United States v. Nosa Stephen Edokpaigbe — Government's Motion for a Downward Variance
- Date
- 2025-11-11
Summary
The government's motion for a downward variance in United States v. Nosa Stephen Edokpaigbe, Case No. 1:23-cr-00442-RMR, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado, filed November 11, 2025 as Document 67. The government states that the presentence report calculated offense level 28 and criminal history category I, a guidelines range of 78–97 months, after a guilty plea to wire fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1343. Citing the Plea Agreement and the defendant's agreement to a stipulated judicial removal order, it recommends a sentence of 60 months' imprisonment. The motion reports that 90 EIDLs and 22 PPP loans totaling $1,389,713 were funded, and it asks for restitution of $1,408,897.16. It is signed by Assistant United States Attorneys and ends with a certificate of service.
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
Full text
Case No. 1:23-cr-00442-RMR Document 67 filed 11/11/25 USDC Colorado pg 1
of 9
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Criminal Case No. 23-cr-442-RMR
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.
NOSA STEPHEN EDOKPAIGBE,
Defendant.
GOVERNMENT’S MOTION FOR A DOWNWARD VARIANCE
During an unprecedented global pandemic, the defendant utilized stolen
identities to submit hundreds of fraudulent loan applications in an attempt to obtain
funds that were intended to serve as a lifeline for struggling businesses. He went to
extreme lengths to avoid detection, including the use of a hotspot registered to a false
name to mask his online presence, a mannequin head to “pose” as loan applicants for
identity verification, and bank accounts opened using the personal identifying
information of identity theft victims.
Following the defendant’s guilty plea to one count of wire fraud in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 1343, the United States Probation Office submitted to the Court a presentence
investigation report calculating the defendant’s offense level at 28 and criminal history
category at I, which results in a guidelines range of 78–97 months’ imprisonment. (ECF
Case No. 1:23-cr-00442-RMR Document 67 filed 11/11/25 USDC Colorado pg 2
of 9
No. 62 (“PSR”) ¶¶ 63, 66–67, 94; see also ECF No. 62-1 at 2.) The government agrees
that this is an accurate calculation of the guidelines range.
As set forth in the Plea Agreement, the government agreed not to oppose a one-
level downward variance based on the difference between the defendant’s intended and
actual loss1, which would bring the defendant’s guidelines range to 70–87 months.
(ECF No. 59 at 2.)
The defendant agreed to the entry of a stipulated judicial removal order, which
will result in his uncontested deportation to Nigeria upon the completion of his criminal
sentence in this case. (See id.) In consideration for the defendant’s agreement to
facilitate his deportation, the government agreed to move for a downward variance of 10
months, resulting in the government’s ultimate sentencing recommendation of 60
months’ imprisonment. (See id. at 2–3.)
For the reasons set forth below, the government respectfully submits that a
sentence of 60 months’ imprisonment appropriately balances the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)
factors, particularly the nature and circumstances of the offense, the history and
characteristics of the defendant, and the need to promote respect for the rule of law and
provide specific and general deterrence. The government further requests that the
Court enter a restitution order in the amount of $1,408,897.16. 2
1 The U.S. Sentencing Guidelines contemplate that it may be appropriate to reduce a
defendant’s offense level where that defendant is “accountable under § 1B1.3 for a loss
amount under § 2B1.1 . . . that greatly exceeds the defendant’s personal gain from a
fraud offense . . . .” USSG § 3B1.2, Application Note 3(A).
2 In the Plea Agreement, the defendant agreed to pay the amount of interest accruing
on the EIDL and PPP loans through the date of sentencing. (ECF No. 59 at 21.) The
2
Case No. 1:23-cr-00442-RMR Document 67 filed 11/11/25 USDC Colorado pg 3
of 9
Nature and Circumstances of the Offense
The defendant submitted hundreds of fraudulent Economic Injury Disaster Loan
(“EIDL”) and Paycheck Protection Program (“PPP”) applications to obtain loan proceeds
intended to help American small businesses stay afloat during the COVID-19 pandemic.
While he submitted one fraudulent EIDL application in his own name on behalf of a
business entity that he purportedly operated, he submitted hundreds of additional EIDL
and PPP applications using stolen identities belonging to real people. Working with
others, he filled out applications containing fabricated business information and false
owner information, signed loan agreements using stolen identities, created fictitious
documents relating to the purported businesses, and used AI images and mannequin
heads to bypass PPP lenders’ identity verification procedures (examples shown below):
The SBA and PPP lenders ultimately approved and funded 90 EIDLs and 22
PPP loans totaling $1,389,713. The majority of the loan proceeds were deposited into
government is still waiting to obtain the final interest amount for the EIDLs. When the
government receives this calculation, it will provide this information to the Court.
3
Case No. 1:23-cr-00442-RMR Document 67 filed 11/11/25 USDC Colorado pg 4
of 9
Green Dot bank accounts opened in the names of the identity theft victims, and the
defendant and others quickly withdrew the loan proceeds through cash withdrawals and
money orders. At the time of his arrest, law enforcement seized approximately 574
debit cards from the defendant’s apartment; 46 of those debit cards had received EIDL
and/or PPP loans totaling $669,194 tied to this scheme. And he did not stop there. The
defendant also submitted hundreds of fraudulent tax returns using stolen identities. 3
This is a scheme that relied on volume, and fortunately, the defendant’s
successes represent only a fraction of his attempts. While the U.S. Sentencing
Guidelines appropriately determines a defendant’s offense level based on the greater of
actual and intended loss, the government recognizes that the use of intended loss in
this case results in a guidelines range 6 levels higher than a guidelines range driven by
actual loss. Without minimizing the severity of the defendant’s conduct, and considering
the totality of the sentencing factors, the government believes that a sentence of 60
months’ imprisonment is sufficient, but no greater than necessary, to comply with the
purposes of § 3553(a).
3 At times, the defendant re-used the same stolen identities from his EIDL loan fraud to
perpetrate his tax scheme. For example, on August 4, 2020, a fraudulent EIDL
submitted was submitted using N.C.’s name using the email address
huns.che.rda.l.e@gmail.com. The SBA approved and funded a loan in the amount of
$9,900, which was deposited into a Green Dot Bank account set up in her name (which
listed the same email address). That same month, N.C.’s personal identifying
information was listed in an unemployment benefits application. Thereafter, a
fraudulent tax return was submitted in N.C.’s name in 2022.
4
Case No. 1:23-cr-00442-RMR Document 67 filed 11/11/25 USDC Colorado pg 5
of 9
History and Characteristics of the Defendant
Although the defendant appears to have had a difficult childhood in Nigeria, he
came to the United States in 2016 with ample educational and job opportunities to make
a living. Rather than pursue those opportunities, he dedicated his efforts towards
pursuing a criminal scheme that harmed real identity theft victims, individuals actually
impacted by the pandemic who were unable to secure COVID-19 relief funds for
themselves, and the American taxpayer. While this is the defendant’s first criminal
conviction, his conduct cannot be written off as a momentary lapse of judgment or one-
time mistake. With the submission of each and every fraudulent loan application and
tax return, the defendant chose to enrich himself at the expense of others.
As a result of his sustained criminal conduct (which constitutes an “aggravated
felony” under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)), the defendant now faces deportation back to
Nigeria. Rather than contest those proceedings, he has agreed to stipulate to the entry
of a judicial order of removal, thus conserving scarce government resources and
demonstrating his acceptance for the collateral consequences of his actions.
Consistent with the parties’ Plea Agreement, the government respectfully recommends
a sentence of 60 months’ imprisonment, which incorporates the ten-month variance
contemplated in the Plea Agreement for the defendant’s agreement to the entry of the
stipulated judicial order of removal.
Deterrence and Respect for the Rule of Law
The government respectfully submits that a 60-month sentence is necessary to
promote general deterrence and respect for the rule of law. Although the COVID-19
5
Case No. 1:23-cr-00442-RMR Document 67 filed 11/11/25 USDC Colorado pg 6
of 9
loan programs undoubtedly helped millions of struggling small businesses around the
country, the need for emergency and expedited relief led to the removal of certain loan
underwriting requirements and opened the door to fraud. As a result, many would-be
fraudsters made the calculated decision that their COVID-19 loan fraud would go
undetected and unprosecuted. See, e.g., Staff Report of House Committee on Small
Business, 118th Cong., A Miscalculated Risk: Fraud Within the SBA’s COVID Lending
Programs (2024), available at https://smallbusiness.house.gov/uploadedfiles/house_
committee_on_small_business_-_covid-19_pandemic_loan_fraud_staff_report.pdf
(estimating that approximately $200 billion from COVID-19 lending programs were
distributed to fraudulent recipients).
Courts have repeatedly recognized that general deterrence can have a
pronounced effect in the context of white-collar crime because individuals often make
calculated determinations about the potential reward and the likelihood that they will
face a significant sanction if caught. See, e.g., United States v. Sample, 901 F.3d 1196,
1200 (10th Cir. 2018) (recognizing that “[d]efendants in white-collar crimes often
calculate the financial gain and risk of loss, and white-collar crime therefore can be
affected and reduced with serious punishment” (quoting United States v. Kuhlman, 711
F.3d 1321, 1329 (11th Cir. 2013))); United States v. Musgrave, 761 F.3d 602, 609 (6th
Cir. 2014) (“Because economic and fraud-based crimes are more rational, cool, and
calculated than sudden crimes of passion or opportunity, these crimes are prime
candidates for general deterrence.” (quoting United States v. Peppel, 707 F.3d 627, 637
(6th Cir. 2013))). Indeed, in adopting the § 3553 sentencing factors, Congress
6
Case No. 1:23-cr-00442-RMR Document 67 filed 11/11/25 USDC Colorado pg 7
of 9
“emphasized the critical deterrent value of imprisoning serious white collar criminals,
even where those criminals might themselves be unlikely to commit another offense.”
United States v. Martin, 455 F.3d 1227, 1240 (11th Cir. 2006).
Accordingly, the government respectfully submits that the defendant’s sentence
should demonstrate that those who take advantage of a global pandemic for their own
greed will be punished. The sentence must promote respect for the rule of law and
provide adequate deterrence to criminal conduct.
Restitution
The Plea Agreement provides that the defendant has an obligation to pay
restitution on the amount of the EIDLs and PPP loans funded during the course of his
scheme, as well as the $100 UCC fee paid by the SBA on each funded EIDL greater
than $25,000, less any funds returned to the SBA. (ECF No. 59 at 21.) The
government currently calculates this amount to be $1,408,897.16. This amount
includes: (1) $936,500 of EIDLs and $453,013 of PPP loans that were approved and
funded by the SBA and PPP lenders as a result of the defendant’s scheme; (2) $200 of
UCC-1 filing fees paid by the SBA in connection with the EIDLs; and (3) $19,184.16 of
interest accrued on the PPPs through the date of sentencing.
//
//
//
7
Case No. 1:23-cr-00442-RMR Document 67 filed 11/11/25 USDC Colorado pg 8
of 9
Conclusion
For the reasons set forth above, the government respectfully requests that the
Court impose a sentence of 60 months’ imprisonment, and order restitution in the
amount of $1,408,897.16.
Respectfully submitted this 11th day of November, 2025.
PETER MCNEILLY
United States Attorney
By: s/ Nicole Cassidy
Nicole Cassidy
Anna Edgar
Assistant United States Attorneys
1801 California Street, Suite 1600
Denver, Colorado 80202
Tel: (303) 454-0100
Fax: (303) 454-0409
Nicole.Cassidy@usdoj.gov
Anna.Edgar@usdoj.gov
Attorneys for the Government
8
Case No. 1:23-cr-00442-RMR Document 67 filed 11/11/25 USDC Colorado pg 9
of 9
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on the 11th day of November, 2025, I electronically filed the foregoing
document with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system which will send
notification of such filing to all counsel of record in this case.
s/ Nicole Cassidy
Assistant United States Attorney
United States Attorney’s Office
9
File and source
- File
- gov.uscourts.cod.228367.67.0.pdf
- Size
- 542,575 bytes
- SHA-256
- 7ad4920126e0abd36ffa21f25c10bd67c43698d3f88088a1ed82df48aad7534e
- Our copy
- gov.uscourts.cod.228367.67.0.pdf
- Original
- PACER (login required)