Full text
Case 1:22-cr-10286-WGY Document 34 Filed 07/21/23 Page 1 of 7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )
)
v.
) Criminal No. 22-CR-10286-WGY
LOC VO, )
)
GOVERNMENT=S SENTENCING MEMORANDUM
The United States respectfully submits this memorandum in support of its sentencing
recommendation for Loc Vo (the “Defendant”) of incarceration for 25 months, supervised
release of 36 months, and forfeiture and restitution as set forth in the plea agreement. See Docket
16 (Plea Agreement), ¶ 4.
Background
In early 2020, as the COVID-19 pandemic disrupted everyday life, causing illness, death
and economic distress, the U.S. government assembled relief programs to help those whose
livelihoods were jeopardized. The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (“CARES”)
Act was a federal law enacted in March 2020 to provide emergency financial assistance to
Americans suffering the economic effects of the COVID-19 pandemic.
One emergency relief program authorized by the CARES Act was the Paycheck
Protection Program (“PPP”). Under the PPP, small businesses could apply for loans that were
processed and funded by participating lenders. The loans were guaranteed by the United States
Small Business Administration (the “SBA”) and could be forgiven if borrowers spent the loan
proceeds on permissible expenses, including spending a substantial percentage on payroll. To
qualify for a PPP loan, a business was required to submit an application and supporting
1
Case 1:22-cr-10286-WGY Document 34 Filed 07/21/23 Page 2 of 7
documentation that established, among other things, the number of persons employed by the
business and the amount of the business’ payroll expenses.
Another emergency relief program authorized by the CARES Act was the Economic
Injury Disaster Loan (“EIDL”) program. This was an SBA program that provided low-interest
financing to small businesses, renters, and homeowners in regions affected by declared disasters.
In order to obtain an EIDL, a qualifying small business had to submit an application to the SBA
that provided information about its operations, such as its number of employees, its gross
revenues for the 12-month period preceding the disaster, and its cost of goods sold in the 12-
month period preceding the disaster. The EIDL funds could be used for payroll expense, sick
leave, production costs, and business obligations, such as debts, rent, and mortgage payments.
Finally, the American Rescue Plan Act established the Restaurant Revitalization Fund
(“RRF”) to provide funding to help restaurants and other eligible businesses, such as food stands,
food trucks, food carts, and others, stay open during the COVID-19 pandemic. The SBA
administered and funded the RRF. Pursuant to the program rules, RRF loan recipients could only
use the funds for the following business expenses: payroll costs, payments on any mortgage
obligations, rent payments, debt service, utility payments, maintenance expense, construction of
outdoor seating, supplies, food and beverage expenses, supplier costs, and operating expenses.
The Scheme to Defraud
As set forth in the Presentence Investigative Report (the “PSR”), the Defendant applied
for and received five different pandemic assistance related loans and then immediately
transferred the money to either his E-Trade or Robinhood Account. ¶ 9. In all, the defendant
obtained more than $1.5 million from PPP, EIDL, and RRF funds. Id. The defendant submitted
2
Case 1:22-cr-10286-WGY Document 34 Filed 07/21/23 Page 3 of 7
loan applications in the name of his food truck business, Smart Gourmet, as well as from a
defunct, former publishing company, Indy Publish.
As set forth in greater detail in the PSR, the defendant then used those funds to
immediately invest in the stock market. He then purchased several different stocks, including a
biotechnology company, an internet marketplace company, a gaming company, and electric car
manufacturer, and more. For example, on July 1, 2020, Vo received a $149,000 EIDL for his
Smart Gourmet business. ¶ 13. On July 3 and July 6, 2020, he respectively wired $100,000
and $43,000 to his E-Trade account. ¶ 14. Additionally, on May 12, 2021, Vo received a PPP
loan for Indy Publish (a defunct company) in the amount of $106,674. ¶ 28. The next day, he
wired $90,00 to his E-Trade account. ¶ 29.
In all, the scheme to defraud lasted for roughly one year—July 2020 to July 2021.
Guideline Sentencing Range
There is no dispute that the defendant’s Guideline Sentencing Range is 33 to 41 months.
Both parties and the U.S. Probation Office (“USPO”) agree that the Defendant has no prior
convictions and that he falls within Criminal History Category I. The parties similarly agree
that his total offense level under the Sentencing Guidelines is 20, because, among other things,
the defendant caused loss that was more than $1.5 million but less than $3.5 million.
Sentencing Recommendation
The United States respectfully submits that a sentence of 25 months imprisonment is
appropriate in consideration of the guideline sentencing range and the various factors enumerated
at 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).
3
Case 1:22-cr-10286-WGY Document 34 Filed 07/21/23 Page 4 of 7
A sentence below the guideline sentencing range is appropriate in light of the
Defendant’s early acceptance of responsibility, his absence of prior criminal convictions, his
efforts to make restitution payments, and various other mitigating factors. As set forth in the
PSR, the Defendant immigrated to the United States and obtained professional and education
success. The Court should weigh these factors in Defendant’s favor.
Nevertheless, and as will be further addressed at the sentencing hearing, the government
respectfully submits that a sentence of one year and a day, as requested by the Defendant, would
be inadequate to satisfy those factors enumerated at 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). The Defendant took
advantage of the COVID-19 pandemic to divert emergency relief funds for his own personal use.
His scheme was deliberate and calculated—he applied for and received five different COVID-19
loans. The fraud was not a momentary lapse in judgement—he submitted five different
applications over a one-year period. And each time he received the relief funds, he chose to
transfer those funds to his personal investment accounts.
The Defendant undertook this scheme despite appearing to be both financially stable and
highly educated. While the defendant has undoubtedly faced challenges immigrating to this
country, he also unquestionably achieved success— he obtained a bachelor’s degree in
economics from Yale University. ¶ 76. He has worked in several different professions,
including finance, international trading, book-publishing and most recently, food services. ¶¶ 77-
78. By his own admission, he has an exceptionally high IQ of over 130, which has ensured,
coupled with an Ivy-league degree, tremendous potential. See Defendant’s Sentencing
Memorandum, p. 8. ECF No. 33. And he does not suffer from any type of addiction. In short,
the simple motivation for this crime appears to have been greed. There is no other innocent
4
Case 1:22-cr-10286-WGY Document 34 Filed 07/21/23 Page 5 of 7
explanation for receiving COVID relief funds and then repeatedly choosing to transfer those
founds into personal investment accounts and then speculating on different stocks.
A sentence of one year and a day in this case would be unwarranted given the nature of
the defendant’s conduct and would also be disproportionate to other recent sentences in this
district in cases arising from fraudulent SBA loans obtained in the wake of the CARES Act. In
all these cases, defendants have received a meaningful custodial sentence. See e.g., United States
v. Adley Bernadin, 22-CR-10110-IT (15 month sentence for defendant who obtained over
$400,000 in one fraudulent PPP loan and tried to obtain additional loans); United States v.
Ronald Buie, 22-cr-10042-DPW (18 month sentence for defendant who obtained SBA loans and
Pandemic Unemployment Assistance (“PUA”) exceeding $300,000 using stolen and fabricated
identities); United States v. Elijah Buoi, 20-cr-10130-FDS (39 month post-trial sentence for
defendant that submitted fraudulent applications for high-dollar SBA loans but accessed and
spent less than $30,000 in proceeds); United States v. William Cordor, 21-cr-40016-TSH (33
month sentence for defendant that received $8,00 in Economic Injury Disaster Loan (“EIDL”)
disbursement and who also sought PUA benefits); United States v. Roosevelt Fernandez, 21-cr-
10046-RGS (60 month sentence for recidivist defendant who committed EIDL fraud and tax
offenses); United States v. John Casey, 20-cr-10202-ADB (48 month sentence for defendant who
sought fraudulent EIDL and PPP loans, and who also committed two unrelated fraud schemes).
Furthermore, a sentence of a year and a day would be unwarranted because it would be
markedly below the national average sentence for similar crimes. According to the Judiciary
Sentencing Information (“JSIN”) data outlined in the PSR, in the last five years, there were 681
similarly situated defendants (i.e. Criminal History Category 1 with a Final Offense Level of 20).
5
Case 1:22-cr-10286-WGY Document 34 Filed 07/21/23 Page 6 of 7
¶ 98. For the 650 defendants who received a sentence of imprisonment in whole or in part, the
average length of imprisonment imposed was 26 months and the median length of imprisonment
imposed was 27 months. Id. The government’s recommendation of 25 months appropriately
fits within this range.
Finally, a sentence of a year and a day is unwarranted because such a result would fail to
deter – and might in fact encourage—future fraudsters. It is no secret that many other people,
like the Defendant, fraudulently took advantage of COVID-19 relief funds; in fact, it is estimated
that as much as $200 billion, or about 17 percent of total PPP and EIDL funds were fraudulently
obtained. https://thehill.com/business/4070242-over-200-billion-in-covid-19-loans-paid-to-
potentially-fraudulent-actors-estimates/ (visited 7/21/23). This case, like others involving
COVID-19 fraud, involves significant considerations of general deterrence and warrants a
custodial sentence.
Here, the defendant quickly, and fraudulently, obtained a large sum of money. In
Massachusetts, the median household income is roughly $84,000.
https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/MA/INC110220 (visited 10/27/22). The
defendant fraudulently obtained almost 20 times that amount of money through the instant fraud.
For an individual to reap over $1.5 million dollars via deliberate fraud, but not face the prospect
of meaningful prison time, risks sending the message that crime does in fact pay. Additionally,
individuals, like the defendant, that took advantage of a newly constructed social safety net
during an unprecedented global pandemic should face a meaningful prison sentence to send a
message to those who might consider taking advantage of similar government benefits programs
in the future.
6
Case 1:22-cr-10286-WGY Document 34 Filed 07/21/23 Page 7 of 7
For these reasons, and those to be discussed at the sentencing hearing, the government
respectfully submits that the Court should impose a sentence that includes a term of
imprisonment of 25 months.
Respectfully submitted,
JOSHUA S. LEVY
ACTING UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
By: /s/ Benjamin Saltzman
Benjamin A. Saltzman
Assistant U.S. Attorney
Dated: July 21, 2023
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that this document filed through the ECF system will be sent
electronically to the registered participants as identified on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF).
/s/ Benjamin A. Saltzman
Benjamin A. Saltzman
Assistant U.S. Attorney
7