Government’s Sentencing Memorandum — United States v. Chynna Savath (D. Mass.)

Record facts

U.S. District Court, District of Massachusetts · No. 1:21-cr-10269-RGS · Doc. 22 · 2022-06-03 · Docket on CourtListener

Full text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
 
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS 
 
 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
 
 
 
           v. 
 
CHYNNA SAVATH, 
 
 
Defendant 
 
 
 
CRIMINAL No. 21-cr-10269-RGS  
 
 
GOVERNMENT'S SENTENCING MEMORANDUM 
 
 
The United States of America, by Rachael S. Rollins, United States Attorney, and Alyssa 
B. Tochka, Special Assistant United States Attorney for the District of Massachusetts, submits its 
sentencing memorandum.  Consistent with the Probation Office’s calculation of the Defendant’s 
advisory guideline range in Zone B of the Sentencing Table, the government recommends that 
the Court sentence the Defendant to a term of 36 months of probation, a restitution amount of 
$34,391, a $200 special assessment and forfeiture in the amount of $34,391 in United States 
currency.  As conditions of probation, the government recommends those set forth on pages 13 
and 14 of the Presentence Investigation Report, in addition to two special conditions: that the 
Defendant be prohibited from applying for a message therapist license and that the Defendant 
seek or maintain employment.  The government respectfully requests that the Court accept the 
plea agreement. 
I. 
FACTUAL BACKGROUND 
Since in or around 2017, Chynna SAVATH owned the Thai Body Work and Deep Tissue 
LLC (Thai Body Works Spa), a massage parlor in Franklin, Massachusetts.  SAVATH employed 
Case 1:21-cr-10269-RGS     Document 22     Filed 06/03/22     Page 1 of 8

 
2 
 
up to four employees and, at times, SAVATH herself also worked at the Thai Body Works Spa. .  
See PSR at ¶ 7.   
With SAVATH’s knowledge and consent, employees of the Thai Body Work Spa—
including SAVATH—provided sexual services for a fee to many customers. Employees 
discussed the sexual services they provided openly with SAVATH, and in some instances 
SAVATH encouraged employees to provide sexual services.  A search warrant at the Franklin 
Spa revealed used condom wrappers and during interviews, customers admitted to receiving 
sexual services. The sexual services included penetrative sex. Customers paid $80 for a one-hour 
massage session, and SAVATH received $45 for each one-hour session. SAVATH’s employees 
kept the remaining $35 and any tips. See PSR at ¶ 8.   
Despite running a business that provided illegal services, SAVATH applied for COVID-
relief funds for her business. See PSR at ¶ 9. 
On July 1, 2020, SAVATH submitted false and fraudulent Economic Injury Disaster 
Loan (EIDL) and Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) loan applications.  In the EIDL 
application, SAVATH certified, “Applicant is not engaged in any illegal activity (as defined by 
Federal guidelines).”  In the PPP application SAVATH certified, “The Applicant is not engaged 
in any activity that is illegal under federal, state, or local law.”  These statements were false 
because SAVATH was violating several state laws, including deriving support from prostitution 
and procuring prostitution.  SAVATH submitted the applications with these false statements 
willfully, knowingly and voluntarily. See PSR at ¶ 10. 
SAVATH received $4,746 under the PPP and $24,900 under the EIDL program on July 2 
and July 27, 2020, respectively.  SAVATH did not use the proceeds to pay her employees who 
were out of work from March – July 2020. In the months after receiving the SBA loans, 
Case 1:21-cr-10269-RGS     Document 22     Filed 06/03/22     Page 2 of 8

 
3 
 
SAVATH spent money on personal expenses and at casinos including Foxwoods. See PSR at ¶ 
11. 
On February 2, 2021, Homeland Security Investigations Special Agents and Task Force 
Officers, along with the Franklin Police Department and the United States Postal Inspection 
Service executed a federal search warrant at Thai Body Works Spa.  That same day, SAVATH 
was interviewed by Special Agents.  On February 13, 2021, SAVATH received a second 
disbursement under the PPP in the amount of $4,745.00. See PSR at ¶ 11a.   
II. 
ADVISORY SENTENCING GUIDELINES 
Neither the government nor the Defendant had any objections to the Presentence 
Investigation Report, which calculated SAVATH’s advisory guideline sentencing range of 4-10 
months of imprisonment, as set forth below.  See PSR at ¶¶ 18-25.   
Base Offense Level:   
 
 
7  (U.S.S.G. § 2B.1.(a)(e)) 
Specific Offense Characteristics:  
 
+ 4 (U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(1)(C)) 
Acceptance of Responsibility:  
 
-2 (U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1(a)) 
Total Offense:  
 
 
 
9 
Total Offense Level 9 + Criminal History Level I: 4-10 months 
III. 
CONDITIONS OF SUPERVISION 
The government recommends that the Court order certain mandatory, standard and 
special conditions on the Defendant while under the Probation Office’s supervision. 
As for mandatory conditions of supervision, the government recommends the eight 
conditions described on pages 13 and 14 of the Presentence Investigation Report, which are set 
forth below: 
1. The Defendant must not commit another federal, state or local crime. 
2. The Defendant must not unlawfully possess a controlled substance. 
Case 1:21-cr-10269-RGS     Document 22     Filed 06/03/22     Page 3 of 8

 
4 
 
3. Drug testing conditions are suspended based on the Court’s determination that the 
defendant poses a low risk of future substance abuse. 
4. The Defendant must cooperate in the collection of DNA as directed by the 
probation officer.   
5. The Defendant must make restitution in accordance with 18 U.S.C. §§ 2248, 
2259, 2264, 2327, 3663, 3663A and 3664. 
6. The Defendant must pay the assessment imposed in accordance with 18 U.S.C. § 
3013. 
7. If a fine is imposed, the defendant must pay the fine in accordance with the 
Schedule of Payments sheet of judgment. 
8. The Defendant must notify the court of any material changes in the defendant’s 
economic circumstances that might affect the defendant’s ability to pay 
restitution, fines or special assessments.  
As for standard conditions, the government recommends the standard conditions that 
have been adopted by the Court which are described at USSG §5D1.3(c) (supervised release) and 
USSG §5B1.3(c) (probation). 
The government recommends five special conditions. The Court may impose additional 
conditions of supervision to the extent that such conditions are reasonably related to the nature 
and circumstances of the offense and the history and characteristics of the defendant and involve 
only such deprivation of liberty or property as are reasonably necessary for the purposes 
indicated in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2) (See 18 U.S.C. §§ 3563(b) and 3583(d)). The five special 
conditions are detailed as follows: 
1. The Defendant must pay the balance of the fine or restitution imposed according to a 
court-ordered repayment schedule. 
2. The Defendant is prohibited from incurring new credit charges or opening additional 
lines of credit without the approval of the Probation Office while any financial 
obligations remain outstanding. 
3. The Defendant must provide the Probation Office access to any requested financial 
information, which may be shared with the Financial Litigation Unit of the U.S. 
Attorney’s Office.  
Case 1:21-cr-10269-RGS     Document 22     Filed 06/03/22     Page 4 of 8

 
5 
 
4. The Defendant is prohibited from applying for a message therapist license.  
5. The Defendant must seek or maintain employment.  
The proposed special conditions of probation serve the statutory sentencing purposes of 
deterrence, public protection, rehabilitation, reflecting the seriousness of the offense, promoting 
respect for the law, and providing just punishment for the offense. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(A)-
(D).  Furthermore, these conditions enable the probation officer to satisfy statutory requirements 
to keep informed as to the conduct and condition of the Defendant; to report the Defendant’s 
conduct and condition to the sentencing court; and to aid the Defendant and bring about 
improvements in her conduct and condition. 18 US.C. §§ 3603(2)-(3).  
IV. 
SENTENCING FACTORS 
In determining a defendant’s sentence, the court must consider the Sentencing Guidelines 
and determine the advisory sentencing guideline range which, once calculated, establishes the 
court’s “starting point” or “initial benchmark.” See Gall v. United States, 522 S. Ct. 38, 49 
(2007).  Next, the court should consider the various factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).  
Only after consideration of those factors should the court reach its ultimate determination. See 
United States v. Martin, 520 F.3d 87, 91 (1st Cir. 2008).  In weighing the § 3553(a) factors, the 
First Circuit has emphasized that an individualized determination is, at all times, the touchstone: 
while a deviation from the guidelines may be warranted in certain instances; in other instances, it 
will not be. 
Based upon a total offense level of 9 and a criminal history category of I, the guideline 
imprisonment range is 4 to 10 months.  The guideline range is in Zone B of the Sentencing Table 
and as such, the minimum term may be satisfied by (1) a sentence of imprisonment; (2) a 
sentence of imprisonment that includes a term of supervised release with a condition that 
substitutes community confinement or home detention according to the schedule in USSG 
Case 1:21-cr-10269-RGS     Document 22     Filed 06/03/22     Page 5 of 8

 
6 
 
.§5C1.1(e), provided that at least one month is satisfied by imprisonment; or (3) a sentence of 
probation that includes a condition or combination of conditions that substitute intermittent 
confinement, community confinement, or home detention for imprisonment according to the 
schedule in USSG § 5c1.1(e). 
The government believes that the Rule 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement’s 36-month 
probationary period is sufficient, but not greater than necessary under the § 3553(a) factors, 
providing adequate deterrence to criminal conduct, the defendant’s history and circumstances, 
and the seriousness of the offense.  
First, a low-end guideline sentence of 36 months probation is sufficient, but not greater 
than necessary, to comply with the purposes of sentencing under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).  
The recommended sentence affords adequate deterrence to criminal conduct. 18 U.S.C. § 
3553(a)(2)(B).  As of March 10, 2022, the Department of Justice efforts against COVID-19 fraud  
have resulted in criminal charges against over 1,000 defendants with alleged losses 
exceeding $1.1 billion; the seizure of over $1 billion in Economic Injury Disaster Loan 
proceeds; and over 240 civil investigations into more than 1,800 individuals and 
entities for alleged misconduct in connection with pandemic relief loans totaling more 
than $6 billion. 
 
 Justice Department Announces Director for COVID-19 Fraud Enforcement, 
https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-announces-director-covid-19-fraud-
enforcement, last accessed May 13, 2022.  Here, although the loss amount is relatively modest 
($34,391) compared to that caused by other individuals, see, for example, Department of Justice 
press release on April 6, 2022 Woman Pleads Guilty for $43.9 Million COVID-19 Relief Fraud 
Scheme, https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/woman-pleads-guilty-438-million-covid-19-relief-fraud-
scheme, last accessed May 13, 2022, the fact that the fraud is being prosecuted provides general 
deterrence to other criminals, especially those responsible for smaller fraud amounts.  In terms of 
Case 1:21-cr-10269-RGS     Document 22     Filed 06/03/22     Page 6 of 8

 
7 
 
specific deterrence, the investigation has shut down the Defendant’s illicit business. See also 
PSR at ¶ 51. 
The Defendant’s history and circumstances also support a low-end guideline sentence. 18 
U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1).  The Defendant is part of a vulnerable population as a transgender 
individual and a longtime sex worker. See PSR at ¶ 35.  In 2009, in Watertown, Massachusetts, 
the Defendant was charged with providing a sexual service for a fee to an undercover police 
officer. See PSR at ¶ 28. Historically, individuals from these backgrounds have regularly 
suffered abuse, violence, and discrimination.  
Finally, the government believes the proposed sentence reflects the seriousness of the 
offense and provides just punishment for the offense. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(A).  A 36-month 
probationary sentence with an order of restitution for the total loss of $34,391 is a significant 
one.   
V. 
CONCLUSION 
For all of these reasons, the Government submits that the recommended sentence of 36 
months of probation, a restitution amount of $34,391, a $200 special assessment and forfeiture in 
the amount of $34,391 in United States currency is both necessary and appropriate.   
 
Respectfully submitted, 
 
RACHAEL S. ROLLINS 
United States Attorney 
 
 
By: 
/s/ Alyssa B. Tochka  
 
Alyssa B. Tochka 
Special Assistant United States Attorney 
Case 1:21-cr-10269-RGS     Document 22     Filed 06/03/22     Page 7 of 8

 
8 
 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 
 
 
I hereby certify that this document filed through the ECF system will be sent electronically to the 
registered participants as identified on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                           
 
/s/ Alyssa B. Tochka  
 
Alyssa B. Tochka 
Special Assistant United States Attorney 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Date: June 3, 2022 
 
 
 
 
 
Case 1:21-cr-10269-RGS     Document 22     Filed 06/03/22     Page 8 of 8

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.mad.237962.22.0.pdf

Size

104,416 bytes

SHA-256

651ee52e4ad1a1ea613453ac38e3c50e061aa14833f3599a6914207c0873d5da

Our copy

gov.uscourts.mad.237962.22.0.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)