Memorandum and Order — United States v. Hashim Campbell; United States v. Charlene Wint (Document 26)

Summary

This is a Memorandum and Order dated March 10, 2023 by Senior District Judge Frederic Block in United States v. Hashim Campbell (21-CR-478) and United States v. Charlene Wint (21-CR-479) on restitution. Both were sentenced on November 17, 2022 after pleading guilty to a conspiracy to commit bank and wire fraud involving Paycheck Protection Program loans. The Government asked that they be found jointly and severally liable for $3,500,000 plus interest; the Court declines, finding the Government failed to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the victim bank lost that amount. It imposes $300,000 in restitution on Campbell and $100,000 on Wint, due immediately but payable at 10% of gross monthly income.

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

Cite this document

“Memorandum and Order — United States v. Hashim Campbell; United States v. Charlene Wint (Document 26).” Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/source-documents/court-filing-united-states-v-campbell-dkt-26-e-d-n-y-d79e612994/, SHA-256 9bed18a6e0ce2459734c965273c925c5d7c07292cdadf3474b4a57197b201eb1.

Full text

Case 1:21-cr-00478-FB Document 26 Filed 03/10/23 Page 1 of 5 PageID #: 219

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Plaintiff,
-against- Case No. 21-CR-478 (FB)
HASHIM CAMPBELL,
Defendant.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Case No. 21-CR-479 (FB)
Plaintiff,
-against-
CHARLENE WINT,
Defendant.

For the Plaintiff: For Defendant Campbell:
BREON PEACE STACEY RICHMAN
United States Attorney Richman Hill & Associates PLLC
CHAND W. EDWARDS-BALFOUR 2027 Williamsbridge Road,
271 Cadman Plaza East Bronx NY 10461
Brooklyn, NY 11201
For Defendant Wint:
LONNIE HART JR.
Law Offices of Lonnie Hart Jr. P.C.
32 Court Street, Suite 602
Brooklyn, NY 11201.
BLOCK, Senior District Judge:

Co-conspirators Hashim Campbell (“Campbell”) and Charlene Wint

(“Wint”) were sentenced separately on November 17, 2022, in the above-captioned

cases after pleading guilty to charges stemming from their involvement in a

scheme to obtain millions of dollars of Paycheck Protection Program loans. Both

1
Case 1:21-cr-00478-FB Document 26 Filed 03/10/23 Page 2 of 5 PageID #: 220

pleaded guilty to participating in a conspiracy to commit bank and wire fraud, as

well as violating 18 U.S.C. § 1349. During sentencing, the Court reserved

judgment on restitution.

Campbell and Wint participated in a scheme to defraud the Paycheck

Protection Program (“PPP”), a program designed to offer favorable loans to small

businesses to enable job retention during the early part of the COVID-19

pandemic. Campbell personally contributed to obtaining over $1 million in

fraudulent loans through two tax preparation businesses he owned. Wint was

employed at a retail branch of a national bank in New York, New York. Together

with others, Campbell and Wint recruited customers of Wint’s bank, along with

family and friends, and assisted them in filing fraudulent PPP applications, taking

commissions from the proceeds. Campbell prepared false tax documents which

were attached to the fraudulent applications; his work included fabricating tax

returns and inflating figures on tax documents to enable applicants to qualify for

larger PPP loans. Wint submitted completed false tax documents to her supervisor

and co-conspirator, the branch manager of her bank. Wint then coordinated with

applicants in withdrawing and collecting the disbursed funds using personal and

cashier’s checks. Campbell accepted $100,000 in commission from the

fraudulently obtained loans. Wint accepted “thousands,” demanding $5,000 in

commission from each of the participants she assisted. Gov. Ltr. Br. at 4.

2
Case 1:21-cr-00478-FB Document 26 Filed 03/10/23 Page 3 of 5 PageID #: 221

The Mandatory Victim Restitution Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3663A, required

restitution in sentencing proceedings where the offense (a) was committed via

fraud or deceit and (b) an identifiable victim suffered injury or pecuniary loss. 18

U.S.C. §§ 3663A(a)(1), (c)(1)(A)(ii), (c)(1)(B). Restitution under this scheme is

the “amount of loss caused by the specific conduct” that is the basis for the

conviction. United States v. Gushlak, 728 F.3d 184, 195 n.7 (2d Cir. 2013). The

Government must establish the loss amount, and disputed restitution “shall be

resolved by the court by the preponderance of the evidence.” United States v.

Bahel, 662 F.3d 610, 647 (2d Cir.2011) (quoting 18 U.S.C. § 3664(e)). The

adjudicating district court must “only make a reasonable estimate of the loss, given

the available information.” United States v. Carboni, 204 F.3d 39, 46 (2d Cir.

2000) (internal quotation omitted). Co-conspirators may be held joint and severally

liable for restitution at a district court’s discretion. See United States v. Nucci, 364

F.3d 419, 422-23 (2d Cir. 2004) (citing 18 U.S.C.A. § 3664(h)). Each defendant is

“liable for the reasonably foreseeable acts of all co-conspirators.” United States v.

Boyd, 222 F.3d 47, 50–51 (2d Cir. 2000).

The Government requests that Campbell and Wint be held joint and

severally liable with other participants in the fraud scheme for $3,500,000 plus

interest. Campbell suggests he be individually responsible for a sum equivalent to

$100,000 or higher, while Wint claims no restitution is warranted.

3
Case 1:21-cr-00478-FB Document 26 Filed 03/10/23 Page 4 of 5 PageID #: 222

As a part of his plea agreement, Campbell agreed that he was individually

accountable for a loss amount of $1,200,000 in fraudulently obtained loans. PSR

¶ 18. The Government argues that he was directly responsible for a total of

$1,706,426.02 in losses through his two tax companies. The total loss amount

caused by the scheme is $3.5 million according to the PSR, which was not objected

to. PSR ¶ 22. Both Campbell and Wint question the extent to which the victim

bank truly lost the amount disbursed in loans because it may also have been repaid

by the federal government.

The Government has failed to demonstrate by a preponderance of the

evidence that the victim bank lost $3,500,000 in connection with the scheme

Campbell and Wint participated in, or that it would be reasonable to hold them

jointly and severally liable for this sum. Accordingly, the Court declines to hold

Campbell and Wint joint and severally liable here. The Court imposes $300,000 in

restitution on Campbell—the amount he accepted in connection with his fraudulent

activity and additional funds to account for the fact that he helped put in motion a

scheme causing a much larger loss. It is unclear how many applicants Wint

assisted or how much she received for her work; the Government characterizes her

income from the scheme only as “thousands” of dollars. Given this uncertainty,

and because Wint served only as a low-level clerk in in the overall fraud scheme,

the Court imposes $100,000 in restitution on Wint. Restitution is due immediately

4
Case 1:21-cr-00478-FB Document 26 Filed 03/10/23 Page 5 of 5 PageID #: 223

but payable at the rate of 10% of the defendant’s gross monthly income, earned

and/or unearned from all sources, in monthly payments.

SO ORDERED.

_/S/ Frederic Block__________
FREDERIC BLOCK
Senior United States District Judge

March 10, 2023
Brooklyn, New York

File and source

File: 26.pdf
Size: 493,369 bytes
SHA-256: 9bed18a6e0ce2459734c965273c925c5d7c07292cdadf3474b4a57197b201eb1
Our copy: 26.pdf
Original: No public link identified.