHGHHSO\UHJUHWVKLVDFWLRQVDQGZRXOGJLYHXS
DQ\WKLQJWRFKDQJHLW
,QFORVLQJ,¶GXUJH\RXWRFRQVLGHUKLVRYHUDOOFRQWULEXWLRQV WRKLVIDPLO\VRFLHW\
DQGQRWMXVWKLVVLQJXODUDFWLRQLQ+LVZLIHDQGKLVNLGVQHHGKLPDWWKLVWLPH
DQG,ZRXOGUHTXHVW\RXWRFRQVLGHUWKDW
6LQFHUHO\
%KDUDGZDM$QDQWKDQ
Case 2:21-cr-00041-JCC Document 54 Filed 07/13/21 Page 62 of 119
Attachment C-6
U nited States v. Mukund Mohan
No. CR21-041JCC
Case 2:21-cr-00041-JCC Document 54 Filed 07/13/21 Page 63 of 119
Case 2:21-cr-00041-JCC Document 54 Filed 07/13/21 Page 64 of 119
Case 2:21-cr-00041-JCC Document 54 Filed 07/13/21 Page 65 of 119
Case 2:21-cr-00041-JCC Document 54 Filed 07/13/21 Page 66 of 119
Case 2:21-cr-00041-JCC Document 54 Filed 07/13/21 Page 67 of 119
Attachment C-7
U nited States v. Mukund Mohan
No. CR21-041JCC
Case 2:21-cr-00041-JCC Document 54 Filed 07/13/21 Page 68 of 119
!
+&& !#'*((-
-,'&'
! !('"&&&)'
Dear honorable Judge Mr. Coughenour,
I have known Mukund since 1990 when I first crossed paths with him during my sophomore
year of Undergrad School back in Mysore, India pursuing Bachelor’s in Engineering at the time.
It was really hard to miss him with his incredible energy and vivacious nature.
He certainly had a charming personality about him that drew people together, both students and
faculty alike. He was always helpful to those around him and put people at ease. He would often
take initiative to coordinate class excursions or other group events that he really came to be
known for over time. He was a very popular guy around the Campus, and I’d be surprised if
there was any kid that wouldn’t know him over the years.
After we graduated college in 1993, we met again in California in the late 90’s when we both
lived in the Bay area for over ten years within a few miles of each other. Our families hung out
together quite often, and with both of our kids about the same age, that gave us more
opportunities to do so. Mukund interacted with the kids in his inimitable “fun” goofy way, and
the kids would always have a blast around him. Both my son and daughter adored Mukund and
would look forward to meeting him and his family.
Mukund has always been the life of any party, putting everybody at ease and engaging them to
participate in group games and activities, much of which he often put-together himself that
brought people together. He has always been fun to hang out with, and people that I never seen
dance before are on the dance floor when Mukund is around, for which his engaging personality
is largely a factor.
When Mukund and family returned to India many years ago, Mukund was highly committed to
giving back to society to help the under-privileged. Mukund and his wife Vinita adopted twingirls and provided them a safe, caring and nurturing environment. Knowing how hard and
arduous the process of adoption is in India, the manner in which both of them showed
commitment and stayed the course, drew a lot of admiration from many in our common circle of
friends. Mukund and Vinita accepted the twin girls into their family and treated them no
different from two of their own children. I met the girls early on when they were just brought
into the family. When I met them again over the past year after a long hiatus, I was pleasantly
surprised to see a huge positive change in them. It was nothing short of transformational! They
had grown to be confident young girls, incredibly articulate and integrated so beautifully into
the family. Mukund and Vinita have been largely responsible for this outcome in creating a
loving environment for the twin girls and exposing them to a world of possibilities. I have always
known Mukund to be a loving father to all his children besides being just an amazing family man
Case 2:21-cr-00041-JCC Document 54 Filed 07/13/21 Page 69 of 119
overall, and the above outcome is a real testament to that. The love and adoration that I see in
the children for their Dad is just priceless.
Another significant contribution that he made during his in India was to coach budding
Entrepreneurs in India with their start-up journey when an Entrepreneurial wave hit India over
a decade ago. He was generous with his time as he invested copious amount of time and effort in
providing guidance to umpteen number of early ventures based largely on his own experiences
with Startups. I’m certain that many of them owe their successes to his insights and mentorship.
It’s worth mentioning that he did all of this without any expectations in return.
I have always known Mukund to be incredibly helpful, kind, and a genuinely good person who
always looks out for others and the Community at large. I can say without any reservation when
I look at his life’s trajectory and knowing him personally for a really long time now, that the
recent incident with the PPP loans is truly an exception and does not reflect the truly wonderful
human being that he is and all his accomplishments till date. Given a second chance, I have no
doubt in my mind that Mukund will truly give his everything to make things right again, and
then some more. I sincerely appreciate your kind and thoughtful consideration in this regard.
Sincerely,
Manjunath Bangalore
manjax@gmail.com
June 9, 2021
Case 2:21-cr-00041-JCC Document 54 Filed 07/13/21 Page 70 of 119
Attachment C-8
U nited States v. Mukund Mohan
No. CR21-041JCC
Case 2:21-cr-00041-JCC Document 54 Filed 07/13/21 Page 71 of 119
Case 2:21-cr-00041-JCC Document 54 Filed 07/13/21 Page 72 of 119
Attachment C-9
U nited States v. Mukund Mohan
No. CR21-041JCC
Case 2:21-cr-00041-JCC Document 54 Filed 07/13/21 Page 73 of 119
Case 2:21-cr-00041-JCC Document 54 Filed 07/13/21 Page 74 of 119
Case 2:21-cr-00041-JCC Document 54 Filed 07/13/21 Page 75 of 119
Attachment C-10
U nited States v. Mukund Mohan
No. CR21-041JCC
Case 2:21-cr-00041-JCC Document 54 Filed 07/13/21 Page 76 of 119
My name is Jayashree Jagannath and I’m writing this character reference letter for my
brother-in-law Mukund Mohan. I have known Mukund since 1996 when my cousin sister Vinita
Ananth got married to him. I work as a Senior Manager, Security Engineering at Verana Health,
an Healthcare Data Analytics company that is aiming to make clinical trials efficient and easily
accessible based on real world evidence.
Mukund is a serial entrepreneur and his brain is filled with a plethora of ideas. He is very
passionate about his ideas and he is ready to put in the required hard work to ensure that he
can execute on those ideas and bring them to fruition. He is a voracious reader and when he
hones on an idea he spends the required time to do due diligence about the feasibility of the
idea. He is very quickly able to piece together a big picture to form a vision of how he wants to
move the idea forward. When he talks about his ideas you can see a child-like excitement while
he talks about the possibilities in ways this idea could solve a problem. His strong passion to
make a difference in the world of technology and business is what you see in this
child-like excitement.
He is an extremely sharp, fast thinker and ahead of his times. There have been instances
where he has come up with ideas that have sprung up 2-3 years later as a solid business
trend. That shows a mark of a true visionary. As an entrepreneur one has to face a lot of
rejection. Many times people do not want to believe in your ideas and it is hard to keep the spirit
to move things forward when things are going tough. I have seen Mukund through one of
those times and he has the tenacity to move forward with something even if no one
around him believes in it. I have never seen him bogged down by rejections or if an idea
fails. He always finds a way to get up and move on.
In the end his eventual goal is to make a substantial difference in this world through his passion
in business and technology. At it’s core it is the people he can make a difference to and what he
can do to improve their quality of life. Be it a simple or a complex idea, it didn’t matter, the goal
was to help people and make their lives better. It was his way of helping move the ball
forward in the world of technology and business and to achieve something that will
eventually help people. To me this requires not only tremendous tenacity and courage to
achieve this goal but also a sense of concern for people and what can he do to make
their lives better.
We are a very close-knit family and I have had the chance to interact closely with Mukund since
we used to see each other a lot during holidays and vacations. For a period of 2 years Mukund
and Vinita and us (my husband Sridhar and myself) lived in the Bay area at the same time and
we had a chance to spend more time together since we were able to meet more often. This
gave me the opportunity to interact with him many times about my professional work and many
times about how it is to work in a startup and what it takes to start a company. Within a couple of
conversations you could easily figure out that this is a guy who loves to start companies and in
the process help people. For me personally he has referred me to folks professionally, given me
ideas on how to take my career forward and he has done all this without expecting anything in
Case 2:21-cr-00041-JCC Document 54 Filed 07/13/21 Page 77 of 119
return. He sees a need and he thinks he can help fulfill it and he will do it sometimes
without you asking for it.
Mukund and Vinita spent a lot of time with my father when he was in India. They were a big
support for my dad when he was staying alone for 5 years. They stayed with him for a couple of
months and after they moved to their own place they would visit him often to ensure he was
doing fine. In a way it was a big relief that my dad had someone close there in case anything
happened and for that I am super thankful to both Mukund and Vinita.
My father had great admiration for Mukund. He saw him closely when Mukund stayed with him.
He told me how Mukund was so good at taking care of his kids. He (Mukund) would get up at
4:00 AM and take his kids and my cousin for a full workout before they started their day. This
was his way of ensuring his kids understood the value of leading a disciplined and a
healthy lifestyle. He knew that this was an important life skill to instill early on in his kids.
When Mukund and Vinita were in India they did a very noble cause of adopting these
adorable 6 year old twin girls from India. To all of us in the family that was one of the
most admirable and selfless acts. He treated them as his own kids and showered them with a
lot of love and opportunities and till date he does that. He guides them and helps them in their
studies. He pushes them to be self-sufficient and independent and most of all encourages them
to follow what they are passionate about. This is what he has done his whole life “followed his
passion” and he wishes and encourages them to do the same.
Mukund is a family man at heart. He loves to interact with kids and my kids adore him. He will
hang out with them, play with them, talk to them, make fun and create a super fun environment
for not just the kids but all of us. It is just fun to be around him. He shows a genuineness in
his affection and will ensure that everyone is included in his fun. He will go out of his way
to help anyone. This is not just family but anyone whom he does not even know.
Mukund and Vinita were one of the few family members I had when I first moved to the Bay
Area and his mom was visiting from India. All of them came to one of the family functions and
started helping out without us even asking for help. They saw the need and decided to just help
out. What struck me that day was the similarity in how his mom and him helped even
without asking and without expecting anything in return. He gets this quality from his
mother. His mother would come to any place and make herself comfortable and help around
without any qualms. She would quietly do the work and move on. I witnessed that in one of our
family functions. There is a strong sense of selflessness that leads them (Mukund and his
mother) to do that and it is the same quality that Mukund displays in all aspects of his
life.
Mukund is a very un-complicated and simple guy. He is a very approachable person and that's
why a lot of times people come to him for mentorship or advice or help. He has been very
successful in his life but not once has he ever talked about his personal achievements or
wealth. He is someone who can adjust anywhere and in any situation. He can sleep on the floor
Case 2:21-cr-00041-JCC Document 54 Filed 07/13/21 Page 78 of 119
and adjust with whatever is available at that point in time. Even though he was very successful
very early on in his career he never let it be the topic of conversation. His being successful was
just a result of what he really wanted to do. His personal achievement, gain and wealth was
never really a priority for him. He was more about following his passion and doing what he loved
to do and that was making a difference in his world with his ideas. The monetary benefits from it
was just a consequence of what he was doing. What was more important to him was that
idea would make a difference to people’s lives.
Many folks in the Bay Area and other tech cities want to be entrepreneurs because it sounds
very cool to be an entrepreneur. But for Mukund it is his passion that makes him a true
entrepreneur. Like I said before it takes a different type of personality to be an entrepreneur
and money cannot be the focus if you want to be a successful entrepreneur. He thinks a lot of
times from his heart and brings in the compassion needed to nurture the idea. To be a
successful entrepreneur you need a personality that has immense courage, tenacity, is
detailed oriented, adaptability, charismatic and a sense of self belief to be successful and
Mukund has displayed these qualities time and again in every single project that he has
taken up over the past 25 years I have known him.
It was an immense shock to all of us in the family when we got to know about Mukund’s arrest.
Given how he is as a person I could have never imagined him getting himself into this type of a
situation. This was definitely not the person I or my family knew and we are still reeling from this
shock. We are all fully aware of the charges he is facing today and his admission of guilt. From
what I know about Mukund it was absolutely not his intent to use this money for any personal
gains. His only intent was to use this money to execute on the plethora of ideas he has in his
mind. Mukund has time and again seen that you need to raise money to be able to
execute on ideas and he thought he could use this money to do exactly that. And that is
the only reason that drove him to apply for the PPP loans.
Mukund has a number of admirable traits and above all he is a generous human being.
He has helped a lot of people without expecting anything from them. He only knows how to
follow his passion and his passion is helping people in whichever way he can (through offering
jobs in his startup , to mentoring people to become a better version of themselves or by just
connecting you with someone he knows and thinks you can benefit from). He is very dear to
our family and has always made us feel part of his family when he is with us. To me by
relation he is my brother-in-law but in reality he treats me more like his little sister. His
simplicity and his ability to be approachable by anyone is what makes him a unique and
caring individual inspite of his accomplishments. I really hope this letter gives you a sense
of the type of person Mukund actually is. And I hope you take all of this into account and offer
leniency with respect to his sentence. Over the past year we have seen Mukund painfully
realize the magnitude of his actions and the damage caused to his family who are very
dear to him and he would do anything to rectify or change this by giving back to the
community. This is what he has always done and this is what he will continue to do. Everyone
deserves a second chance and I really hope he gets one.
Case 2:21-cr-00041-JCC Document 54 Filed 07/13/21 Page 79 of 119
Thank you,
Sincerely
JayƄƖƥrƢe
Jayashree Jagannath (Mukund’s Sister-in-Law)
Case 2:21-cr-00041-JCC Document 54 Filed 07/13/21 Page 80 of 119
Attachment C-11
U nited States v. Mukund Mohan
No. CR21-041JCC
Case 2:21-cr-00041-JCC Document 54 Filed 07/13/21 Page 81 of 119
Case 2:21-cr-00041-JCC Document 54 Filed 07/13/21 Page 82 of 119
Case 2:21-cr-00041-JCC Document 54 Filed 07/13/21 Page 83 of 119
Attachment C-12
U nited States v. Mukund Mohan
No. CR21-041JCC
Case 2:21-cr-00041-JCC Document 54 Filed 07/13/21 Page 84 of 119
Dated: 29th June 2021
The Honorable John C. Coughenour
United States District Judge
United States Courthouse
700 Stewart St., #16229
Seattle, Washington 98101
Re: United States v. Mukund Mohan, No. CR21-00041JCC
Dear Judge Coughenour:
I have been Mukund’s friend and classmate since middle school in India. I have known him for over 37
years as a close friend, classmate and we lived in the same neighborhood as well in Bangalore INDIA.
Mukund has been a loyal friend, always helpful and a trusted individual to me and many of our
classmates who still talk every day digitally.
Reminiscing on one occasion when I wanted Mukund’s assistance in setting up my startup
on Hydrobloom a hydroponics venture, Mukund most gladly gave his time and connect to give it the
initial structure, He has been our go to person for most of us both professionally and personally always
ready, ever enthusiastic to help / assist us in any way possible. Blessed and a lifetime friend that I have.
Even after he moved to the United States, he kept in touch with me and our friends via email and
messaging. He would make it a point to visit us and inquire about our families every time he visited India
as well. He is a family man, and our entire graduating class is rooting for him to get through this
situation.
I was thrilled to see him and his family again when they moved to India in 2008 and saw the new
additions to his family with the twin girls they adopted. Since I have twins as well, we bonded and
commiserated even more.
I have been talking to him over the last few months and believe he is sincerely sorry, apologetic and
understands the consequences of his big mistake. While I cannot explain why he did this, he will be
judged by me and my fellow classmates on his 37-year history of being a faithful friend, a good human, a
fun person to hang out with and a guy who deserves a second change.
I would request you to please take my recommendation of Mukund as a sincere request to pardon his
sentence to be reasonable, fair, and just. He has done better in his 48 years for all his friends like me
than bad in the few days or weeks this incident occurred.
Sincerely,
suniljose@hydrobloom.in
Case 2:21-cr-00041-JCC Document 54 Filed 07/13/21 Page 85 of 119
Attachment C-13
U nited States v. Mukund Mohan
No. CR21-041JCC
Case 2:21-cr-00041-JCC Document 54 Filed 07/13/21 Page 86 of 119
Case 2:21-cr-00041-JCC Document 54 Filed 07/13/21 Page 87 of 119
Attachment C-14
U nited States v. Mukund Mohan
No. CR21-041JCC
Case 2:21-cr-00041-JCC Document 54 Filed 07/13/21 Page 88 of 119
Case 2:21-cr-00041-JCC Document 54 Filed 07/13/21 Page 89 of 119
Attachment C-15
U nited States v. Mukund Mohan
No. CR21-041JCC
Case 2:21-cr-00041-JCC Document 54 Filed 07/13/21 Page 90 of 119
Case 2:21-cr-00041-JCC Document 54 Filed 07/13/21 Page 91 of 119
Attachment C-16
U nited States v. Mukund Mohan
No. CR21-041JCC
Case 2:21-cr-00041-JCC Document 54 Filed 07/13/21 Page 92 of 119
The Honorable John C. Coughenour
United States District Judge
United States Courthouse
700 Stewart St., #16229
Seattle, Washington 98101
Re: United States v. Mukund Mohan, No. CR21-00041JCC
Dear Judge Coughenour:
I have known Mukund as a family friend for over 6 years. Over the years, not only have our families
gotten to know each other, but he and I have gotten to know each other as closer and closer friends.
When I first met Mukund I was intrigued and humbled by his willingness to help and care of people, a
trait that actually ran quite deep. A specific example that really stood out was the fact that he and his
wife adopted two girls from an impoverished existence in India (Tara and Richa) from India. Though
Mukund and Vinita already had two very healthy happy kids, Thrisha and Rishab, Mukund still wanted to
do what he could to help make a difference to the lives of Tara and Richa. On Sundays Mukund and I
organized a recurring soccer game where the dads and the kids came to play. He always made it a point
to bring these two girls who were just adapting to life in the US – they could barely speak English, but
there he was every Sunday encouraging them and just being an amazing father to them.
Since those summers, Mukund and I have remained very close. He is an athlete and in much better
shape than I am, so the only way I can keep up with him is to go on Sunday morning walks with him 2-3
times a month. During these walks we often find ourselves discussing work, since we are in similar
professions (executives at tech companies). But beyond our talks about work, what we spend much of
our time discussing is Mukund’s passion for using technology to make the world a bit of a better
place. A recent example that we spoke about was how technology could probably be used to help
improve the lives of foster children, inspired by how he has helped Tara and Richa rise out of their lives
in India.
When I learned about Mukund’s case in the summer of 2020, I immediately reached out to him and was
the first friend with whom Mukund discussed his case. That walk lasted several hours. Beyond his
embarrassment and humiliation, which was understandable, was a level of introspection that was simply
humbling. He was digging deep to really understand why he did what he did, and most importantly
Case 2:21-cr-00041-JCC Document 54 Filed 07/13/21 Page 93 of 119
what he needed to do to eliminate the demons inside himself. During the many walks we have had
since, I have witnessed his contrition and repentance first-hand.
Mukund is a kind-hearted, good person who still has much to offer to society. I am proud to call him my
friend. He gives generously of himself to his wife, his young children, his family, and his friends. It is my
sincere hope and prayer that you will consider all aspects of his character when you render your
judgment.
Thank you,
Rakesh Mahajan
Email: rakeshmahajanhome@gmail.com
Mobile: 206-331-9018
Case 2:21-cr-00041-JCC Document 54 Filed 07/13/21 Page 94 of 119
Certificate Of Completion
Envelope Id: 5E24C17EB63A465D9BF41F3DFF30252F
Status: Completed
Subject: Signed: Rakesh Letter Mukund.pdf
Source Envelope:
Document Pages: 2
Signatures: 1
Envelope Originator:
Certificate Pages: 1
Initials: 0
Rakesh Mahajan
AutoNav: Disabled
655 Montgomery St Fl 18
EnvelopeId Stamping: Disabled
San Francisco, CA 94111
Time Zone: (UTC-08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada)
rakesh@humaninterest.com
IP Address: 174.193.198.122
Record Tracking
Status: Original
6/22/2021 8:39:42 AM
Signer Events
Holder: Rakesh Mahajan
Location: DocuSign
rakesh@humaninterest.com
Signature
Timestamp
Rakesh Mahajan
Sent: 6/22/2021 8:40:01 AM
rakesh@humaninterest.com
Viewed: 6/22/2021 8:40:12 AM
VP Revenue
Signed: 6/22/2021 8:40:54 AM
Human Interest
Security Level: Email, Account Authentication
(None)
Signature Adoption: Pre-selected Style
Freeform Signing
Using IP Address: 174.193.198.122
Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure:
Not Offered via DocuSign
In Person Signer Events
Signature
Timestamp
Editor Delivery Events
Status
Timestamp
Agent Delivery Events
Status
Timestamp
Intermediary Delivery Events
Status
Timestamp
Certified Delivery Events
Status
Timestamp
Carbon Copy Events
Status
Timestamp
Rakesh Mahajan
Sent: 6/22/2021 8:40:55 AM
rakeshmahajanhome@gmail.com
Viewed: 6/22/2021 8:41:36 AM
Security Level: Email, Account Authentication
(None)
Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure:
Not Offered via DocuSign
Witness Events
Signature
Timestamp
Notary Events
Signature
Timestamp
Envelope Summary Events
Status
Timestamps
Envelope Sent
Hashed/Encrypted
6/22/2021 8:40:01 AM
Certified Delivered
Security Checked
6/22/2021 8:40:12 AM
Signing Complete
Security Checked
6/22/2021 8:40:54 AM
Completed
Security Checked
6/22/2021 8:40:55 AM
Payment Events
Status
Timestamps
Case 2:21-cr-00041-JCC Document 54 Filed 07/13/21 Page 95 of 119
Attachment C-17
U nited States v. Mukund Mohan
No. CR21-041JCC
Case 2:21-cr-00041-JCC Document 54 Filed 07/13/21 Page 96 of 119
!+$$!
$44)4243
# ##""#!#$
# ##"$!#$"
722 #&!# #+)/36449
##)"#98323
*# ##"%+$$) + 43-22253
!!$!+$$!)
$$&#!%!""3992+!"##$!"!(!
!&"#(!""(#"#"$!!(($+
&"(!#"#$!$("#)'#!($#%!(!$
!"#$#"##!"+#&" $#!#$##&(#"
!!"#%)!!"#$#+"#(#""#!$(!"%
"#!$"#-#$(!#&"#$#"!"+"(##%"
#"#)$#$#$#"!%""$"$#""$"+$$
"%!($#!"(%#((")$$"#!%&"
#+"#"#$"#!$#!"%!#!""&+
%## !""#!"#"$""$!!+"&(""#(#$
""#&("#!"##&"!#("#!!##"#"(+!#$!
##&#"!#"+&"##"!!&#""#
!#$!+#!$"!!$#!(##&"#&&#!""(+
($((#+""###&!"+ !"" $##$"
##"%!#"####+$#%$#
%$##&($#!""#+
$!#"!)"%!(&-&#!%"!#("#!#$"+
$"#%%!322#!!$!"#!"#!#$$!(+ #%$#!
"(3222"+,"$!#%$$##!"!
!##!!#!&"$""+#"&#$#('##!(!#!&"+"
%"#!")%!#!!$!-!(#!"#"#(#!
%"#!""&+ (!!#""##%%!#!#$#(#&!&#+
#!$(%#$!!##"#!##!""+"'#!(#)"
#$!""#("###'#+""#$#"$##"%#+
#&#!$"#"####"$#&!"$!#""#&#!!"#"+
"&("!)#!#&#!"#)#("!")(!"$#
(&"!"""#&#$#('##"+""$!($#""#"!(
($"&&"(+
Case 2:21-cr-00041-JCC Document 54 Filed 07/13/21 Page 97 of 119
#$$"#!#!#&$#%!(!$!!"#%#
$##""+"(&#!"#!"+
&$"!(! $"##"#)%""!"#!$#"
"!+(!!#""#""&!%!(!#!"#!$#"+!)(
#!"#$#!!&#"###($"""#%#(&#
!&!+
!($!"!#+
($ !(
$$%
#" $
"#"+$$%.+
Case 2:21-cr-00041-JCC Document 54 Filed 07/13/21 Page 98 of 119
Attachment C-18
U nited States v. Mukund Mohan
No. CR21-041JCC
Case 2:21-cr-00041-JCC Document 54 Filed 07/13/21 Page 99 of 119
Case 2:21-cr-00041-JCC Document 54 Filed 07/13/21 Page 100 of 119
Case 2:21-cr-00041-JCC Document 54 Filed 07/13/21 Page 101 of 119
Attachment C-19
U nited States v. Mukund Mohan
No. CR21-041JCC
Case 2:21-cr-00041-JCC Document 54 Filed 07/13/21 Page 102 of 119
Case 2:21-cr-00041-JCC Document 54 Filed 07/13/21 Page 103 of 119
Attachment C-20
U nited States v. Mukund Mohan
No. CR21-041JCC
Case 2:21-cr-00041-JCC Document 54 Filed 07/13/21 Page 104 of 119
Case 2:21-cr-00041-JCC Document 54 Filed 07/13/21 Page 105 of 119
Attachment C-21
U nited States v. Mukund Mohan
No. CR21-041JCC
Case 2:21-cr-00041-JCC Document 54 Filed 07/13/21 Page 106 of 119
Case 2:21-cr-00041-JCC Document 54 Filed 07/13/21 Page 107 of 119
Attachment C-22
U nited States v. Mukund Mohan
No. CR21-041JCC
Case 2:21-cr-00041-JCC Document 54 Filed 07/13/21 Page 108 of 119
Case 2:21-cr-00041-JCC Document 54 Filed 07/13/21 Page 109 of 119
Case 2:21-cr-00041-JCC Document 54 Filed 07/13/21 Page 110 of 119
Attachment C-23
U nited States v. Mukund Mohan
No. CR21-041JCC
Case 2:21-cr-00041-JCC Document 54 Filed 07/13/21 Page 111 of 119
Case 2:21-cr-00041-JCC Document 54 Filed 07/13/21 Page 112 of 119
Case 2:21-cr-00041-JCC Document 54 Filed 07/13/21 Page 113 of 119
EXHIBIT D
Case 2:21-cr-00041-JCC Document 54 Filed 07/13/21 Page 114 of 119
Ǥ
ͻǡʹͲͳʹ ͵ͺ
Ǥ
ǡ Ǥ
ͶȋͶ
ȌǤ
ǡ ǡ Ǥ
Dz dzǤ
Ǥ Ǥ ʹǡǡ
Ǥ
Ǥ ǡ
Ǥ Ǥ
Ǥ
Ǥ ǤǤ Ǥ
Ǥ DzdzǤǤ
ǤǤ
Ǥ ǡ
Ǥ
Dzdz Ǥ ǡ
ǡǤ
ǡ Ǥ
Ǥ
ȋͳȌǤǤ
ǡȋȌͳͻͻͶǤ
ǡ Ǥ
ȋΪΪȌ
ȋ Ȍ ǤͶDzdz
ǡ Ǥ
Ǥ Ǥ
Ǥ Ǥ
Ǥ
Ǥ
ϭ
Case 2:21-cr-00041-JCC Document 54 Filed 07/13/21 Page 115 of 119
ǡ
ȂǤ Ǥ
ǤȀ
ǤǤ ǤʹǤ
ǡ ǦǤ
Ǥ
ǡǣ Ǥ ǡ Ǥ
ǡǤ
Ǥ Ǥ
Ǥ
Ϯ
Case 2:21-cr-00041-JCC Document 54 Filed 07/13/21 Page 116 of 119
EXHIBIT E
Case 2:21-cr-00041-JCC Document 54 Filed 07/13/21 Page 117 of 119
Case 2:21-cr-00041-JCC Document 54 Filed 07/13/21 Page 118 of 119
EXHIBIT F
Case 2:21-cr-00041-JCC Document 54 Filed 07/13/21 Page 119 of 119
© 2021 Mukund Mohan Copyright.
Esports Entertainment Group $GMBL
Company Brief: Esports Entertainment Group ($GMBL)
$15.49, Range: ($2.04 52WL -$20.74 52WH)
12.7MM Shares outstanding 7.34MM Float.
Market Cap: $226M
Year
Revenue
Growth
Notes
2021
$18MM
N/A – previous rev Was $15MM in
negligible
Oct
2022 (E)
$70MM
288%
Was $42MM in
Jan
2023 (E)
$156M
112%
Was $72M in Jan
Risks
1 The big players like Draftkings or FanDuel could get into this, but the
opportunity to be partnered with specific games and platforms is unique.
2 Smaller competitors are Boom fantasy, Stars Draft and Draft Day but EEG is
the early mover.
3 The stock has run up a lot from $4 in Oct 2020 and could take time to
consolidate
Comparable
Stock
DKNG
FUBO
GMBL
GNOG
M Cap
$22B
$2.7B
$223M
$1.16B
NTM P/S
44X
12X
3.1X
12.8X
Notes
HIGH
Rev from streaming
LOW
Page 1
The Opportunity
EEG enables gambling on eSports. This is a market growing from $750M in
2020 to $3.5B in 2025 – sub segment of overall gambling. 20 states in US allow
it already and rest are joining.
With Malta based license this is a GLOBAL opportunity giving EEG 150
jurisdiction opportunity – not just US. eSports are played by 425MM young,
18–28-year-old gamers.
This market is very new and growing. Gamers are thrilled with the new Sony PS
and Microsoft XBOX and sharing their games on Twitch or YouTube.
The large Esports networks are partnering with EEG to create gambling
opportunities.
Short term catalysts
A) Closed $30MM in funding Feb 15th to further acquire and grow business
B) Raised guidance for 2022 with acquisitions from $42MM to $70MM
C) New Jersey license approval in Spring – March / April
D) Raising guidance to 1.7X guidance given in Jan
E) Dec resigned agreements with existing partners
F) Multiyear agreement with Philadelphia Eagles, LA Kings. LA Galaxy, Signed
Baltimore Ravens as well last week.
Expected Stock Price
Multiple
Stock Price
Likelihood
3X (Current)
$15.7
4X
$19.7
6X
$29.5
Most Likely
8X
$39.7
12X
$60.1
1
News:
2
3
4
With Helix eSports, GMBL acquires: 1) five esports centers, including two of the largest in the US; 2) Genji, a best-in-class esports analytics platform, and 3) LANdual, a
proprietary player-vs-player wagering platform that enables skill-based wagering on third-party video games both in gaming centers and eventually remotely.
LANdual has relationships with most major game publishers and a pilot program underway with the New Jersey Dept. of Gaming Enforcement
5
6
GMBL increased guidance for FY22 revenues by 68% to $42 million. We increase our FY21 revenue estimate by 15% to $15 million and our price target by 14% to $8,
which assigns a six-times multiple to FY:21 projected revenues.
7
It again raised guidance to $70M today Feb 16th.
8
9
The company added UK and Irish gambling licenses through a July acquisition and acquired its first US license in August through a partnership with a New Jersey
casino operator. Launch in April.
10
11
Esports Entertainment has nearly $42 million of cash to fund acquisitions, platform development and tournament hosting. Management is guiding for FY:21 revenues
of $18 million up from $13M.
12
Overview
13
14
EEG is an eSports company. has acquired multiple businesses over the last year to drive growth and has gone from 15 employees to over 150 in 8 months. They have
acquired business to boost their topline to $70+M in 2022 from previous guidance of $42M.
15
16
There are 3 parts to the business. Esports entertainment (setting up leagues, providing software to manage leagues, etc.), Skill based wagering like $SKLZ and
gambling like $DKNG.
17
Author: https://twitter.com/mukund
12/6/2020File and source
- File
- 009_ECF_54_gov.uscourts.wawd.296949.54.0.pdf
- Size
- 5,014,090 bytes
- SHA-256
- 27b4aa1baac323172829de3cd23c8e5441f7423aaf9739a9039f5609cdd33104
- Original
- www.courtlistener.com