Government’s Sentencing Memorandum — U.S. v. Mohan (W.D. Wash.)

Record facts

U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington · No. 2:21-cr-00041-JCC · Doc. 55 · 2021-07-13 · Docket on CourtListener

Full text

GOVERNMENT’S SENTENCING MEMORANDUM/MOHAN (No. CR21-0041JCC) - 1 
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY 
700 STEWART STREET, SUITE 5220 
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101 
(206) 553-7970 
 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
The Honorable John C. Coughenour 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 
AT SEATTLE 
 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 
 
 
Plaintiff, 
 
 
v. 
 
MUKUND MOHAN, 
 
        Defendant. 
 
No.  CR21-0041JCC 
        
 
 
GOVERNMENT’S SENTENCING 
MEMORANDUM 
 
Comes now the United States of America, by and through Tessa M. Gorman, 
Acting United States Attorney for the Western District of Washington, Andrew C. 
Friedman, Assistant United States Attorney for said District, Joseph Beemsterboer, 
Acting Chief, Fraud Section, Criminal Division, United States Department of Justice, and 
Christopher Fenton, Trial Attorney for said Section, and files this Government’s 
Sentencing Memorandum. 
I.     INTRODUCTION 
 
 Defendant, Mukund Mohan, is before the Court for sentencing following his 
guilty plea to one count of wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343, and one count of 
money laundering, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1957.  Mohan is scheduled to be sentenced 
at 9:00 a.m. on July 20, 2021. 
Case 2:21-cr-00041-JCC   Document 55   Filed 07/13/21   Page 1 of 13

 
 
 
 
GOVERNMENT’S SENTENCING MEMORANDUM/MOHAN (No. CR21-0041JCC) - 2 
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY 
700 STEWART STREET, SUITE 5220 
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101 
(206) 553-7970 
 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
II.     BACKGROUND 
A.  The COVID-19 Pandemic and the Paycheck Protection Program 
 
In early 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic spread rapidly across our country.  What 
started as a public-health crisis rapidly also become an economic crisis.  Large parts of 
the economy were shut down, businesses shuttered, and workers lost their jobs.  By April 
2020, the unemployment rate in the United States had reached 14.8%, Congressional 
Research Service, Unemployment Rates During the COVID-19 Pandemic, 
fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R46554.pdf, and millions of businesses faced the risk of failing. 
To respond to the economic fallout, and prevent even worse disaster, Congress 
passed the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (the CARES Act).  Pub. 
L. No. 116-136, 134 Stat. 281 (2020).  One of the goals of the CARES Act was to help 
businesses make payroll and pay operating expenses (and thereby avoid failure).  To that 
end, the CARES Act created a new government program, the Paycheck Protection 
Program (the PPP), to enable the issuance of loans, that ultimately could be forgivable, to 
small businesses in operation as of February 2020.  See Presentence Report ¶ 9 
[hereinafter, PSR]. 
 
Under the PPP, loans were processed and funded by participating lenders.  See id.  
The loans were guaranteed by the Small Business Administration (the SBA), and 
ultimately would be forgiven if borrowers spent the loan proceeds on permissible 
expenses, including spending a substantial percentage on payroll.  See id.  To qualify for 
a PPP loan, a business was required to submit an application, and supporting 
documentation, that established, among other things, the number of persons employed by 
the business, and the amount of the business’ payroll expenses.  See id. ¶ 10. 
 
The CARES Act originally appropriated $349 billion for the PPP.  See id.  
https://www.americanactionforum.org/research/tracker-paycheck-protection-program-
loans/.  This money was exhausted by April 16, 2020, causing the program to shut down 
for a time.  Congress appropriated another $320 billion to fund additional loans 
Case 2:21-cr-00041-JCC   Document 55   Filed 07/13/21   Page 2 of 13

 
 
 
 
GOVERNMENT’S SENTENCING MEMORANDUM/MOHAN (No. CR21-0041JCC) - 3 
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY 
700 STEWART STREET, SUITE 5220 
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101 
(206) 553-7970 
 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
(sometimes referred to as “round two”) through August 8, 2020.  (A third round of 
funding followed in 2021.) 
B. Mukund Mohan’s PPP Fraud 
Although many Americans’ economic security, and even economic survival, were 
threatened by the COVID-19 pandemic, Mohan was not one of those people.  Mohan, a 
trained software engineer, previously had worked at Cisco, Microsoft, and Amazon, and 
was employed in 2020 as the Chief Technology Officer of Build Direct, a Vancouver, 
British Columbia, business.  See id. ¶¶ 51-53, 57-58, 60.  Mohan’s wife worked at 
Microsoft.  Between the two of them, they earned more than $500,000 per year.  See id. 
¶¶ 70, 76.  And, they owned assets totaling more than $7 million (including two houses in 
Clyde Hill, each worth more than $2.5 million).  See id. ¶ 76.  Even after deducting the 
value of the mortgages on those houses, they had a net worth of more than $5 million.  
See id. 
Mohan, an executive at Build Direct, was not eligible for a PPP loan, because he 
did not have any business with employees to whom he paid salaries (other, perhaps, than 
himself and members of his immediate family).  See PSR ¶ 11.  Nevertheless, between 
April 26, 2020, and June 2, 2020, Mohan submitted applications for eight PPP loans for 
six different businesses, seeking a total of $5,533,182.  See id.  Mohan’s loan applications 
contained numerous lies, and were supported by documents he had forged.  For example, 
 Mohan represented that each of the companies for which 
he sought a PPP loan was in operation on February 15, 
2020, and had employees to whom it paid salaries or 
independent contractors whom it paid for work.  This was 
not true.  None of the companies had any significant 
operation, and none had any employees or independent 
contractors.  See id. ¶ 12. 
 
 For each company, Mohan created IRS Form 940s that 
showed that the company had paid large amounts in 
salary, typically more than $1 million, to employees in 
2019.  This also was not true.  The companies had not 
paid the salaries shown, or the withholding to the IRS 
Case 2:21-cr-00041-JCC   Document 55   Filed 07/13/21   Page 3 of 13

 
 
 
 
GOVERNMENT’S SENTENCING MEMORANDUM/MOHAN (No. CR21-0041JCC) - 4 
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY 
700 STEWART STREET, SUITE 5220 
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101 
(206) 553-7970 
 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
shown.  Instead, Mohan had forged the forms as part of 
the fraud.  See id. ¶ 13. 
 
 Mohan also created fake payroll reports that listed rosters 
of supposed employees for each company.  These 
included Mohan’s fictional alter egos, such as Sam Perara 
(discussed below).  But, fictional or real, none of the 
people listed on the rosters were actually so employed.  
See id.  
 
Mohan’s fraud became increasingly sophisticated as it proceeded.  Mohan initially 
applied for loans for companies he previously had established, such as Zuput, Inc., which 
he incorporated in 2018 (but which had little if any economic substance).  Mohan then 
moved to incorporating new companies, such as Vangal, Inc., which he incorporated in 
April 2020, for the apparent sole purpose of perpetrating fraud.  And, Mohan ultimately 
progressed to purchasing two previously-established “shelf corporations” to commit his 
fraud.   “Shelf corporations” were less likely to attract suspicion, because they had been 
incorporated some time previously.  For example, in May 2020, Mohan purchased a 
company named Mahenjo, Inc., from Wyoming Corporate Services, Inc.  See id. ¶ 14.  
Mahenjo had not had any employees or business activities since 2018 (if it ever did).  See 
id.  Mohan then used this corporate shell to apply for a PPP loan, supporting the 
application with a forged IRS 940 for 2019, and fake payroll reports for February 2020 
that list 24 employees.  See id. ¶ 15. 
Mohan used an array of fake identities to perpetrate the fraud.  For example, 
Mohan represented to Endeavor Bank that “Mumo Patel,” (a name derived, apparently, in 
part from the first two letters of Mohan’s first and last names), was the CEO of Zuput.  
Mohan then corresponded with Endeavor Bank through the email account 
mumopatel@gmail.com in connection with Zuput’s PPP loan application.  Similarly, 
Mohan represented that another invented individual, “Sam Perara,” was associated with 
several of the companies for which Mohan submitted fraudulent loan applications.  
Case 2:21-cr-00041-JCC   Document 55   Filed 07/13/21   Page 4 of 13

 
 
 
 
GOVERNMENT’S SENTENCING MEMORANDUM/MOHAN (No. CR21-0041JCC) - 5 
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY 
700 STEWART STREET, SUITE 5220 
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101 
(206) 553-7970 
 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
Mohan created an email account sam@vangal.com, and used that email account to 
provide information that supposedly came from these companies.1 
 
Six of the eight PPP loan applications that Mohan submitted were approved, with 
the result that Mohan received a total of $1,786,537 in fraudulent loan proceeds.  See id. 
¶17.  Mohan left much of this money in the accounts that received the money, but 
transferred more than $200,000 to an account at Robinhood.  See id. ¶ 17.  Mohan did not 
actually spend much of the money, presumably, because (1) he did not have an 
immediate need for the money, and (2) he planned later to submit fraudulent paperwork 
claiming the money had been spent on legitimate business expenses and did not want 
actually to spend the money until that paperwork was approved and the loans were 
forgiven (since it would be risky to spend the money when he still might have to pay it 
back). 
Mohan did spend approximately $16,301.16 of the money.  Among other things, 
Mohan spent approximately $4,000 from Zuput’s Bank of America account – an account 
in which 90% of the money was proceeds of a fraudulent $150,000 PPP loan that Mohan 
gotten for Zuput – to purchase two shelf corporations.  Mohan then later applied for, and 
obtained, fraudulent PPP loans for both of those companies. 
  On, July 22, 2020, the government executed seizure warrants on various bank 
accounts controlled by Mohan and seized $1,770,055.84 (the total loan proceeds, less the 
$16,201.16 that Mohan had spent).  See Plea Agreement ¶ 8.  Mohan would have been 
arrested that same day, but he fainted when agents arrived at his residence with search 
and arrest warrants.  As a result, he was taken for medical care, and permitted to self-
surrender thereafter. 
 
 
1 Mohan also used these fake identities to perpetrate additional fraud.  Mohan, who performed some consulting work 
with a consulting referral company called Coleman R.G., referred Coleman R.G. representatives seeking experts to 
consult on projects for which Mohan lacked the credentials to “Mumo Patel” and “Sam Perara.”  See PSR Sent. Rec.  
Masquerading as these men, Mohan provided the consulting advice, and billed R.G. Coleman for the work.  See id. 
Case 2:21-cr-00041-JCC   Document 55   Filed 07/13/21   Page 5 of 13

 
 
 
 
GOVERNMENT’S SENTENCING MEMORANDUM/MOHAN (No. CR21-0041JCC) - 6 
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY 
700 STEWART STREET, SUITE 5220 
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101 
(206) 553-7970 
 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
III.     PRESENTENCE REPORT 
 
The Government has no objection to the facts or to the Sentencing Guidelines 
calculation contained in the Presentence Report.  The Presentence Report adopts the same 
calculation of Mohan’s offense level that both parties agreed to recommend in the Plea 
Agreement.  See Plea Agreement ¶ 9.  Specifically, it recommends that the Court find that 
the following Sentencing Guidelines apply: 
Base offense level (§ 2B1.1(a)(1))  
 
 
     
    7 
Loss > $1,500,000 (§ 2B1.1(b)(1)(I)) 
 
 
 
+16 
Use of sophisticated means (§ 2B1.1(b)(10)) 
 
 
  +2 
Money laundering under 18 U.S.C. § 1957 (§ 2S1.1(b)(2)(A))   +1 
Acceptance of responsibility (§ 3E1.1(a) & (b))  
 
   -3 
     Total Offense Level 
 
 
 
 
 
  23 
Based upon a Total Offense Level of 23 and a Criminal History Category of I, Mohan has 
an advisory sentencing range of 46-57 months.  
IV.  SENTENCING RECOMMENDATION 
 
The Government recommends that the Court sentence Mohan to at least 36 
months’ imprisonment.  The Government believes this sentence appropriately balances 
the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. §3553(a). 
 
1. 
“The nature and circumstances of the offense.”  Mohan has 
committed an extremely serious offense.  During, perhaps, the worst economic crisis of 
our lifetimes, Mohan defrauded the government of more than $1.75 million (and he 
sought to defraud the government of as much as $5.5 million).  Mohan’s offense is 
aggravated by multiple factors: 
 First, Mohan was not threatened by the economic melt-down 
caused by COVID-19.  While others lost their jobs, savings, 
and businesses, Mohan was insulated from the crisis.  He and 
his wife remained employed at jobs paying them a total of 
more than $500,000 per year, with a total net worth of more 
than $5 million. 
 
Case 2:21-cr-00041-JCC   Document 55   Filed 07/13/21   Page 6 of 13

 
 
 
 
GOVERNMENT’S SENTENCING MEMORANDUM/MOHAN (No. CR21-0041JCC) - 7 
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY 
700 STEWART STREET, SUITE 5220 
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101 
(206) 553-7970 
 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
 Second, Mohan did not merely steal from the government. 
Rather, Mohan stole from a program designed to try to save 
small businesses and their employees.  This was a limited 
pool of money.  Indeed, the first round of funding had run out 
approximately 10 days before Mohan filed his first fraudulent 
application, and there was no reason to think the second 
round would not also run out of money.  Mohan’s filing of 
millions of dollars of fraudulent PPP loan applications 
deprived people who actually and urgently needed PPP loans 
of the ability to get them. 
 
 Third, Mohan’s crime was not a momentary lapse, but rather 
a determined ongoing effort.  Mohan filed eight separate 
fraudulent loan applications over a five-week period 
beginning April 26, 2020, and continuing until June 2, 2020.  
Each application required substantial work, including 
incorporating or purchasing a company (for all but the earliest 
applications), completing the actual loan application, and 
creating fraudulent tax forms and payroll reports to support 
the fraud.  In addition, his modus operandi evolved over this 
time period, further demonstrating the time and effort he put 
into committing the fraud. 
 
Defense counsel have suggested to the Probation Office that Mohan’s offense is 
mitigated by the fact that Mohan did not spend much of the money that he stole, but 
rather left almost all of it in the accounts to which it was paid (or, sometimes, to which he 
had transferred it).  That fact does not mitigate Mohan’s offense.  Rather, it makes it 
worse.  First, it confirms that Mohan did not need the money, and that his crime was a 
product primarily of greed.  Second, it likely reflects nothing more than the fact that 
Mohan was waiting until he could apply to have the loan forgiven before risking 
spending the money. 
 
2. 
“The history and characteristics of the defendant.”   
 
Mohan’s history and characteristics cut both ways.  Although Mohan has been 
productively employed throughout his adult life, appears to have been a good father to 
children (including two whom he adopted) and contributor to the community, and has no 
Case 2:21-cr-00041-JCC   Document 55   Filed 07/13/21   Page 7 of 13

 
 
 
 
GOVERNMENT’S SENTENCING MEMORANDUM/MOHAN (No. CR21-0041JCC) - 8 
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY 
700 STEWART STREET, SUITE 5220 
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101 
(206) 553-7970 
 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
prior criminal history, Mohan’s statements about this offense are cause for concern.  
Puzzlingly, Mohan was unable to explain to the Probation Office his motivation for his 
crime and purported still to be “attempting to understand his own actions.”  See PSR 
¶ 21.  Even Mohan’s letter to the Court falls short of actually explaining why he stole the 
money that he did, and what he intended to do with it.  This lack of apparent 
understanding, even a year after Mohan’s arrest, coupled the nature of Mohan’s crime – 
and his willingness to take money that others needed in a time of grave crisis – raise 
substantial questions about Mohan’s true characteristics. 
3. 
The need for the sentence to “reflect the seriousness of the offense,” “to 
provide just punishment,” “to afford adequate deterrence,” and “to protect the 
public.”  A significant prison sentence is required to reflect the seriousness of Mohan’s 
crime, and to provide just punishment.  As previously noted, despite his personal wealth 
and economic security, Mohan fraudulently applied for millions of, and received more 
than $1.75 million, dollars that were intended to help protect those cast into crisis by the 
COVID-19 pandemic.  That conduct merits a significant sentence. 
Mohan’s case is one where a significant sentence also is needed to provide 
adequate deterrence, and to protect the public.  We still are emerging from the COVID-19 
pandemic.  Massive amounts of money have yet to be funneled to their ultimate 
recipients.  As that process continues, it is important that people understand that there are 
serious repercussions for those committing fraud to steal money that should go to others.  
If a wealthy tech entrepreneur can defraud a relief program of more than $1.7 million 
without facing serious consequence, that message of deterrence will be undermined. 
4. 
The kinds of sentences available.   For the reasons already discussed, the 
Government believes a sentence of imprisonment is needed in this case. 
5. 
The sentencing range.  The parties agree that the applicable sentencing 
range is 46-57 months.  Defense counsel suggested to the Probation Office that the 
46-57-month range overstates the seriousness of Mohan’s conduct for various reasons.  
None has merit. 
Case 2:21-cr-00041-JCC   Document 55   Filed 07/13/21   Page 8 of 13

 
 
 
 
GOVERNMENT’S SENTENCING MEMORANDUM/MOHAN (No. CR21-0041JCC) - 9 
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY 
700 STEWART STREET, SUITE 5220 
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101 
(206) 553-7970 
 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
First, defense counsel suggested that the actual loss in the case is limited to the 
$16,201.16 that Mohan spent.  The Guidelines are clear that money should only be 
excluded from loss if it was returned before a government agency discovers an offense.  
See U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1 comment. n.3(E)(i).  Had Mohan actually had a fit of conscience 
and returned loan proceeds in June 2020, before his fraud was detected, Mohan might 
properly argue for the lower loss amount.  But, just because law enforcement investigated 
and acted quickly to seized fraud $1.75 million of fraud proceeds does not mean that that 
should not be considered loss – only that law enforcement did an effective job. 
Second, defense counsel suggested to the Probation Office that Mohan is being 
treated harshly because he was forced to plead guilty to money laundering, thereby 
increasing his offense level.  Although different cases have resulted in different charges 
and pleas, Mohan is far from unique in pleading guilty to money laundering.  Numerous 
other PPP defendant have pled guilty to, and faced sentencing ranges that included 
adjustments for, money laundering.  See, e.g., United States v. Brian Criss, No. 20-68-
SDD-SDJ (M.D. La.) (defendant pled guilty to wire fraud and money laundering); United 
States v. Michael Douros, No. 2:20-cer-00259 (D. Utah) (defendant pled guilty to bank 
fraud, and money laundering, among other offenses). 
Notably, too, Mohan’s offense level was increased by only one level for money 
laundering, because he was permitted to plead guilty to a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1957.  
See U.S.S.G. § 2S1.1(b)(2)(A).  Had Mohan been required to plead guilty to a violation 
of 18 U.S.C. § 1956, based upon his use of proceeds of the fraudulent PPP loan to Zuput 
to promote fraud by purchasing two shelf companies that Mohan then used to obtain two 
subsequent fraudulent PPP loans, Mohan’s offense level would have been increased by 
two levels.  See U.S.S.G. § 2S1.1(b)(2)(B).  As a result, the one-level adjustment that 
Mohan received actually understates Mohan’s conduct.  Moreover, eliminating the 
adjustment also would reduce Mohan’s sentencing range by only five months to a range 
of 41-51 months.  The 36-month sentence that the Government is recommending is below 
even this range. 
Case 2:21-cr-00041-JCC   Document 55   Filed 07/13/21   Page 9 of 13

 
 
 
 
GOVERNMENT’S SENTENCING MEMORANDUM/MOHAN (No. CR21-0041JCC) - 10 
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY 
700 STEWART STREET, SUITE 5220 
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101 
(206) 553-7970 
 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
6. 
The need to avoid unwarranted sentence disparities among defendants.   
A sentence of at least 36 months is consistent with sentences in other PPP cases.  
Although there have been a relatively limited number of PPP cases sentenced so far, the 
Probation Office has collected a number of those cases in its Sentencing 
Recommendation.  A review of these and other PPP cases suggests that defendants who 
have committed substantial PPP frauds (that is, those measured in the hundreds of 
thousands to millions of dollars), generally have received sentences that are measured in 
years, and often have received sentences that approach or fall within the applicable 
sentencing Guidelines. 
To take two examples, United States v. Hines, 1:21-cr-20011-MGC (S.D. Fla.), 
involved a defendant who applied for more than $13 million of fraudulent PPP loans, and 
received almost $4 million of such loans.  Hines was sentenced to 78 months’ 
imprisonment, that is, slightly more than twice the at-least-36 months that the 
Government is recommending here for committing slightly more than twice as much 
fraud as Mohan committed.  United States v. Tubbs, No. 4:20-cr-00193-BSM (E.D. Ark.), 
involved a defendant who obtained two PPP loans totaling $1,933,262, an amount 
comparable to what Mohan received.  Tubbs spent $14,000 on debit card purchases and 
student loan payments, comparable to what Mohan spent, and the Government recovered 
all but that $14,000, a comparable situation to Mohan’s case.  Tubbs was sentenced to 41 
months’ imprisonment, five months more than the minimum the Government is 
recommending for Mohan.   
The Government notes that defense counsel argued to the Probation Office, and no 
doubt will argue to this Court, that the one PPP fraud case sentenced to date in this 
District, United States v. Boake Zhang, No. 2:20-cr-00169-RAJ (W.D. Wash.), where 
defendant was sentenced to just 60 days’ imprisonment, counsels a lower sentence for 
Mohan.  But, as the Probation Office notes, see PSR Sent. Rec. at 7-8, the two cases are 
very different.  Mohan applied for more than $5.5 million of PPP loans, approximately 
three times more than the $1.6 million of PPP and other loans for which Zhang applied.  
Case 2:21-cr-00041-JCC   Document 55   Filed 07/13/21   Page 10 of 13

 
 
 
 
GOVERNMENT’S SENTENCING MEMORANDUM/MOHAN (No. CR21-0041JCC) - 11 
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY 
700 STEWART STREET, SUITE 5220 
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101 
(206) 553-7970 
 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
Mohan received more than $1.75 million of loans, more than 100 times the $16,500 
Zhang received.  And Zhang’s conduct was mitigated somewhat because Zhang acted out 
of fear of losing his job and livelihood.  Mohan’s fraud offers no such mitigation. 
For all of these reasons, Zhang’s case is not a good comparable.  A sentence based 
on Zhang’s case (which appears to be an outlier in any event) also would create the very 
disparity that the Court should seek to avoid.  By contrast, a sentence of at least 36 
months’ imprisonment will avoid or minimize disparities with other cases. 
7. 
The need to provide restitution to victims.  As discussed in Part IV 
below, the Government anticipates that the victim banks in this case will be paid 
restitution by the restoration of the money seized by the Government.  As a result, the 
sentence that the Government is recommending also will ensure that restitution is paid to 
victims. 
. . . 
 
In sum, a sentence of at least 36 months balances the considerations set forth in 18 
U.S.C. § 3553.  It will appropriately punish Mohan for stealing massive amounts of 
money from programs designed to save others from economic calamity (a danger that 
never threatened Mohan, whose income and wealth place him near the top 1% of 
Americans).  It will deter others from similarly defrauding programs that continue to 
provide a necessary lifeline to struggling Americans.  And, it will treat Mohan fairly 
relative to other defendants convicted of PPP fraud and sentenced to date. 
IV.  RESTITUTION AND FORFEITURE 
 
As previously noted, the Government succeeded in seizing $1,770,055.84 of the 
money stolen by Mohan.  It is well established that forfeiture and restitution are separate 
and distinct parts of a defendant’s sentence that serve different purposes, and that they 
both are mandatory.  See, e.g., United States v. Torres, 703 F.3d 194, 204 (2d Cir. 2012) 
(collecting cases); United States v. Taylor, 582 F.3d 558, 566 (5th Cir. 2009) (same).  As 
a result, the Government could seek to forfeit the seized money, and also seek a 
restitution order that Mohan would be required to pay out of his remaining assets. 
Case 2:21-cr-00041-JCC   Document 55   Filed 07/13/21   Page 11 of 13

 
 
 
 
GOVERNMENT’S SENTENCING MEMORANDUM/MOHAN (No. CR21-0041JCC) - 12 
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY 
700 STEWART STREET, SUITE 5220 
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101 
(206) 553-7970 
 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
 
To avoid such a potentially-overly-punitive outcome, the United States Attorney’s 
Office has consulted the Department of Justice’s Money Laundering and Asset Recovery 
Section (MLARS), which has the authority to transfer forfeited property to victims.  
MLARS has indicated that, if the Court imposes a $100,000 fine, which the parties 
agreed in the Plea Agreement jointly to recommend, MLARS would be inclined to grant 
restoration – that is, to apply the net proceeds of the forfeiture to satisfy Mohan’s 
restitution obligation. 
 
As a result, the Government recommends that the Court impose a fine of 
$100,000.  The Government also asks the Court to impose restitution in the amount of 
$1,786,351, the total amount of loans that Mohan obtained.  The Government expects 
that this amount will be almost entirely satisfied by the $16,301.16 that Mohan already 
has paid to the Court, plus the net proceeds of the forfeiture of the seized funds. 
 
The Government notes that Mohan argued to the Probation Office, and likely will 
argue to the Court, that his payment of a $100,000 fine is sufficient punishment, and that 
he should receive a purely probationary sentence.  That is not the case.  First, the fine 
reflects a very small percentage (less than 2%) of Mohan’s net wealth.  As a result, while 
not insignificant, it is a far lesser punishment for Mohan than it would be for someone 
less affluent.  Second, the fine is actually the product of the Government’s willingness to 
orchestrate a consultation with MLARS and with MLARS’ willingness to work to 
minimize the possible financial penalty to Mohan of facing both forfeiture and restitution.  
Third, as the Probation Office notes, wealthy defendants should not be permitted to buy 
their way out of imprisonment.  See PSR Addendum.  
V.  CONCLUSION 
 
For the foregoing reasons, the Court should sentence Mohan to at least 36 months’ 
imprisonment, to be followed by a three-year term of supervised release.  The Court also 
 
 
Case 2:21-cr-00041-JCC   Document 55   Filed 07/13/21   Page 12 of 13

 
 
 
 
GOVERNMENT’S SENTENCING MEMORANDUM/MOHAN (No. CR21-0041JCC) - 13 
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY 
700 STEWART STREET, SUITE 5220 
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101 
(206) 553-7970 
 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
should order Mohan to pay a $100,000 fine, $1,786,351 in restitution, and a $100.00 
penalty assessment. 
 
DATED:  this 13th day of July, 2021. 
 
Respectfully submitted, 
 
TESSA M. GORMAN 
Acting United States Attorney 
 
 
 
 
 
 
    
 
 
 
 
 
 
s/ Andrew C. Friedman 
 
 
       
ANDREW C. FRIEDMAN 
 
 
 
 
 
 
    
Assistant United States Attorney 
700 Stewart Street, Suite 5220 
Seattle, Washington  98101-1271 
Telephone: (206) 553-2277 
Fax:  
(206) 553-0882 
 
 
JOSEPH BEEMSTERBOER 
Acting Chief 
 
 
 
 
 
 
    
s/ Christopher Fenton 
 
 
       
CHRISTOPHER FENTON 
 
 
 
 
 
 
    
Trial Attorney 
Fraud Section, Criminal Division 
Department of Justice 
Case 2:21-cr-00041-JCC   Document 55   Filed 07/13/21   Page 13 of 13

File and source

File

010_ECF_55_gov.uscourts.wawd.296949.55.0.pdf

Size

236,581 bytes

SHA-256

a9de7cf0a0cc10cf2adfbe1dd2ffe157442a64c4b034bfc9973614ecfbef0dc4

Our copy

010_ECF_55_gov.uscourts.wawd.296949.55.0.pdf

Original

storage.courtlistener.com