Defense Reply Sentencing Memorandum — U.S. v. Mohan

Record facts

Full text

REPLY SENTENCING MEMORANDUM 
NO. 2:21-cr-00041-JCC – Page 1 
 
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
501 East Pine Street, Suite 201 
Seattle, Washington 98122 
phone 206.516.3800   fax 206.516.3888 
The Honorable John C. Coughenour 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 
AT SEATTLE 
 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 
 
Plaintiff, 
 
v. 
 
MUKUND MOHAN, 
 
Defendant. 
 
No. 2:21-cr-00041-JCC 
 
REPLY SENTENCING 
MEMORANDUM 
 
On August 19, 2021, the government filed a Supplemental Sentencing 
Memorandum.  The primary purpose of this memorandum appears to be to call the Court’s 
attention to a recent sentencing in another PPP loan fraud case, United States v. Hsu, 
20-cr-191 JLR.  In that case, the defendant, Dr. Austin Hsu, was sentenced to serve a 
24-month term of imprisonment.  The government also cited two other recently sentenced 
PPP loan fraud cases from other districts, United States v. Philus, 1:21-cr-20067 (SDFL) 
and United States v. Smith, 20-cr-196 (EDWI).  The Defendant, Mukund Mohan, files this 
Reply to the Government’s Supplemental Sentencing Memorandum.  For the reasons stated 
herein, neither the Hsu case, nor the cases from outside the District, provide support for the 
government’s sentencing recommendation in this case. 

 
 
REPLY SENTENCING MEMORANDUM 
NO. 2:21-cr-00041-JCC – Page 2 
 
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
501 East Pine Street, Suite 201 
Seattle, Washington 98122 
phone 206.516.3800   fax 206.516.3888 
We initially note that at the time the government filed sentencing memoranda in 
each of the three PPP loan fraud cases in this district, it recommended virtually the same 
term of incarceration – United States v. Zhang, 2:20-cr-169 RAJ (33 months); United States 
v. Hsu, 20-cr-191 JLR (33 months); United States v. Mohan, 2:21-cr-041 JCC (36 months).  
Thus, at the time each recommendation was made, the government apparently concluded 
that approximately the same punishment was appropriate for all three defendants. 
Notwithstanding its recommendation in Zhang, however, the government asserted in its 
Sentencing Memorandum in this case that “Zhang’s case is not a good comparable.”  The 
government argued that because the amount of loans sought ($1.6 Million) and received 
($16,500) by Zhang was substantially less than those sought ($5.5 Million) and received 
($1.75 Million) by Mohan, and because Zhang was fearful of losing his $19,000/month job 
as a computer engineer with Lyft, the two cases are very different.  Similarly, the 
government now argues in its Supplemental Memorandum that Hsu portends a substantially 
higher sentence in Mohan because the amount of loans sought ($1.2 Million) and received 
($709,000) by Hsu was much less than the comparable figures for Mohan. 
The government’s singular focus on the amount of loans sought and received was 
not convincing to the Court in Zhang and, respectfully, it should not be any more 
compelling to this Court.  The sentencing guideline range, which is derived in part from the 
loss computation, serves only as a starting point in the sentencing process.  The actual 
sentence must also be based on a broad range of factors as set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).  
The dollar amounts sought and received during a criminal episode tell only a small part of 
the story and, in the present case, we suggest nothing close to the complete picture.  Thus, 
in Zhang the defendant argued at length that the Court in fraud cases should focus on the 
amount of money or property lost.  He urged the Court to impose a probationary sentence.  
The Court sentenced him to serve a 60-day term of imprisonment. 

 
 
REPLY SENTENCING MEMORANDUM 
NO. 2:21-cr-00041-JCC – Page 3 
 
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
501 East Pine Street, Suite 201 
Seattle, Washington 98122 
phone 206.516.3800   fax 206.516.3888 
The higher sentence in Hsu may also be attributed to many factors apart from the 
amount of loans sought and received.  For example, the government stressed in its 
Sentencing Memorandum in Hsu that in the months immediately after receiving the 
fraudulent loan, Dr. Hsu gave himself and his live-in girlfriend increased salaries totaling 
more than $70,000 and $55,000, respectively.  The government also noted that after its 
seizure of remaining loan proceeds, there was a balance outstanding of $191,427, which the 
defendant later paid.  Finally, it is perhaps noteworthy that despite Dr. Hsu’s substantial 
savings, the government did not threaten him with the “double-whammy” of non-
restoration of the forfeited funds and did not insist on a $100,000 stipulated fine. 
As we have previously stressed in our Sentencing Memorandum, there is much 
about the crime and the defendant in Mohan that is highly unusual and serves to set both 
apart from almost all other cases.  To briefly summarize, the defendant did not touch most 
of the loan proceeds and they were later seized by the government; the victims of this crime 
lost nothing; the defendant quit his criminal wrongdoing long before the government 
interceded; the defendant has a sterling record of professional accomplishments and familial 
stability before his short-lived missteps; and, the defendant has sought mental health 
counseling and taken all possible steps to ensure that he does not reoffend. 
The other two cases cited by the government in its Supplemental Memorandum 
provide no greater support for its sentencing recommendation.  It also cited both Philus and 
Smith in its Hsu Sentencing Memorandum, but neither there nor here does it bother to alert 
the Court to the most salient facts.  In Philus, an obvious factor of great significance in 
sentencing was that the defendant had five criminal history points, reflecting his repeated 
brushes with the criminal justice system.  In Smith, the defendant was an organizer of a 
five-person conspiracy to file fraudulent loan applications, he recruited others to join in the 
criminal undertakings, he lied to FBI agents when confronted, and he was paid portions of 

 
 
REPLY SENTENCING MEMORANDUM 
NO. 2:21-cr-00041-JCC – Page 4 
 
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
501 East Pine Street, Suite 201 
Seattle, Washington 98122 
phone 206.516.3800   fax 206.516.3888 
the loans which he helped others obtain.  Both these cases are readily distinguishable from 
the instant case. 
In summary, the government’s Supplemental Sentencing Memorandum does not 
provide meaningful support for its recommended sentence in this case.  Indeed, it serves 
only to highlight that care is required in comparing cases involving similar criminal conduct 
and it is only the rare case which provides meaningful guidance.  We believe that Zhang is 
such a case.  There are concededly differences as there will be between any two cases and 
defendants, but the similarities in these two cases are especially meaningful.  Mr. Mohan 
spent about $16,500 of the loan proceeds he received; Mr. Zhang spent the identical 
amount.  Neither defendant’s conduct caused any loss to victims or taxpayers.  Both 
defendants are well-educated otherwise successful computer engineers, with no prior 
criminal histories, who for approximately two-month periods during the pandemic, lost 
their way.  Mr. Zhang was deemed not to be a threat to the community because he was 
likely to be deported; Mr. Mohan is considered unlikely to reoffend and not to pose a threat 
to his community by an experienced mental health counselor with whom he has worked 
closely.  We respectfully urge the Court to impose the same sentence in this case that Judge 
Jones imposed in Zhang. 
Dated: August 20, 2021. 
 
 
Respectfully submitted, 
 
YARMUTH LLP 
 
By:  s/Robert Westinghouse 
 
Robert Westinghouse, WSBA No. 6484 
501 East Pine Street, Suite 201 
Seattle, WA 98122 
Phone: 206.516.3800 
Email: rwestinghouse@yarmuth.com 
 
Attorneys for Defendant Mukund Mohan

File and source

File

013_ECF_60_gov.uscourts.wawd.296949.60.0.pdf

Size

34,128 bytes

SHA-256

71998e13042e3c6ec7fa6f90a700b653a63d49c53f159febb4fc3e6538c90ae6

Our copy

013_ECF_60_gov.uscourts.wawd.296949.60.0.pdf

Original

storage.courtlistener.com