United States’ Sentencing Memorandum — United States v. Pacheco (Dkt. 76, D. Mass.)

Summary

The United States' sentencing memorandum in United States v. Tiffany Pacheco, Docket No. 1:21-CR-10025-IT, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, filed April 15, 2022 as Document 76 by Assistant U.S. Attorney William F. Abely. Responding to the court's procedural order, it states that the government will not move for a departure and that no evidentiary hearing is needed, and it addresses the abuse of trust enhancement. It states that in April 2020 the Massachusetts Department of Unemployment Assistance hired Pacheco as a customer service representative for Pandemic Unemployment Assistance claims. The government recommends 36 months on Counts 1 – 7 and 24 months on Count 8, to run consecutively.

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Record facts

Full text

Case 1:21-cr-10025-IT Document 76 Filed 04/15/22 Page 1 of 6




                            UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                             DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA                             )
                                                     )
              v.                                     )
                                                     )      Docket No. 1:21-CR-10025-IT
TIFFANY PACHECO                                      )
                                                     )
                      Defendant.                     )
                                                     )

                   UNITED STATES’ SENTENCING MEMORANDUM

       The United States hereby provides its position regarding sentencing in this matter, and in

addition responds to the Court’s Procedural Order (Docket 52, ¶ 10) as follows:

       (a)(1)(a): the United States will not move for a departure or a non-guideline sentence;

       (a)(1)(b): the United States submits that there are no legal questions that require further
                  attention, although the issue of the abuse of trust enhancement is addressed
                  infra.

       (a)(1)(c): the United States submits that there are no factual questions that require
                  further attention, and that an evidentiary hearing is not required. Based on a
                  recent discussion with defense counsel, undersigned counsel understands that
                  the defense agrees that no evidentiary hearing is required.

                                       Case Background

       At the outset of the COVID-19 crisis, the federal and state governments mobilized to

provide federally-funded Pandemic Unemployment Assistance (“PUA”) benefits to support

those who were unable to work because of the pandemic. In April 2020, the Massachusetts

Department of Unemployment Assistance (“DUA”) hired Defendant Tiffany Pacheco as a

customer service representative. See Revised Presentence Investigative Report dated April 11,

2022 (“PSR”) ¶ 10. Thereafter, Defendant engaged in a multi-faceted scheme to fraudulently

obtain PUA benefits to which she was not entitled, including by: (a) abusing her job-provided

access to the PUA claim system to submit fraudulent claims using stolen identity information;


                                                1

           Case 1:21-cr-10025-IT Document 76 Filed 04/15/22 Page 2 of 6




(b) abusing her job-provided access to the PUA claim system to submit fraudulent claims for

herself and her husband, Arthur Pacheco (“Arthur”); and (c) inducing a friend to continue her

scheme after Defendant was caught, charged, and detained. Each of these veins of Defendant’s

scheme is described in more detail below.

       (a) Fraudulent Claims Using Stolen Identity Information

       Defendant abused her employment-related access to DUA’s online PUA claim system to

submit and/or make changes to claims for five individuals. PSR ¶ 28. By virtue of Defendant’s

employment, she was able to make (unauthorized) eligibility determinations to prompt the

payment of benefits and/or to increase the amount of payments. Id. It appears that Defendant

obtained the personal identifying information (“PII”) used for some of these claims

independently from her employment with DUA but obtained the PII utilized for two of these

claims by virtue of her job. Defendant possessed images of identification documents for at least

two of the supposed claimants. PSR ¶ 33-34.

        DUA paid PUA benefits for four of these five fraudulent claims, totaling $104,697. PSR

¶ 28 (i) – (iv). For the fifth claim, DUA would have paid approximately $49,021 had it

succeeded. Id., (v). In addition, DUA rejected benefits of $6,204 in connection with a

fraudulent claim that was otherwise successful. Id. (i). The total loss associated with

Defendant’s fraudulent claims using stolen identification information is thus $159,922 ($104,697

actual loss plus $55,225 intended loss).

       (b) Fraudulent Claims for Defendant and Arthur

       Defendant abused her employment-related access to DUA’s online PUA claim system to

submit and/or make changes on claims submitted in the names of herself and Arthur. PSR ¶ 12.




                                                2

           Case 1:21-cr-10025-IT Document 76 Filed 04/15/22 Page 3 of 6




For example, by virtue of her employment, Defendant was able to verify falsely reported income

in connection with both her claim and Arthur’s. Id.

       While Arthur participated in the fraudulent scheme concerning his own claim, and

conspired with Defendant, he was not involved at the outset of the scheme. The claim in

Arthur’s name was submitted in June 2020, and fraudulent changes to this claim occurred in July

and August 2020. PSR ¶ 13. However, Arthur was incarcerated in Texas until early September

2020, and again in Massachusetts from late September to early November. Id. ¶¶ 11, 17. After

his release in November, Arthur and Tiffany joined together to make false representations to

DUA concerning the timing of Arthur’s incarceration in connection with an unsuccessful appeal

of an eligibility determination. Id. ¶ 17.

       DUA paid PUA benefits totaling $94,858 on the claims submitted for Defendant and

Arthur. PSR ¶ 14. In addition, had the appeal on Arthur’s claim succeeded, DUA would have

paid an additional $3,992. Id. ¶ 20. The total loss associated with these claims is thus $98,850

($94,858 actual loss plus $3,992 intended loss).

       (c) Inducing Donna Wasson to Continue Scheme

       Defendant was arrested on a federal complaint in December 2020 and has been detained

since that time. PSR p. 2. After her arrest, Defendant instructed Donna Wasson – a friend who

resided in Texas – to use the DUA customer portal to access PUA claims for two of the

fraudulent claims that Defendant had submitted using stolen identity information. Id. ¶ 32.

Defendant further instructed Wasson to post as a claimant in order to change a bank account

associated associated with that claim and to request back payments. Id. Defendant also directed

Wasson to a Google Drive account that contained the images of driver’s licenses and other

documents under certain stolen identities. Id. ¶¶ 33-34. Following Defendant’s direction,



                                                   3

             Case 1:21-cr-10025-IT Document 76 Filed 04/15/22 Page 4 of 6




Wasson called DUA and posed as a claimant, and also accessed posed as claimants to use the

DUA customer portal to access certain fraudulent claims. Id. ¶¶ 35-37. Wasson was charged,

convicted, and has been sentenced to 18 months imprisonment. Id. ¶ 6.

                                  Sentencing Recommendation

       The United States will recommend a sentence to include 36 months imprisonment on

Counts 1 – 7, 24 months imprisonment on Count 8 (to be consecutive to the sentence imposed on

the other counts), 36 months of supervised release, and restitution to DUA in the amount of

$199,555.

                         Justification for Sentencing Recommendation

       The United States respectfully submits that this is an appropriate sentence in

consideration of the guideline sentencing range and the various factors enumerated at 18 U.S.C.

§ 3553(a).

       As will be further addressed at the sentencing hearing, a sentence within the guideline

sentencing range but above its low-end is appropriate in this case in light of factors including: (a)

the Defendant’s exploitation of the COVID-19 pandemic and of her employment in a capacity

intended to ameliorate the harms caused by this pandemic; (b) Defendant’s prior criminal

history, which includes a prior federal conviction for Aggravated Identity Theft; (c) Defendant’s

continuation of her scheme even after being caught, charged, and detained pending trial; and (d)

Defendant’s apparent intent to engage in broader identity fraud, as evidenced by certain materials

seized from her residence.

       In addition, in imposing sentence, the Court should consider the considerable harms

suffered by victims of identity theft. For example, studies conducted by the Identity Theft

Resource Center reflect that many victims of identity theft report suffering financial-related



                                                 4

           Case 1:21-cr-10025-IT Document 76 Filed 04/15/22 Page 5 of 6




problems including being turned down for loans or being unable to secure housing. See

www.idtheftcenter.org/publication/identity-theft-the-aftermath-study (last accessed April 15,

2022). Many who were victimized by pandemic-related identity fraud in 2020 reported that their

issues were still unresolved as of April 2021. Id. Many victims of pandemic-related identity

theft have reported being denied unemployment benefits because someone applied using their

information (24% of reporting individuals), being more stressed than usual (54%), or feeling

violated as a result of the identity theft (54%). See www.idtheftcenter.org/wp-

content/uploads/2021/05/2021-ITRC-Consumer-Aftermath-Responses-Pandemic-Related.pdf

(last accessed April 15, 2022). The Court should also consider the harms caused to the specific

victim of Defendant’s crimes whose Social Security application and accompanying driver’s

license were never received by the Social Security Administration, but were apparently

intercepted by Defendant (who maintained images of this application and driver’s license on her

Google Drive account). PSR ¶¶ 27, 33.

        For these reasons, and those to be discussed at the sentencing hearing, the United States

submits that a sentence above the low-end of the guideline sentencing range is warranted in this

case.


                                                     Respectfully submitted,

                                                     RACHAEL S. ROLLINS
                                                     United States Attorney

                                                By: /s/ William F. Abely
                                                     WILLIAM F. ABELY
                                                     Assistant U.S. Attorney
               `                                     U.S. Attorney’s Office
                                                     William.Abely@usdoj.gov

Date: April 15, 2022



                                                 5

           Case 1:21-cr-10025-IT Document 76 Filed 04/15/22 Page 6 of 6




                                CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

       I hereby certify that this document will be filed via ECF and thereby served on all
counsel of record, and will also be sent via email to U.S. Probation.

                                             /s/ William F. Abely
                                             William F. Abely
                                             Assistant United States Attorney
Date: April 15, 2022




                                                6

File and source

File

76.pdf

Size

136,412 bytes

SHA-256

133d2cc3794d88c51abfafe4a948b320a552bbc26b70fb4301c1db49dcc2bcc6

Our copy

76.pdf