Plea Agreement — United States v. Daniel M. Rosenbaum (Northern District of Illinois)

Summary

A Plea Agreement filed August 17, 2023 as Document 66 in United States of America versus Daniel M. Rosenbaum, No. 21 CR 239, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. Rosenbaum agrees to plead guilty to Count Three, wire fraud under Title 18, United States Code, Section 1343. As owner of Alexander & Rosenbaum Financial Group LLC, he admits converting or attempting to convert annuity premiums paid by at least 18 clients, at least approximately $1,090,817, and failing to pay back at least approximately $805,509 to 13 of them. He stipulates to converting approximately $225,214 from Clients A and B while on pretrial release, and to a scheme in or around March 2021 to defraud Capital Plus Financial, LLC, set out with the Paycheck Protection Program rules. The signature block names Morris Pasqual and Steven R. Decker.

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

Text recognized from a scanned document; may contain errors.

Case: 1:21-cr-00239 Document #: 66 Filed: 08/17/23 Page 1 of 31 PagelD #:141

FILED

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS AUG 1'7 2023:
EASTERN DIVISION |
JUDGE MANISH S. SHAH
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
No. 21 CR 239

Judge Manish S. Shah

DANIEL M. ROSENBAUM
PLEA AGREEMENT

1. This Plea Agreement between the Acting United States Attorney for the

Northern District of Illinois, MORRIS PASQUAL, and defendant DANIEL M.

ROSENBAUM, and his attorney, STEVEN R. DECKER, is made pursuant to Rule

11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and is governed in part by Rule

11(c)(1)(A), as more fully set forth below. The parties to this Agreement have agreed
upon the following:

Charges in This Case

2. The indictment in this case charges defendant with mail fraud, in
violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1341 (Counts 1-2), and wire fraud,
in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1343 (Counts 3-5).

3. Defendant has read the charges against him contained in the
indictment, and those charges have been fully explained to him by his attorney.

4. Defendant fully understands the nature and elements of the crimes with

which he has been charged.
Case: 1:21-cr-00239 Document #: 66 Filed: 08/17/23 Page 2 of 31 PagelD #:142

Charge to Which Defendant Is Pleading Guilty

5. By this Plea Agreement, defendant agrees to enter a voluntary plea of
guilty to the following count of the indictment: Count Three, which charges defendant
with wire fraud, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1343.

Factual Basis

6. Defendant will plead guilty because he is in fact guilty of the charge
contained in Count Three of the indictment. In pleading guilty, defendant admits the
following facts and that those facts establish his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and
constitute relevant conduct pursuant to Guideline § 1B1.3:

Beginning no later than in or around November 2016, and continuing until in
or around March 2021, in the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, and
elsewhere, defendant DANIEL M. ROSENBAUM devised, intended to devise, and
participated in a scheme to defraud clients and to obtain money and property from
those clients by means of materially false and fraudulent pretenses, representations,
and promises.

More specifically, between November 2016 and March 2021, ROSENBAUM
was a licensed insurance provider (also known as an insurance agent) in Illinois and
owned Alexander & Rosenbaum Financial Group LLC (“Alexander & Rosenbaum’),
which was based in Kenilworth, Illinois. Alexander & Rosenbaum operated as an
insurance agency that obtained quotes for insurance products from insurance

companies on behalf of clients. ROSENBAUM acted as an insurance broker, that is,
Case: 1:21-cr-00239 Document #: 66 Filed: 08/17/23 Page 3 of 31 PagelD #:143

a representative of Alexander & Rosenbaum who obtained quotes for insurance
products from insurance companies on behalf of clients.

One of the insurance products that ROSENBAUM brokered for Alexander &
Rosenbaum clients was annuities, an insurance product for which a policy holder paid
one or more monetary premiums to an insurance company in exchange for the right
to receive a later payment or series of payments.

Under the terms of agreements ROSENBAUM entered into with various
insurance companies, ROSENBAUM knew he was required to forward to the
insurance companies any premium he received from a client in connection with an
application for an annuity or an existing annuity. ROSENBAUM knew that he was
not authorized to use clients’ annuity premiums for his own benefit.

Beginning no later than November 2016, ROSENBAUM falsely told some
Alexander & Rosenbaum clients that he would purchase annuities for them when he
knew that he would not purchase such annuities and instead would convert the
money his clients paid him for the annuities to his personal use.

When a client elected to purchase an annuity brokered by Alexander &
Rosenbaum, ROSENBAUM regularly invoiced the client for the premium amount
that he represented to the client would be used as payment to an insurance company
for the annuity. ROSENBAUM collected the money via payment the client made by
check or wire transfer to (1) ROSENBAUM, (2) Alexander & Rosenbaum, or (3)

Individual A, a relative of ROSENBAUM, for whom ROSENBAUM controlled
Case: 1:21-cr-00239 Document #: 66 Filed: 08/17/23 Page 4 of 31 PagelD #:144

multiple bank accounts. However, ROSENBAUM did not use the funds obtained
from some of his clients towards the annuity premiums to insurance companies.
Instead, ROSENBAUM converted premiums made by clients for those annuities to
his own personal use. Because ROSENBAUM did not forward annuity premiums he
collected from clients to the insurance companies, the insurance companies did not
issue annuities for those clients, and the clients were not covered by the annuities
that they thought they purchased.

In some cases, to deceive clients into thinking that he had actually purchased
annuities for them, ROSENBAUM provided, and caused to be provided, to clients
copies of fake annuity contracts and statements that purported to represent the
existence of legitimate annuities from insurance companies. ROSENBAUM created
those documents and knew that they were fraudulent because the documents had not
been issued by the insurance companies reflected on the face of the documents and
because he had not obtained annuities from insurance companies for those clients.

ROSENBAUM admits that he used premiums collected from clients that he
fraudulently represented would be used as payments to insurance companies for
annuities for his own personal benefit, including, among other things, making cash
withdrawals, spousal and child support payments, credit card, car, and loan
payments, and retail purchases at stores such as Jared Jewelry.

ROSENBAUM further admits that, in order to conceal and perpetuate his

scheme: (a) he used annuity premiums that he fraudulently collected from clients to
Case: 1:21-cr-00239 Document #: 66 Filed: 08/17/23 Page 5 of 31 PagelD #:145

repay annuities premiums he owed to other clients whose funds he had used for
himself without authorization, (b) he made false statements to clients concerning
repayment of their funds, including telling them that he would check with the
insurance companies about the annuities he claimed he purchased for them, and (c)
he attempted to persuade clients not to contact law enforcement by promising to pay
them back with interest if they did not contact law enforcement about the money he
owed them.

ROSENBAUM further admits that some of the clients from whom he
fraudulently collected annuity premiums were over 70 years old, including Victim C,
who was 84 years old at the time ROSENBAUM fraudulently collected annuity
premiums from Victim C, were looking to purchase annuities to cover certain end-of-
life expenses, and were particularly susceptible due to their age, among other things,
to ROSENBAUM’s scheme of fraudulently inducing clients to purchase annuities and
converting annuity premiums to his own personal use.

ROSENBAUM admits that (a) he converted or attempted to convert annuity
premium payments made by at least 18 clients to his own personal use and that the
total amount of funds that he converted or attempted to convert in this manner was
at least approximately $1,090,817, and (b) the total amount of funds he converted in
this manner and failed to pay back to 13 of those clients was at least approximately

$805,509.
Case: 1:21-cr-00239 Document #: 66 Filed: 08/17/23 Page 6 of 31 PagelD #:146

ROSENBAUM also admits that, on or about April 5, 2019, at Mundelein, in
the Northern District of Illinois, and elsewhere, for the purpose of executing the
scheme to defraud, he knowingly caused to be transmitted by means of wire
communication in interstate commerce, certain writings, signs, and signals, namely,
an interstate wire transfer processed through the Federal Reserve System in the
amount of $102,597.17 sent electronically by Victim C from Victim C’s bank account
to ROSENBAUM’s Capital One bank account, which funds ROSENBAUM falsely
claimed would be used to purchase an annuity for Victim C that ROSENBAUM never
purchased, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1343.

7. Defendant, for purposes of computing his sentence under Guideline
§ 1B1.2, stipulates to having committed the following additional offenses:

a. Stipulated Offense #1

Beginning no later than in or around June 2021, and continuing until in or
around December 2022, at Hickory Hills, in the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern
Division, and elsewhere, defendant DANIEL M. ROSENBAUM devised, intended to
devise, and participated in a scheme to defraud clients and to obtain money and
property from those clients by means of materially false and fraudulent pretenses,
representations, and promises.

More specifically, on April 15, 2021, ROSENBAUM was charged by indictment
in the above-captioned case with two counts of mail fraud, in violation of Title 18,

United States Code, Section 1341, and three counts of wire fraud, in violation of Title
Case: 1:21-cr-00239 Document #: 66 Filed: 08/17/23 Page 7 of 31 PagelD #:147

18, United States Code, Section 1348. On April 22, 2021, ROSENBAUM appeared
before U.S. Magistrate Judge Jeffrey T. Gilbert for an initial appearance and
arraignment, at which time ROSENBAUM entered a plea of not guilty to each count
of the indictment and was released from federal custody by the Court, pursuant to
Title 18, United States Code, Sections 3141 and 3142, subject to certain conditions of
pretrial release, including that “defendant must not violate federal, state, or local law
while on release.”

Between approximately June 2021 and approximately December 2022, while
on pretrial release in the above-captioned case, ROSENBAUM fraudulently
represented to two individuals he knew, Clients A and B, that he was a licensed
insurance broker through an insurance agency he owned named Rosenbaum Family
Planning, when, in fact, ROSENBAUM knew that he was no longer a licensed
insurance broker. When Clients A and B expressed an interest to ROSENBAUM
about purchasing annuities, ROSENBAUM collected money from Client A and B.
ROSENBAUM told Clients A and B that the paid funds were for premiums required
by insurance companies for the annuities ROSENBAUM promised to purchase for
them.

ROSENBAUM purchased some annuities for Client A using some of the
annuity premiums that Client A provided to ROSENBAUM. However,
ROSENBAUM later convinced Client A to withdraw money from those annuities and

give that money to ROSENBAUM to make investments for the benefit of Client A.
Case: 1:21-cr-00239 Document #: 66 Filed: 08/17/23 Page 8 of 31 PagelD #:148

Client A agreed and gave ROSENBAUM money Client A withdrew from annuities to
make investments for the benefit of Client A. ROSENBAUM never intended to make
those investments and did not make those investments. Instead, he used Client A’s
money for his own personal benefit. Further, Client A provided ROSENBAUM
additional annuity premiums to purchase annuities, but ROSENBAUM did not
purchase annuities for Client A with those premiums and instead used that money
for his own personal benefit.

Client B also provided ROSENBAUM an annuity premium to purchase an
annuity for Client B. ROSENBAUM did not purchase an annuity for Client B and
instead used the annuity premium that Client B provided for his own personal
benefit.

Client A, who lived in Hickory Hills, Illinois, and Client B, who lived in South
Bend, Indiana, made approximately eight payments by check or wire transfer to
Rosenbaum Family Planning for annuity premiums or other investments.
ROSENBAUM admits that he knowingly converted the annuity premiums and other
investments Client A made to Rosenbaum Family Planning and the annuity premium
that Client B made to Rosenbaum Family Planning to his own personal use,
including, among other things, making spousal and child support payments, credit
card payments, and car payments.

Because ROSENBAUM did not submit some of the annuity premiums Client

A paid to Rosenbaum Family Planning to any insurance companies, no annuities
Case: 1:21-cr-00239 Document #: 66 Filed: 08/17/23 Page 9 of 31 PagelD #:149

were issued in connection with those premiums, and Client A was not covered by
annuities that Client A thought Client A purchased. Because ROSENBAUM did not
submit the annuity premium Client B paid to Rosenbaum Family Planning to any
insurance companies, no annuity was issued, and Client B was not covered by an
annuity that Client B thought Client B purchased. In addition, ROSENBAUM
admits that he made false statements to Clients A and B concerning repayment of
their funds and why Clients A and B were not being paid back as requested, telling
them that he would check with the insurance companies about the annuities he
claimed he purchased for them and attempting to persuade them not to contact law
enforcement by promising to pay them back with interest if they did not contact law
enforcement about the money he owed them.

ROSENBAUM admits that he converted annuity premium payments and
other investments Clients A and B made to his own personal use and that the total
amount of funds that he converted in this manner was approximately $225,214.

ROSENBAUM further admits that, on or about October 26, 2021, in the
Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, and elsewhere, for the purpose of
executing the scheme to defraud, he knowingly caused to be transmitted by means of
wire communication in interstate commerce, certain writings, signs, and signals,
namely, an interstate wire transfer processed through servers located outside of
Illinois in the amount of $50,000 that Client A sent electronically from Client A’s

investment account to ROSENBAUM’s U.S. Bank account, which funds
Case: 1:21-cr-00239 Document #: 66 Filed: 08/17/23 Page 10 of 31 PagelD #:150

ROSENBAUM falsely claimed would be used to make an investment for Client A that
ROSENBAUM never made, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1343,
and ROSENBAUM committed this offense while on release pursuant to Title 18,
United States Code, Chapter 207, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section
3147(1).

b. Stipulated Offense #2

In or around March 2021, at Highland Park, in the Northern District of Illinois,
and elsewhere, defendant DANIJEL M. ROSENBAUM knowingly devised, intended
to devise, and participated in a scheme to defraud and obtain money from Capital
Plus Financial, LLC, by means of materially false and fraudulent pretenses,
representations, and promises.

More specifically, ROSENBAUM acknowledges that the Coronavirus Aid,
Relief, and Economic Security (“CARES”) Act was a federal law enacted in or around
March 2020 and designed to provide emergency financial assistance to the millions
of Americans who were suffering the economic effects caused by the COVID-19
pandemic. One source of relief provided by the CARES Act was the authorization of
up to $349 billion in forgivable loans to small businesses for job retention and certain
other expenses, through a program called the Paycheck Protection Program (“PPP”).

ROSENBAUM further acknowledges that, in order to obtain a PPP loan, a
business submitted a PPP loan application that was signed by an authorized

representative of the business. The PPP loan application required the business,

10
Case: 1:21-cr-00239 Document #: 66 Filed: 08/17/23 Page 11 of 31 PagelD #:151

‘through its authorized representative, to acknowledge the program rules and make
certain affirmative certifications regarding the business’s eligibility. PPP loan
proceeds were required to be used by the business for certain permissible expenses,
including payroll costs, interest on mortgages, rent, and utilities. ROSENBAUM
acknowledges that the representations the authorized business representative made
in the PPP loan application concerning the business were material to a lender’s
decision to extend the business a PPP loan.

ROSENBAUM admits that, in March 2021, he submitted three fraudulent PPP
loan applications to a lender for businesses that did not exist, that the lender
approved those three loan applications based on ROSENBAUM’s fraudulent
representations in the applications, and that he used a total of $53,537 in PPP loan
proceeds that he fraudulently obtained from those three loan applications for his own
personal benefit. More specifically, on or about March 8, 2021, ROSENBAUM
applied for a PPP loan in the amount of $13,540 from Capital Plus Financial, LLC
(“Capital Plus”). In order to obtain the PPP loan, ROSENBAUM fraudulently
represented to Capital Plus that he was an independent contractor working as a sales
representative, that he had been an independent contractor since January 1, 2020,
that he earned $65,000 in gross income during the 2020 tax year, and that his
independent contracting business was in operation on February 15, 2020.
ROSENBAUM knew at the time that he was not an independent contractor working

as a sales representative, that he had not been an independent contractor since

11
Case: 1:21-cr-00239 Document #: 66 Filed: 08/17/23 Page 12 of 31 PagelD #:152

January 1, 2020, that he had not earned $65,000 in gross income as an independent
contractor during the 2020 tax year, and that his independent contracting business
was not in operation on February 15, 2020. ROSENBAUM also fraudulently
represented to Capital Plus that the PPP loan was “necessary to support the ongoing
operations” of his independent contracting work, despite knowing that he did not
have any “ongoing” independent contracting work. After ROSENBAUM’s fraudulent
PPP loan application was approved, Capital Plus deposited $13,540 in PPP loan
proceeds into ROSENBAUM’s bank account, which funds ROSENBAUM used for his
own personal benefit.

Furthermore, on or about March 18, 2021, ROSENBAUM applied for a PPP
loan in Individual A’s name in the amount of $19,165 from Capital Plus, and in so
applying, used Individual A’s identifiers, including Individual A’s name and social
security number, without Individual A’s knowledge and permission. In order to
obtain the PPP loan, ROSENBAUM fraudulently represented to Capital Plus that
Individual A was an independent contractor working as a sales representative, that
Individual A had been an independent contractor since January 1, 2020, that
Individual A earned $92,000 in gross income during the 2020 tax year, and that
Individual A’s independent contracting business was in operation on February 15,
2020. ROSENBAUM knew at the time that Individual A was not an independent
contractor working as a sales representative, that Individual A had not been an

independent contractor since January 1, 2020, that Individual A had not earned

12
Case: 1:21-cr-00239 Document #: 66 Filed: 08/17/23 Page 13 of 31 PagelD #:153

$92,000 in gross income as an independent contractor during the 2020 tax year, and
that Individual A’s independent contracting business was not in operation on
February 15, 2020. ROSENBAUM also fraudulently represented to Capital Plus that
the PPP loan was “necessary to support the ongoing operations” of Individual A’s
independent contracting work, despite knowing that Individual A did not have any
“ongoing” independent contracting work. After ROSENBAUM’s fraudulent PPP loan
application in Individual A’s name was approved, Capital Plus deposited $19,165 in
PPP loan proceeds into a bank account ROSENBAUM controlled, which funds
ROSENBAUM used for his own personal benefit.

In addition, on or about March 25, 2021, ROSENBAUM applied for a PPP loan
in a second relative’s name, Individual B, in the amount of $20,832 from Capital Plus,
and in so applying, used Individual B’s identifiers, including Individual] B’s name and
social security number, without Individual B’s knowledge and permission. In order
to obtain the PPP loan, ROSENBAUM fraudulently represented to Capital Plus that
Individual B was an independent contractor working as a sales representative, that
Individual B had been an independent contractor since January 1, 2020, that
Individual B earned $295,000 in gross income during the 2020 tax year, and that
Individual B’s independent contracting business was in operation on February 15,
2020. ROSENBAUM knew at the time that Individual B was not an independent
contractor working as a sales representative, that Individual B had not been an

independent contractor since January 1, 2020, that Individual B had not earned

13
Case: 1:21-cr-00239 Document #: 66 Filed: 08/17/23 Page 14 of 31 PagelD #:154

$295,000 in gross income as an independent contractor during the 2020 tax year, and
that Individual B’s independent contracting business was not in operation on
February 15, 2020. ROSENBAUM also fraudulently represented to Capital Plus that
the PPP loan was “necessary to support the ongoing operations” of Individual B’s
independent contracting work, despite knowing that Individual B did not have any
“ongoing” independent contracting work. After ROSENBAUM’s fraudulent PPP loan
application in Individual B’s name was approved, Capital Plus deposited $20,832 in
PPP loan proceeds into a bank account ROSENBAUM controlled, which funds
ROSENBAUM used for his own personal benefit.

ROSENBAUM admits that, on or about March 25, 2021, in the Northern
District of Illinois, and elsewhere, for the purpose of executing the scheme to defraud,
he knowingly caused to be transmitted by means of a wire communication in
interstate commerce, certain writings, signs, and signals, namely, the internet
transmission of Individual B’s PPP loan application to Capital Plus, which was
processed through servers located outside of Illinois, in violation of Title 18, United
States Code, Section 1343.

c. Stipulated Offense #3

Beginning no later than in or around May 2020, and continuing until in or
around September 2021, at Highland Park, in the Northern District of Illinois,
Eastern Division, and elsewhere, defendant DANIEL M. ROSENBAUM knowingly

devised, intended to devise, and participated in a scheme to defraud and to obtain

14
Case: 1:21-cr-00239 Document #: 66 Filed: 08/17/23 Page 15 of 31 PagelD #:155

money in the form of unemployment insurance benefit funds from the State of Illinois,
by means of materially false and fraudulent pretenses, representations, and
promises.

More specifically, between May 2020 and September 2021, ROSENBAUM
knew that unemployed individuals in Illinois who were terminated without fault
could file a claim over the internet with the Illinois Department of Employment
Security (“IDES”) and receive unemployment benefits during the period of time for
which they were unemployed, were able to work, and had been actively seeking work.
ROSENBAUM further knew that claimants could choose to have their unemployment
benefits loaded onto a debit card or directly deposited into a bank account.
ROSENBAUM knew that in order to receive benefits from IDES for each weekly or
biweekly period of unemployment, claimants had to certify certain eligibility
information, for example, whether the claimant worked, was able and available to
work, and actively sought work during the certification period. ROSENBAUM knew
that those certifications could be made by phone or over the internet and that
certification had to be made before unemployment insurance benefit funds would be
paid.

ROSENBAUM admits that, on or about May 10, 2020, he filed a fraudulent
claim for unemployment insurance benefits on his own behalf, and that on or about
July 20, 2020, he filed a fraudulent claim for unemployment insurance benefits in

Individual A’s name and in so applying, used Individual A’s identifiers, including

15
Case: 1:21-cr-00239 Document #: 66 Filed: 08/17/23 Page 16 of 31 PagelD #:156

Individual A’s name and social security number, without Individual A’s knowledge
and permission. ROSENBAUM knew that those two claims for unemployment
insurance benefits were fraudulent because neither he nor Individual A had been
terminated from employment without fault, were able to work, and had been actively
seeking work. ROSENBAUM used the IDES website to fraudulently complete the
IDES certification process on his own behalf and in Individual A’s name, including by
falsely representing to IDES that he and Individual A were entitled to benefits, had
been available and able to work, and actively sought work during each certification
period.

ROSENBAUM selected the direct deposit method of payment and directed
IDES to deposit unemployment insurance benefit funds for him and Individual A into
a bank account in ROSENBAUM’s name (“Bank Account A”). ROSENBAUM knew
that once he fraudulently certified eligibility for unemployment insurance benefits,
IDES would provide those benefit funds to him and Individual A and would continue
to provide those benefit funds to him and Individual A as long as ROSENBAUM
continued to certify eligibility for the benefits.

As a result of the fraudulent claims for unemployment insurance benefits
ROSENBAUM made, IDES deposited unemployment insurance benefit funds into
Bank Account A and bank accounts ROSENBAUM controlled, including an account
in the name of Individual A. ROSENBAUM withdrew those benefit funds from Bank

Account A and bank accounts ROSENBAUM controlled, knowing that he was not

16
Case: 1:21-cr-00239 Document #: 66 Filed: 08/17/23 Page 17 of 31 PagelD #:157

entitled to those funds, and ROSENBAUM used those funds for his own personal use
and benefit.

ROSENBAUM admits that, in total, he received approximately $65,826 in
fraudulently obtained unemployment insurance benefit funds from IDES in his name
and in the name of Individual A.

ROSENBAUM further admits that, on or about September 18, 2020, in the
Northern District of Illinois, and elsewhere, for the purpose of executing the scheme
to defraud, he knowingly caused to be transmitted by means of a wire communication
in interstate commerce, certain writings, signs, and signals, namely, an interstate
transfer of unemployment insurance benefit funds in the amount of $1,800 sent
electronically by IDES to Bank Account A, which was processed through servers
located outside of Illinois, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1343.
ROSENBAUM admits that the $1,800 IDES sent to him on or about September 18,
2020, constituted unemployment insurance benefit funds to which he was not entitled
and that he received those funds only after he falsely represented to IDES that, for
the certification periods of July 25, 2020, to September 5, 2020, he was entitled to
unemployment insurance benefits, had been available and able to work, and actively
sought work, among other things.

Maximum Statutory Penalties
8. Defendant understands that the charge to which he is pleading guilty

carries the following statutory penalties:

17
Case: 1:21-cr-00239 Document #: 66 Filed: 08/17/23 Page 18 of 31 PagelD #:158

a. A maximum sentence of 20 years’ imprisonment. This offense
also carries a maximum fine of $250,000, or twice the gross gain or gross loss resulting
from that offense, whichever is greater. Defendant further understands that the
judge also may impose a term of supervised release of not more than three years.

b. Defendant further understands that the Court must order
restitution to the victims of the offense in an amount determined by the Court.

Cc. Pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 3013, defendant
will be assessed $100 on the charge to which he has pled guilty, in addition to any
other penalty or restitution imposed.

Sentencing Guidelines Calculations

9. Defendant understands that, in determining a sentence, the Court is
obligated to calculate the applicable Sentencing Guidelines range, and to consider
that range, possible departures under the Sentencing Guidelines, and other
sentencing factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), which include: (i) the nature and
circumstances of the offense and the history and characteristics of the defendant;
(ii) the need for the sentence imposed to reflect the seriousness of the offense, promote
respect for the law, provide just punishment for the offense, afford adequate
deterrence to criminal conduct, protect the public from further crimes of the
defendant, and provide the defendant with needed educational or vocational training,
medical care, or other correctional treatment in the most effective manner; (iii) the

kinds of sentences available; (iv) the need to avoid unwarranted sentence disparities

18
Case: 1:21-cr-00239 Document #: 66 Filed: 08/17/23 Page 19 of 31 PagelD #:159

among defendants with similar records who have been found guilty of similar
conduct; and (v) the need to provide restitution to any victim of the offense.

10. For purposes of calculating the Sentencing Guidelines, the parties agree
on the following points, except as specified below:

a. Applicable Guidelines. The Sentencing Guidelines to be
considered in this case are those in effect at the time of sentencing. The following
statements regarding the calculation of the Sentencing Guidelines are based on the
Guidelines Manual currently in effect, namely the November 2021 Guidelines
Manual.

b. Offense Level Calculations.

1. Pursuant to Guideline § 3D1.2(d), Count Three and
Stipulated Offenses #1, #2, and #3 group.

ii. The base offense level is 7 pursuant to Guideline
§ 2B1.1(a)(1).

ii. Pursuant to Guideline § 2B1.1(b)(1)(H), the offense level is
increased by 14 levels because the total intended loss from the offenses set forth above
in paragraphs 6 and 7 was at least $1,435,394 and the total actual loss was at least
$1,150,086, and both figures are between $550,000 and $1,500,000.

lv. It is the government’s position that, pursuant to Guideline
§ 2B1.1(b)(2)(B), the offense level is increased by 4 levels because the offenses set

forth above in paragraphs 6 and 7 resulted in substantial financial hardship to five

19
Case: 1:21-cr-00239 Document #: 66 Filed: 08/17/23 Page 20 of 31 PagelD #:160

or more victims. It is the defendant’s position that (a) a 4-level enhancement is not
warranted under Guideline § 2B1.1(b)(2)(B) because the offenses set forth above in
paragraphs 6 and 7 resulted in financial loss to at least 13 victims but did not result
in substantial financial hardship to five or more of those victims, and (b) the offense
level should be increased by 2 levels pursuant to Guideline § 2B1.1(b)(2)(A)G) because
the offenses set forth above in paragraphs 6 and 7 involved 10 or more victims. Each
party is free to present evidence and argument to the Court on this issue at
sentencing.

v. It is the government’s position that, pursuant to Guideline
§ 2B1.1(b)(10)(C), the offense level is increased by 2 levels because the offenses and
relevant conduct in Count Three and Stipulated Offense #1 involved sophisticated
means and defendant intentionally engaged in or caused the conduct constituting
sophisticated means by, among other things, creating and using counterfeit insurance
documents, misappropriating the personally identifiable information of others, and
creating and submitting false loan applications. Defendant’s position is that this
enhancement does not apply. Each party is free to present evidence and argument
to the Court on this issue at sentencing.

vi. Pursuant to Guideline § 2B1.1(b)(11)(C)Q), the offense level
is increased by 2 levels because Stipulated Offenses #2 and #3 involved the
unauthorized transfer or use of any means of identification unlawfully to produce or

obtain any other means of identification, namely the unauthorized use of Individual

20
Case: 1:21-cr-00239 Document #: 66 Filed: 08/17/23 Page 21 of 31 PagelD #:161

A’s and Individual B’s identifiers to fraudulently obtain PPP loan funds and the
unauthorized use of Individual A’s identifiers to fraudulently obtain unemployment
insurance benefit funds.

vil. Pursuant to Guideline § 3A1.1(b)(1), the offense level is
increased by 2 levels because defendant knew or should have known that one or more
victims of the offenses set forth above in paragraphs 6 and 7 was a vulnerable victim,
including Victim C.

viii. Pursuant to Guideline § 3B1.3, the offense level is
increased by 2 levels because the defendant abused a position of private trust or used
a special skill in a manner that significantly facilitated the commission and
concealment of the offenses and relevant conduct referenced in Count Three and
Stipulated Offense #1.

1x. Pursuant to Guideline § 3C1.3, the offense level is
increased by 3 levels because the defendant committed Stipulated Offense #1 while
on pretrial release in connection with another federal offense, namely Count Three,
and the statutory sentencing enhancement under 18 U.S.C. § 3147 applies.

Xx. Defendant has clearly demonstrated a recognition and
affirmative acceptance of personal responsibility for his criminal conduct. If the
government does not receive additional evidence in conflict with this provision, and
if defendant continues to accept responsibility for his actions within the meaning of

Guideline § 3E1.1(a), including by furnishing the United States Attorney’s Office and

21
Case: 1:21-cr-00239 Document #: 66 Filed: 08/17/23 Page 22 of 31 PagelD #:162

the Probation Office with all requested financial information relevant to his ability to
satisfy any fine that may be imposed in this case, a two-level reduction in the offense
level is appropriate.

x1. In accord with Guideline § 3E1.1(b), defendant has timely
notified the government of his intention to enter a plea of guilty, thereby permitting
the government to avoid preparing for trial and permitting the Court to allocate its
resources efficiently. Therefore, as provided by Guideline § 3E1.1(b), if the Court
determines the offense level to be 16 or greater prior to determining that defendant
is entitled to a two-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility, the government
will move for an additional one-level reduction in the offense level.

c. Criminal History Category. With regard to determining
defendant’s criminal history points and criminal history category, based on the facts
now known to the government, defendant has no criminal history points, and
defendant’s criminal history category is I.

d. Anticipated Advisory Sentencing Guidelines Range.
Therefore, based on the facts now known to the government, it is the government’s
position that the anticipated offense level is 33, which, when combined with the
anticipated criminal history category of I, results in an anticipated advisory
sentencing guidelines range of 135 to 168 months’ imprisonment, in addition to any
supervised release, fine, and restitution the Court may impose. Defendant’s position

is that the anticipated offense level is 29, which, when combined with the anticipated

22
Case: 1:21-cr-00239 Document #: 66 Filed: 08/17/23 Page 23 of 31 PagelD #:163

‘criminal history category of I, results in an anticipated advisory sentencing
guidelines range of 87 to 108 months’ imprisonment, in addition to any supervised
release, fine, and restitution the Court may impose.

e. Defendant and his attorney and the government acknowledge
that the above guidelines calculations are preliminary in nature and are non-binding
predictions upon which neither party is entitled to rely. Defendant understands that
further review of the facts or applicable legal principles may lead the government to
conclude that different or additional guidelines provisions apply in this case.
Defendant understands that the Probation Office will conduct its own investigation
and that the Court ultimately determines the facts and law relevant to sentencing,
and that the Court’s determinations govern the final guideline calculation.
Accordingly, the validity of this Agreement is not contingent upon the probation
officer’s or the Court’s concurrence with the above calculations, and defendant shall
not have a right to withdraw his plea on the basis of the Court’s rejection of these
calculations.

11. Both parties expressly acknowledge that this Agreement is not governed
by Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(c)(1)(B), and that errors in applying or interpreting any of the
sentencing guidelines may be corrected by either party prior to sentencing. The
parties may correct these errors either by stipulation or by a statement to the
Probation Office or the Court, setting forth the disagreement regarding the applicable

provisions of the guidelines. The validity of this Agreement will not be affected by

23
Case: 1:21-cr-00239 Document #: 66 Filed: 08/17/23 Page 24 of 31 PagelD #:164

‘such corrections, and defendant shall not have a right to withdraw his plea, nor the
government the right to vacate this Agreement, on the basis of such corrections.
Agreements Relating to Sentencing

12. Each party is free to recommend whatever sentence it deems
appropriate.

13. It is understood by the parties that the sentencing judge is neither a
party to nor bound by this Agreement and may impose a sentence up to the maximum
penalties as set forth above. Defendant further acknowledges that if the Court does
not accept the sentencing recommendation of the parties, defendant will have no right
to withdraw his guilty plea.

14. Regarding restitution, defendant acknowledges that the total amount of
restitution owed to victims is at least $1,150,086, minus any credit for funds repaid
prior to sentencing, and that pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 3663A,
the Court must order defendant to make full restitution in the amount outstanding
at the time of sentencing.

15. Restitution shall be due immediately and paid pursuant to a schedule to
be set by the Court at sentencing. Defendant acknowledges that pursuant to Title
18, United States Code, Section 3663(k), he is required to notify the Court and the
United States Attorney’s Office of any material change in economic circumstances

that might affect his ability to pay restitution.

24
Case: 1:21-cr-00239 Document #: 66 Filed: 08/17/23 Page 25 of 31 PagelD #:165

16. Defendant agrees to pay the special assessment of $100 at the time of
sentencing with a cashier’s check or money order payable to the Clerk of the U.S.
District Court.

17. Defendant agrees that the United States may enforce collection of any
fine or restitution imposed in this case pursuant to Title 18, United States Code,
Sections 3572, 3613, and 3664(m), notwithstanding any payment schedule set by the
Court.

18. After sentence has been imposed on the count to which defendant pleads
guilty as agreed herein, the government will move to dismiss the remaining counts of
the indictment, as well as the forfeiture allegation as to defendant.

Acknowledgments and Waivers Regarding Plea of Guilty

Nature of Agreement

19. This Agreement is entirely voluntary and represents the entire
agreement between the Acting United States Attorney and defendant regarding
defendant’s criminal liability in case 21 CR 239.

20. This Agreement concerns criminal liability only. Except as expressly set
forth in this Agreement, nothing herein shall constitute a limitation, waiver, or
release by the United States or any of its agencies of any administrative or judicial
civil claim, demand, or cause of action it may have against defendant or any other
person or entity. The obligations of this Agreement are limited to the United States

Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Illinois and cannot bind any other

25
Case: 1:21-cr-00239 Document #: 66 Filed: 08/17/23 Page 26 of 31 PagelD #:166

federal, state, or local prosecuting, administrative, or regulatory authorities, except
as expressly set forth in this Agreement.
Waiver of Rights
21. Defendant understands that, by pleading guilty, he surrenders certain
rights, including the following:

a. Trial rights. Defendant has the right to persist in a plea of not
guilty to the charges against him, and if he does, he would have the right to a public
and speedy trial.

i. The trial could be either a jury trial or a trial by the judge
sitting without a jury. However, in order that the trial be conducted by the judge
sitting without a jury, defendant, the government, and the judge all must agree that
the trial be conducted by the judge without a jury.

li. If the trial is a jury trial, the jury would be composed of
twelve citizens from the district, selected at random. Defendant and his attorney
would participate in choosing the jury by requesting that the Court remove
prospective jurors for cause where actual bias or other disqualification is shown, or
by removing prospective jurors without cause by exercising peremptory challenges.

ili. If the trial is a jury trial, the jury would be instructed that
defendant is presumed innocent, that the government has the burden of proving
defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and that the jury could not convict him

unless, after hearing all the evidence, it was persuaded of his guilt beyond a

26
Case: 1:21-cr-00239 Document #: 66 Filed: 08/17/23 Page 27 of 31 PagelD #:167

reasonable doubt and that it was to consider each count of the indictment separately.
The jury would have to agree unanimously as to each count before it could return a
verdict of guilty or not guilty as to that count.

iv. If the trial is held by the judge without a jury, the judge
would find the facts and determine, after hearing all the evidence, and considering
each count separately, whether or not the judge was persuaded that the government
had established defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

v. At a trial, whether by a jury or a judge, the government
would be required to present its witnesses and other evidence against defendant.
Defendant would be able to confront those government witnesses and his attorney
would be able to cross-examine them.

v1. At a trial, defendant could present witnesses and other
evidence on his own behalf. If the witnesses for defendant would not appear
voluntarily, he could require their attendance through the subpoena power of the
Court. A defendant is not required to present any evidence.

Vil. At a trial, defendant would have a privilege against self-
incrimination so that he could decline to testify, and no inference of guilt could be
drawn from his refusal to testify. If defendant desired to do so, he could testify on his
own behalf.

viil. With respect to forfeiture, defendant understands that if

the case were tried before a jury, he would have a right to retain the jury to determine

27
Case: 1:21-cr-00239 Document #: 66 Filed: 08/17/23 Page 28 of 31 PagelD #:168

‘whether the government had established the requisite nexus between defendant’s
offense and any specific property alleged to be subject to forfeiture.

b. Appellate rights. Defendant further understands he is waiving
all appellate issues that might have been available if he had exercised his right to
trial and may only appeal the validity of this plea of guilty and the sentence imposed.
Defendant understands that any appeal must be filed within 14 calendar days of the
entry of the judgment of conviction.

22. Defendant understands that, by pleading guilty, he is waiving all the
rights set forth in the prior paragraphs, with the exception of the appellate rights
specifically preserved above. Defendant’s attorney has explained those rights to him,

and the consequences of his waiver of those rights.

Presentence Investigation Report/Post-Sentence Supervision

23. Defendant understands that the United States Attorney’s Office in its
submission to the Probation Office as part of the Pre-Sentence Report and at
sentencing shall fully apprise the District Court and the Probation Office of the
nature, scope, and extent of defendant’s conduct regarding the charges against him,
and related matters. The government will make known all matters in aggravation
and mitigation relevant to sentencing.

24, Defendant agrees to truthfully and completely execute a Financial
Statement (with supporting documentation) prior to sentencing, to be provided to and

shared among the Court, the Probation Office, and the United States Attorney’s

28
Case: 1:21-cr-00239 Document #: 66 Filed: 08/17/23 Page 29 of 31 PagelD #:169

‘ Office regarding all details of his financial circumstances, including his recent income
tax returns as specified by the probation officer. Defendant understands that
providing false or incomplete information, or refusing to provide this information,
may be used as a basis for denial of a reduction for acceptance of responsibility
pursuant to Guideline § 3E1.1 and enhancement of his sentence for obstruction of
justice under Guideline § 3C1.1, and may be prosecuted as a violation of Title 18,
United States Code, Section 1001 or as a contempt of the Court.

25. For the purpose of monitoring defendant’s compliance with his
obligations to pay a fine and restitution during any term of supervised release or
probation to which defendant is sentenced, defendant further consents to the
disclosure by the IRS to the Probation Office and the United States Attorney’s Office
of defendant’s individual income tax returns (together with extensions,
correspondence, and other tax information) filed subsequent to defendant’s
sentencing, to and including the final year of any period of supervised release or
probation to which defendant is sentenced. Defendant also agrees that a certified
copy of this Agreement shall be sufficient evidence of defendant’s request to the IRS
to disclose the returns and return information, as provided for in Title 26, United
States Code, Section 6103(b).

Other Terms
26. Defendant agrees to cooperate with the United States Attorney’s Office

in collecting any unpaid fine and restitution for which defendant is liable, including

29
Case: 1:21-cr-00239 Document #: 66 Filed: 08/17/23 Page 30 of 31 PagelD #:170

‘providing financial statements and supporting records as requested by the United
States Attorney’s Office.

27. Defendant understands that, if convicted, a defendant who is not a
United States citizen may be removed from the United States, denied citizenship, and
denied admission to the United States in the future.

Conclusion

28. Defendant understands that this Agreement will be filed with the Court,
will become a matter of public record, and may be disclosed to any person.

29. Defendant understands that his compliance with each part of this
Agreement extends throughout the period of his sentence, and failure to abide by any
term of the Agreement is a violation of the Agreement. Defendant further
understands that in the event he violates this Agreement, the government, at its
option, may move to vacate the Agreement, rendering it null and void, and thereafter
prosecute defendant not subject to any of the limits set forth in this Agreement, or
may move to resentence defendant or require defendant’s specific performance of this
Agreement. Defendant understands and agrees that in the event that the Court
permits defendant to withdraw from this Agreement, or defendant breaches any of
its terms and the government elects to void the Agreement and prosecute defendant,
any prosecutions that are not time-barred by the applicable statute of limitations on
the date of the signing of this Agreement may be commenced against defendant in

accordance with this paragraph, notwithstanding the expiration of the statute of

30
Case: 1:21-cr-00239 Document #: 66 Filed: 08/17/23 Page 31 of 31 PagelD #:171

-limitations between the signing of this Agreement and the commencement of such
prosecutions.

30. Should the judge refuse to accept defendant’s plea of guilty, this
Agreement shall become null and void and neither party will be bound to it.

31. Defendant and his attorney acknowledge that no threats, promises, or
representations have been made, nor agreements reached, other than those set forth
in this Agreement, to cause defendant to plead guilty.

32. Defendant acknowledges that he has read this Agreement and carefully
reviewed each provision with his attorney. Defendant further acknowledges that he

understands and voluntarily accepts each and every term and condition of this

Agreement.
AGREED THIS DATE: _8-!7- 43 7
MORRIS PASQUAL DANIEL M. ROSENBAUM :
Acting United States Attorney Defendant

PRASHANT KOLLURI STEVEN R. DECKER
Assistant U.S. Attorney Attorney for Defendant

31


File and source

File

66-plea-agreement.pdf

Size

1,760,475 bytes

SHA-256

0850572748f95c7e2c7b0dc3b4d322acc1059dae514e4e10aab1e08dc174b52d

Our copy

66-plea-agreement.pdf

Original

No public link identified.