Government Guilty Plea Memorandum — United States v. Jerel Andre Williams (E.D. Pa.)

Record facts

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania · No. 2:20-cr-00143-JMG · Doc. 47 · 2022-06-23 · Docket on CourtListener

Full text

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT  
 
 
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA 
 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 
: 
 
 v. 
 
 
 
: 
CRIMINAL NO. 20-0143 
 
JEREL ANDRE WILLIAMS 
 
 
: 
 
GOVERNMENT=S GUILTY PLEA MEMORANDUM 
 
I. 
INTRODUCTION 
Defendant JEREL ANDRE WILLIAMS has been charged in an 11-count Superseding 
Indictment with eight counts of mail fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1341 (Counts One through 
Eight), one count of mail fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341 and 3559(g) (Count Nine), and 
two counts of filing a false tax return, in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7206(1) (Counts Ten and 
Eleven).  
The defendant has signed a plea agreement, pursuant to which he will plead guilty to 
Counts Seven, Eight, and Ten of the Superseding Indictment in this case and agree to not contest 
forfeiture as set forth in the notice of forfeiture charging criminal forfeiture under 18 U.S.C. § 
Section 981(a)(1)(C) and 28 U.S.C. § 2461. Pursuant to the terms of the plea agreement, the 
government will agree to dismiss Counts One through Six, Nine, and Eleven at the time of 
sentencing, provided the defendant complies with his obligations under the plea agreement. A 
copy of the plea agreement is being provided concurrently herewith. 
 
 
Case 2:20-cr-00143-JMG   Document 47   Filed 06/23/22   Page 1 of 10

2 
 
II. 
MAXIMUM PENALTIES 
A. 
Mail Fraud (Counts Seven and Eight)  
 
The maximum sentence for each violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1341 (mail fraud) as charged in 
Counts Seven and Eight, to which the defendant is pleading guilty, is 20 years’ imprisonment, a 
three-year period of supervised release, a $250,000 fine, and a $100 special assessment. 
B. 
Filing a False Tax Return (Count Ten) 
The maximum sentence for the violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7206(1) (filing a false tax return) 
as charged in Count Ten, to which the defendant is pleading guilty, is three years’ imprisonment, 
a one-year period of supervised release, a fine of $250,000, and a $100 special assessment. 
C. 
Total Maximum Sentence 
Therefore, the total maximum sentence for the three counts to which the defendant is 
pleading guilty (Counts Seven, Eight, and Ten of the Superseding Indictment) is 43 years’ 
imprisonment, a three-year period of supervised release, a $750,000 fine, and a $300 special 
assessment. Full restitution also shall be ordered. Forfeiture of all proceeds from the scheme to 
defraud, as reflected and charged in Counts Seven and Eight, also may be ordered.    
III. 
ELEMENTS OF THE OFFENSES 
A. 
Mail Fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1341) 
To establish mail fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1341, as charged in each of Counts 
Seven and Eight, the government must prove the following essential elements beyond a 
reasonable doubt: 
 
 
1. 
The defendant knowingly devised a scheme to defraud, that is, to deprive 
Case 2:20-cr-00143-JMG   Document 47   Filed 06/23/22   Page 2 of 10

3 
 
another of money or property by fraud, including by false or fraudulent pretenses, 
representations or promises, or omissions, concerning a material fact; 
 
 
2. 
The defendant did so with the intent to defraud; and 
 
 
3. 
That in advancing, furthering, or carrying out the scheme, the defendant 
used the mails (or a private or commercial interstate carrier), or caused the mails (or a private or 
commercial interstate carrier) to be used. 
 
Note:  The government is not required to prove that the defendant actually mailed 
anything or intended that the mails would be used to further, or to advance, or to carry out the 
scheme. However, the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the mails (or a 
private or commercial interstate carrier) were, in fact, used in some manner to further, or to 
advance, or to carry out, the scheme to defraud. The government must also prove either that the 
defendant used the mails, or knew the use of the mails (or private or commercial interstate 
carrier) would follow in the ordinary course of business or events, or should reasonably have 
anticipated that the mails (or private or commercial interstate carrier) would be used.   
See, e.g., 3rd Circuit Model Jury Instruction 6.18.1341-5. 
B. 
Filing a False Tax Return 
 
To establish the offense of filing a false tax return, in violation of 26 U.S.C. ' 7206(1), as 
charged in Count Ten, the government must prove the following essential elements beyond a 
reasonable doubt: 
 
 
1. 
The defendant made or subscribed an income tax return or statement or 
other document; 
 
 
2. 
The tax return contained a written declaration that it was made under the 
penalties of perjury;  
Case 2:20-cr-00143-JMG   Document 47   Filed 06/23/22   Page 3 of 10

4 
 
 
 
3. 
The tax return was false regarding a material matter; 
 
 
4. 
The defendant did not believe the tax return was true and correct as to 
every material matter; and 
 
 
5. 
The defendant acted willfully. 
Third Circuit Model Jury (Criminal) Instructions 6.26.7206. 
 
IV. 
FACTUAL BASIS FOR PLEA 
If this case were to proceed to trial, the government would prove the following, among 
other things: 
Beginning in approximately July 2016 and continuing until at least January 2018, the 
defendant devised a scheme to defraud Cisco Systems, Inc. (hereinafter “Cisco”) and obtain 
merchandise from Cisco by fraud through a series of fraudulent representations, including that 
products that he and co-schemer Takandryia Latrice Cage, charged separately, owned were 
defective and covered by warranties and that the products had to be replaced, when in reality the 
defendant and Cage did not own the supposedly defective products they were seeking to replace. 
The defendant and Cage promised to return the supposedly defective products after they received 
the replacements, but they did not do so because they did not own the supposedly broken 
products to begin with.  
In order to make the scheme work, the defendant had to pretend to be different people, as 
Cisco would not have continued to ship replacement products to the defendant after he 
repeatedly claimed to own broken items and did not return them. Therefore, the defendant 
created a series of false identities and false company names, and claimed to be someone else who 
worked at a fictitious company. In order to deceive Cisco into believing they were dealing with 
other people and not the defendant, the defendant created new, false email addresses that 
Case 2:20-cr-00143-JMG   Document 47   Filed 06/23/22   Page 4 of 10

5 
 
purported to belong to a different person, sometimes by first registering a false domain name, 
such as “alphateamcomp.org,” and then creating a new email address tied to that domain name, 
such as “mark@alphateamcomp.org.” The defendant also utilized addresses around the country 
to receive the items and traveled to those addresses to pick up the replacement items shipped by 
Cisco. In this manner, the defendant was able to hide his true identity and mislead Cisco into 
believing that the email addresses used to make the warranty claims were associated with other 
persons who worked for various companies. 
In order to get the replacement items, the defendant also had to convince Cisco that he 
owned an actual Cisco item identified by serial number that was under warranty and defective. 
The defendant figured out a way to obtained and ascertained serial numbers for Cisco computer 
hardware that he did not own or possess. Then, the defendant and Cage contacted Cisco and 
initiated numerous false warranty claims via telephone calls, emails, and online chats by 
providing the legitimate serial numbers for Cisco products that they did not own or possess, as 
well as the false names, false email addresses, false shipping addresses, and other false 
information, and by falsely claiming that they and/or the false companies they claimed to work 
for were the owners of the items in question and that the Cisco hardware in question was not 
working properly. The defendant and Cage provided the customer service representatives for 
Cisco with descriptions of the supposed problems with the hardware that the defendant knew 
would prevent the customer service representatives from solving the problems through 
troubleshooting and would necessarily require the replacement of the supposedly faulty items. 
The defendant and Cage then provided Cisco with addresses to which Cisco could ship 
the replacement hardware, and caused Cisco to ship via FedEx numerous pieces of Cisco 
computer hardware, each with a retail value of between $3,693 and $34,500, from a warehouse 
Case 2:20-cr-00143-JMG   Document 47   Filed 06/23/22   Page 5 of 10

6 
 
in Roanoke, Texas, to addresses around the United States.  
The defendant (at times alone and at times with Cage) traveled to the addresses to which 
they had the Cisco replacement items shipped, in order to pick up the hardware. Each time Cisco 
agreed to ship a “replacement” item on one of the false warranty claims initiated by the 
defendant or Cage, Cisco required the person initiating the warranty claim to promise to return 
the supposedly broken Cisco hardware that was under warranty. However, at the heart of the 
scheme was the fact that the warrant claims were false because the defendant and Cage did not 
own or possess the hardware to begin with. As such, each fraudulent claim initiated by the 
defendant or Cage resulted in their receipt of a “replacement” Cisco item without the return to 
Cisco of the supposedly broken item because neither the defendant nor Cage had ever owned 
those products in the first place and instead the defendant had simply obtained a valid Cisco 
serial number that he pretended to own. The defendant sold all of the the fraudulently-obtained 
Cisco computer hardware that he and Cage obtained during and in furtherance of this scheme to 
other companies that were in the business of purchasing and reselling computer hardware. 
 
During and in furtherance of the scheme, the defendant caused numerous mailings to be 
sent by Cisco via Federal Express including some which the defendant caused to be delivered to 
locations in Eastern District of Pennsylvania. As to those Cisco shipments that the defendant 
caused to be sent to other districts, the defendant waives venue and consents that the charges 
may be filed and resolved in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Specifically, Counts Seven and 
Eight both charge shipments sent to other districts. The defendant expressly waives any objection 
to venue and consents to the filing and disposition of Counts Seven and Eight in the Eastern 
District of Pennsylvania. 
As charged in Count Seven, on December 11, 2017, the defendant caused Cisco to ship 
Case 2:20-cr-00143-JMG   Document 47   Filed 06/23/22   Page 6 of 10

7 
 
from Roanoke, Texas to Las Vegas, Nevada one Cisco Model # WS-C3650-48PS-E, with a retail 
value of $10,040, via FedEx, with tracking # 409739873439, in response to a false Cisco 
warranty claim that the defendant had initiated, which Cisco assigned as Cisco SR # 683596802. 
The defendant caused Cisco to ship this replacement piece of hardware in response to a false 
claim by the defendant in which he pretended to be someone else, pretended to own a broken 
piece of Cisco hardware that was under warranty, and promised to return the supposedly broken 
item to Cisco. For this claim, as with all his other false claims, the defendant created and utilized 
a false name and false email address and provided a legitimate serial number for a piece of Cisco 
hardware that he claimed to own but did not in fact own. Once Cisco shipped the replacement 
item, the defendant picked up the item and then sold it to a computer equipment reseller. The 
defendant never returned the supposedly broken item to Cisco that he claimed to own because he 
never owned it in the first place. 
As charged in Count Eight, on January 5, 2018, the defendant caused Cisco to ship from 
Roanoke, Texas to San Diego, California one Cisco Model # WS-C3850-12X48U-S, with a retail 
value of $9,366, via FedEx, with tracking # 409739918688, in response to a false warranty claim 
that the defendant had initiated, which Cisco assigned as Cisco SR # 683715027. The defendant 
caused Cisco to ship this replacement piece of hardware in response to a false claim by the 
defendant in which he pretended to be someone else, pretended to own a broken piece of Cisco 
hardware that was under warranty, and promised to return the supposedly broken item to Cisco. 
The defendant created and utilized a false name and false email address and provided a 
legitimate serial number for a piece of Cisco hardware that he claimed to own but did not in fact 
own. Once Cisco shipped the replacement item, the defendant picked up the item and then sold it 
to a computer equipment reseller. The defendant never returned the supposedly broken item to 
Case 2:20-cr-00143-JMG   Document 47   Filed 06/23/22   Page 7 of 10

8 
 
Cisco that he claimed to own because he never owned it in the first place.  
During the time period set forth in the Superseding Indictment, the defendant operated a 
business that was engaged in buying and reselling computer hardware. In addition to obtaining 
Cisco items by fraud and reselling those items, the defendant also obtained other computer items 
from other sources (not Cisco) in a legitimate manner, and resold those other items to other large 
computer reseller companies with whom the defendant did business on a regular basis. The 
defendant knew that the income he obtained as a result of reselling computer equipment, whether 
it was equipment obtained legitimately or whether it was equipment he obtained from Cisco by 
fraud, was supposed to be declared on his tax returns. However, the defendant significantly 
underreported his income on his IRS Form 1040 tax returns for both 2015 and 2016 to the IRS, 
by giving his tax preparer significantly understated revenue and income amounts that the 
defendant claimed he obtained from his sale of computer equipment. When he provided these 
underreported figures to his tax preparer, the defendant did so intentionally, knowing that he had 
earned significantly more revenue and profits from his sale of computer equipment, and he 
intentionally gave his tax preparer false information in order to lower his tax liability. As a result, 
the defendant intentionally caused his tax preparer to prepare two false IRS Form 1040 tax 
returns for tax years 2015 and 2016, which the defendant caused to be filed with the IRS from 
Mansfield, Texas, in the Northern District of Texas, knowing that they were materially false and 
significantly underreported his income.  
With respect to his 2015 tax return, as charged in Count Ten, on or about April 15, 2016, 
from Mansfield, Texas, the defendant willfully made and subscribed a United States income tax 
return, Form 1040, for the calendar year 2015, which was verified by a written declaration and 
electronic personal identification number attesting that it was made under the penalty of perjury 
Case 2:20-cr-00143-JMG   Document 47   Filed 06/23/22   Page 8 of 10

9 
 
and filed with the Director, Internal Revenue Service Center, which the defendant did not believe 
to be true and correct as to every material matter, in that the return reported gross receipts of 
approximately $212,124, when, as the defendant then knew, he failed to report significant 
additional gross receipts. In fact, the defendant failed to report an additional $284,741 in gross 
receipts to the IRS for tax year 2015, as his true and correct gross receipts from his business of 
reselling computer equipment (whether obtained legitimately or by fraud) for tax year 2015 were 
really $496,865. As a result, the defendant’s 2015 tax return, which claimed a loss of $25,091 
(i.e., negative income), actually should have shown a taxable gain (i.e., positive income) of 
$248,953. The defendant’s false 2015 tax return caused the IRS to sustain a tax loss of $86,000. 
The defendant’s 2015 tax return was therefore materially false, the defendant knew it was 
materially false when he filed it, and he filed it knowingly and willfully. The defendant expressly 
waives any objection to venue and consents to the filing and disposition of Count Ten in the 
Eastern District of Pennsylvania. 
V. 
PLEA AGREEMENT 
The parties have entered into a plea agreement in this case. A copy is being filed 
concurrently herewith.  
   
 
 
 
 
 
Respectfully submitted, 
JACQUELINE C. ROMERO  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
United States Attorney 
 
 
Michael S. Lowe            
MICHAEL S. LOWE 
Assistant United States Attorney 
Case 2:20-cr-00143-JMG   Document 47   Filed 06/23/22   Page 9 of 10

 
 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 
I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the Government=s Guilty Plea 
Memorandum has been served by e-mail upon: 
Natasha Taylor-Smith 
Federal Community Defender Office 
601 Walnut Street 
Suite 540 West 
Philadelphia, PA 19106 
Natasha_Taylor-Smith@fd.org 
 
 
 
         /s/                  
MICHAEL S. LOWE 
Assistant United States Attorney 
 
 
DATED:  June 23, 2022 
Case 2:20-cr-00143-JMG   Document 47   Filed 06/23/22   Page 10 of 10

File and source

File

paed.569219.47.0.pdf

Size

164,282 bytes

SHA-256

36b3f97566f0bcac617ab16d1dafeb52c16fc1892aa87e9e9f01b57c31832da7

Our copy

paed.569219.47.0.pdf

Original

No public link identified.