Government's Sentencing Memorandum — United States v. Michael Dimassa

Summary

Government's Sentencing Memorandum for Michael Dimassa, dated May 10, 2023 and filed as Document 310 in Case No. 3:22cr33 (OAW). It says the defendant, an elected Connecticut state representative, pled guilty on November 1, 2022 to three related wire fraud conspiracies to deprive West Haven of money largely designated for COVID relief. The memorandum cites a total offense level of 22 and a guidelines term of 41-51 months, in accord with the plea agreement, and proposes restitution of $1,013,670.55 to the City of West Haven. It rejects his public-figure status as mitigation, calling it an aggravating factor, but credits his testimony at Trasacco's trial, and leaves the sentence to the court under section 3553(a).

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 3:22-cr-00033-OAW Document 310 Filed 05/10/23 Page 1 of 7


                      UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                        DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA                 :       Case No. 3:22cr33 (OAW)
                                         :
             v.                          :
                                         :
MICHAEL DIMASSA                          :       May 10, 2023


               GOVERNMENT’S SENTENCING MEMORANDUM

                                    Introduction

      The defendant was an elected Connecticut state representative who breached

the public trust and stole over a million dollars in funds earmarked for COVID

relief. After reviewing all of the briefs filed by the parties in this case, the Court

should sentence the defendant pursuant to the considerations in 18 U.S.C.

§ 3553(a).

                           Relevant Procedural History

      On November 1, 2022, the defendant pled guilty to three related wire fraud

conspiracies to deprive West Haven of money largely designated for the relief of the

COVID pandemic.

      On March 29, 2023, the probation office released the second disclosure of the

PSR. In the PSR, the probation officer concluded that the base offense level for

DiMassa’s conduct under § 2B1.1 is 7. Fourteen levels are added because the loss

exceeded $550,000, but was less than $1,500,000. Two additional levels are added

because the defendant abused a position of public trust to commit these offenses.

PSR ¶ 51. Further, two more levels are added because the defendant recruited

                                             1
       Case 3:22-cr-00033-OAW Document 310 Filed 05/10/23 Page 2 of 7


Mrs. DiMassa (Knox) and Mr. Bernardo to engage in the charged criminal conduct.

PSR ¶ 52. Thus, after subtracting three levels for acceptance of responsibility in

light of the defendant’s guilty plea, the total offense level is 22. PSR ¶ 58.

      With total offense level of 22 and a CHC of I, the Guidelines recommend a

term of incarceration of 41-51 months. Id. ¶ 106. This is in accord with the

suggested term specified in the plea agreement.

      Sentencing is currently set for May 31, 2023 at 10 a.m.

                                    Restitution

      Incorporating the Court’s prior decisions concerning restitution for the three

other defendants in this case, this defendant should be ordered to pay restitution in

the following manner:



      (1) With respect to the conspiracy with John Bernardo, the defendant should
          be ordered to personally pay $587,856.45 in restitution. This figure is
          the total loss of $636,783.70 attributable to the Compass Investments
          conspiracy minus the $48,927.25 received by Mr. Bernardo and included
          in his restitution order.


      (2) With respect to the conspiracy with Lauren DiMassa, the defendant
          should be ordered to pay $147,776.10 and be jointly and severally liable
          for that amount with Mrs. DiMassa (Knox).


      (3) With respect to the conspiracy with John Trasacco, this defendant should
          be ordered to personally pay $278,038.00 in restitution. This figure is
          the total loss of $431,982.00 attributable to the L&H/JIL conspiracy
          minus the $143,944.00 included in Mr. Trasacco’s restitution order and
          the additional $10,000 obtained from this conspiracy that was already
          included in Mr. Bernardo’s restitution order.



                                          2
       Case 3:22-cr-00033-OAW Document 310 Filed 05/10/23 Page 3 of 7


      Thus, the defendant should be ordered to pay $1,013,670.55 to the City of

   West Haven, $147,776.10 of which he shall be jointly and severally liable with

   Lauren DiMassa (Knox).

                                Offense Conduct

      The defendant participated in three separate conspiracies to defraud West

Haven. First, he and Lauren DiMassa (Knox) defrauded West Haven out of

$147,776.10 by submitting false invoices related to youth services. In this

conspiracy, which was initiated and driven by DiMassa, DiMassa created the

invoices, obtained the checks, and retained the majority of the proceeds. Without

Michael DiMassa, this conspiracy would never have started.

      Second, the defendant conspired with John Bernardo to defraud West Haven

of $636,783.70 through Compass Investments. Once again, this conspiracy was

created and driven by the defendant. As with the Youth Services fraud, Mr.

DiMassa initiated the scheme, created the invoices, and kept the vast majority of

the proceeds. Again, without Michael DiMassa, this conspiracy would never have

started.

      Third, the defendant conspired with John Trasacco to defraud West Haven of

$431,982.00 through L&H and JIL. This crime was significantly different from

other two conspiracies. Here, the fraud was initiated by Mr. Trasacco, likely after

learning of the ongoing Compass scheme from Mr. Bernardo. Mr. Trasacco initially

approached Mr. Dimassa. The vouchers were prepared by Mr. Trasacco. Virtually

all of the proceeds from these crimes were retained by Mr. Trasacco. Mr. DiMassa


                                         3
       Case 3:22-cr-00033-OAW Document 310 Filed 05/10/23 Page 4 of 7


facilitated the approval of the vouchers, got cash kickbacks, and negotiated a larger

cut as Mr. Trasacco expanded the scheme to include JIL. But, unlike the first two

schemes, this fraud was conceived and driven by Mr. Trasacco

                Response to the Defendant’s Sentencing Memo

      In his memo, the defendant raises a number of issues he argues that the

Court should consider under § 3553(a). The government agrees that the Court

should consider his gambling addiction, family circumstances, and health

considerations under § 3553(a) But the government disagrees that the other

rationales provided by the defendant warrant mitigation of his criminal activity.

      First, the defendant argues that he should receive a lesser sentence because

he was a public figure and will face “penalties well beyond the penalty meted out by

the Court and normally experienced in the community by the average defendant.”

Def’s Brief at 25. He argues that his successes “were founded upon public service

and improving the quality of life for the City of West Haven” and that his “public

fall from grace was highly publicized.” Id.

      This argument does not support a more lenient sentence in this case. To the

contrary, it highlights an aggravating factor in these offenses. It ignores the fact

that the defendant’s status in municipal government allowed Mr. DiMassa to

commit this crime. But for the virtually unfettered access to COVID funds given to

Mr. DiMassa by West Haven, the crime would not have been committed. To now

argue that the very status that afforded him the opportunity to commit a serious

crime is a basis for mitigation is utterly without merit.


                                           4
       Case 3:22-cr-00033-OAW Document 310 Filed 05/10/23 Page 5 of 7


      To the contrary, in the government’s view, this issue raised by the defendant

instead touches on important principles in § 3553(a) such as just punishment and

general deterrence. The defendant was a public official elected to serve his

constituents. Instead, he completely betrayed that trust by stealing public funds

for his own benefit. This conduct that must be generally deterred as elected

officials frequently have access to public funds. And these were not just any public

funds, but money designed to address the suffering at the height of the pandemic.

That reality requires just punishment; actions have consequences. To argue that

his role as a public official somehow entitles him to leniency defies logic.

      Next, the defendant appears to argue that he should receive a lesser sentence

because of the “continuing effects of the COVID-19 pandemic…” Def’s Brief at 29.

In this case, for this defendant, this argument has no merit. In his brief, the

defendant points to no current data supporting his position and makes no argument

how this situation would apply to his case. Moreover, as a former public official

who stole money designed to protect the public from COVID at the height of the

pandemic, the argument is grossly misplaced.

      The government acknowledges the role that Mr. DiMassa played in obtaining

the conviction of Mr. Trasacco. Mr. DiMassa provided extensive testimony during

Trasacco’s trial, which the jury found credible and was amply supported by other

evidence. The government agrees with the defendant’s argument that his

testimony should be considered along with the other factors under § 3553(a) in

determining the sentence to be imposed.


                                            5
       Case 3:22-cr-00033-OAW Document 310 Filed 05/10/23 Page 6 of 7




                                   Conclusion

      The Court should impose sentence after considering the Sentencing

Guidelines, the various sentencing memoranda submitted by the Parties, and the

additional sentencing factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).



                               Respectfully submitted,

                               VANESSA ROBERTS AVERY
                               UNITED STATES ATTORNEY

                                      /s

                               RAY MILLER
                               ASSISTANT UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
                               FEDERAL BAR NO. CT 20451

                               DAVID J. SHELDON
                               FEDERAL BAR NO. CT 07997
                               ASSISTANT UNITED STATES ATTORNEY

                               157 CHURCH STREET, 23RD FLOOR
                               NEW HAVEN, CT 06510
                               (203) 821-3700




                                           6
        Case 3:22-cr-00033-OAW Document 310 Filed 05/10/23 Page 7 of 7




                         CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

       This is to certify that on May 10, 2023 a copy of the foregoing Memorandum

was filed electronically. Notice of this filing will be sent by email to all parties by

operation of the Court’s electronic filing system or by mail on anyone unable to

accept electronic filing as indicated on the Notice of Electronic Filing. Parties may

access this filing through the Court=s CM/ECF System.



                                                /s

                                        Ray Miller
                                        Assistant U.S. Attorney




                                            7


File and source

File

310.pdf

Size

141,518 bytes

SHA-256

9657d9ebeccd927dc2d1ad88facf757c55692c35e3c92972661eec449d5dc447

Our copy

310.pdf

Original

No public link identified.