Government’s Position Paper as to Sentencing Factors — No. 1:20-cr-00750 (Dkt. 186, N.D. Ill.)

Summary

Government sentencing position paper, filed 10/25/23, recommending a Guidelines sentence of 51 months' imprisonment for Branko Aleksic on Counts Four and 21, to run concurrently. Prosecutors say that from about March 2020 through September 2020 Aleksic and co-defendants submitted hundreds of fraudulent EIDL applications for dissolved or nonexistent companies reinstated in his name, wired proceeds overseas and bought luxury goods. Attempted loss would have been about $47 million and actual loss roughly $16 million. When stopped boarding a one-way international flight, Aleksic carried about $21,000 in cash, over 25 credit cards, Rolex watches and records of shipping German luxury cars abroad. The government agrees with mandatory restitution of $575,000 to the SBA.

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

“Government’s Position Paper as to Sentencing Factors — No. 1:20-cr-00750 (Dkt. 186, N.D. Ill.).” Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/source-documents/government-s-position-paper-as-to-sentencing-factors-no-1-20-cr-00750-9bb3045bb4/, SHA-256 ba8835a4ae30138cd66427e8f834773e597e73b8bbdaff4dd95ff92ec67c82fc.

Full text

Case: 1:20-cr-00750 Document #: 186 Filed: 10/25/23 Page 1 of 22 PageID #:908

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
No. 20 CR 750-5
v.
Judge Nancy L. Maldonado
BRANKO ALEKSIC

GOVERNMENT’S POSITION PAPER AS TO SENTENCING FACTORS

For the reasons set forth below, the government submits that the imposition of

a Guidelines sentence of 51 months’ imprisonment for each of Counts Four and 21,

sentences to run concurrently, and subject to the conditions set forth in the

Presentence Investigation Report (“PSR”) is sufficient but not greater than necessary

to satisfy the principles set forth in the Sentencing Guidelines and 18 U.S.C. §

3553(a).

I. BACKGROUND

From approximately March 2020 through at least September 2020, defendant

BRANKO ALEKSIC (“ALEKSIC”) and other co-schemers knowingly devised,

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

property from U.S. Small Business Administration (“SBA”) Economic Injury Disaster

Loan (“EIDL”) program by materially false and fraudulent pretenses,

representations, and promises. They submitted hundreds of fraudulent loan

applications to the SBA’s EIDL program in hopes of stealing government funding

under the guise of businesses seeking pandemic relief under the CARES Act. Once

the SBA approved these fraudulent loan requests and sent over millions of dollars in

1
Case: 1:20-cr-00750 Document #: 186 Filed: 10/25/23 Page 2 of 22 PageID #:909

proceeds, these co-defendants then transferred the funds via wire transfers to

overseas bank accounts, and used them to purchase luxurious goods. Had all the

fraudulent submissions been approved, the loss would have totaled approximately

$47 million dollars. Fortunately, the actual loss was much smaller, but still totaled

roughly $16 million dollars.

One of the co-schemers, Marko Nikolic (“Marko”), recruited ALEKSIC to

participate in the fraud scheme. As part of that scheme, both defendant and Marko,

on defendant’s behalf, used defendant’s name and PII to reinstate multiple dissolved

companies, and then submitted online applications for EIDLs to the SBA, claiming

these companies had suffered economic injury due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Defendant and Marko, on defendant’s behalf, provided fraudulent details about the

companies’ operations, including the number of employees, gross revenues and costs

of goods sold for the 12-month period preceding January 31, 2020. In fact, as

defendant knew, the businesses did not exist, had no employees, and suffered no

economic injury.

Defendant successfully persuaded the SBA to wire him federal funds to keep

his fake businesses afloat. He then used those proceeds to enrich his personal life.

For example, one day after law enforcement detained co-defendant Marko, defendant

purchased a one-way, international ticket out of the United States mere hours before

the actual departure time. As he attempted to board his flight, defendant carried on

his person approximately $21,000 in cash along with numerous, high-end luxury

items which he appeared to be smuggling out of the country. Law enforcement

2
Case: 1:20-cr-00750 Document #: 186 Filed: 10/25/23 Page 3 of 22 PageID #:910

confronted defendant, and found him in possession of various IDs and drivers’

licenses from different states belonging to both defendant and other individuals, over

25 credit cards, a voided check for a Chase account ending in *4737, vehicle titles,

new vehicle license plates, documents reflecting his August 2020 overseas shipment

of luxury German vehicles including a BMW 7 Series and Mercedes Benz GL-Class,

laptops, iPads, iPhones, other new electronic devices, Rolex watches, diamonds and

other jewelry, and check books. Of note, within the 25 credit cards, agents located

business credit cards listing the same shell companies directly associated with his

fraudulently submitted EIDL applications, including cards for Gratz Logistics, Pool

B Clean, AB Freight LLC, and BIA Trucking.

In addition to participating in the scheme directly, defendant brought others

onboard to partake in the scheme as well. For example, defendant was paid $47,500

on two occasions, on June 25, 2020, and June 26, 2020, by wire transfer from a SIM

Express account for referring client-applicants to co-defendants Marko and Nebojsa

Simeunovic (“Nebojsa”).

Unbeknownst to the defendant, one of the applicants in the fraud scheme was

a cooperating source (“CS”) with the government. Law enforcement uncovered the

extent and details of the fraud scheme, including one main point of contact: defendant

Maja Nikolic (“Maja”). Agents knew that these defendants had collectively submitted

hundreds of fraudulent loan applications to the SBA EIDL program in order to steal

government funding for businesses seeking pandemic relief, withdrew the fraudulent

funds from their bank accounts, laundering the funds through wire transfers and

3
Case: 1:20-cr-00750 Document #: 186 Filed: 10/25/23 Page 4 of 22 PageID #:911

other financial instruments to other domestic bank accounts in their control or to

overseas bank accounts held by family members.

As the investigation expanded, agents performed surveillance outside of co-

defendant Maja’s Brookfield, Illinois apartment on October 23, 2020. On that rainy

day, agents observed co-defendants Marko and his girlfriend Milica Sumakovic

(“Milica”) packing luggage and computer equipment into multiple luxury vehicles.

Agents arrested both individuals and sought federal search warrants for several

locations, which resulted in the discovery of multiple computers, phones, and six

notebooks. Specifically, these notebooks contained a handwritten chronology of the

Covid-19 fraud scheme, including detailed entries and notes of shell companies,

applicants’ names, aliases, dates of birth, other PII, banks account numbers, emails,

passwords and passcodes, statuses of applications including rejections, loan

distributions, percentages and ratios, and recruitment payments. One notebook

belonging to co-defendant Marko repeatedly identified defendant as part of the fraud.

Meanwhile, that next day of October 24, 2020, defendant attempted to flee the

United States on a one-way ticket to Europe. Agents from Customs and Border

Protection (“CBP”) approached defendant as he was boarding, detained him, and

conducted an interview. During the conversations, defendant admitted he had

engaged in numerous fraudulent activities. He discussed participating in a

fraudulent marriage to circumvent immigration laws. (see PSR ¶¶ 24) Defendant also

advised that he participated in the Covid-19 fraud scheme. (see PSR ¶¶ 8–24)

4
Case: 1:20-cr-00750 Document #: 186 Filed: 10/25/23 Page 5 of 22 PageID #:912

In his written plea agreement and during his plea allocution, defendant

admitted that over the course of the entire scheme, defendant fraudulently submitted

multiple EIDL applications for at least six businesses, directly received $575,000 in

fraudulently obtained funds, and caused a loss of $930,000 to the United States. Dkt.

No. 173. The $575,000 consisted of $480,000 received from the SBA, and $95,000

transferred to him from a SIM Express for referring client-applicants other co-

schemers. After the EIDL funds were deposited in his accounts, in addition to

numerous withdrawals for his own financial benefit, defendant executed several wire

transfers from the United States to overseas accounts to relatives as donations and/or

gifts.

II. PRESENTENCE INVESTIGATION REPORT & GUIDELINES
CALCULATIONS

The government has no objections to the Guidelines and criminal history

calculations in the Presentence Investigation Report, which match those set out in

the Government’s Version of the Offense. PSR ¶¶28-43, 49, 92-97. The PSR correctly

calculates an offense level of 22 and a criminal history category of I, with an advisory

Guidelines imprisonment range of 41 months to 51 months.

III. ANALYSIS OF SENTENCING FACTORS UNDER 18 U.S.C. ' 3553(a)

Although a sentence within the Guidelines range is presumptively reasonable,

United States v. Cano-Rodriguez, 552 F.3d 637, 639 (7th Cir. 2009), the Court must

consider the factors set forth in Title 18, United States Code, Section 3553(a), in

determining an appropriate sentence. Considering these factors, in this case a

Guidelines sentence of 51 months’ imprisonment on Count Four, concurrent with 51

5
Case: 1:20-cr-00750 Document #: 186 Filed: 10/25/23 Page 6 of 22 PageID #:913

months’ imprisonment on Count 21, is sufficient, but not greater than necessary, to

reflect the seriousness of defendant’s offenses, promote respect for the law, provide

just punishment for defendant’s crimes, and afford adequate deterrence to similar

criminal conduct.

A. NATURE AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE OFFENSE

Financial fraud is a massive illegal industry that imposes huge costs on our

economy. In 2020, this fraudulent conduct increased exponentially due to both the

beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic and federal legislation designed to provide

emergency economic relief during such an unprecedented time. As the pandemic

spread, millions of people in the United States lost their jobs seemingly overnight.

Approximately 23.1 million Americans were unemployed as of April 2020. 1 The U.S.

real gross domestic product (GDP) “fell by 8.9 percent in the second quarter of 2020

… the largest single-quarter contraction in more than 70 years.” 2 In March of 2020,

the United States declared the COVID-19 pandemic a national disaster.

The declaration triggered economic assistance from Congress in the form of the

Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act, more commonly known as the

“CARES ACT.” Pub. L. No. 116-136, 134 Stat. 281 (2020) in March of 2020. This

federal legislation was specifically designed to provide emergency financial

assistance to millions of Americans suffering economic injury through various

1 “TED: Economics Daily,” U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, available at https://

https://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2020/unemployment-rate-rises-to-record-high-14-point-7-percent-in-
april-2020.htm (last visited October 17, 2023)
2 “The U.S. Economy and the Global Pandemic, Chapter 3,” the White House (April 26, 2022, 4:00

p.m.) available at whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/Chapter-3-new.pdf (last visited
October 17, 2023)

6
Case: 1:20-cr-00750 Document #: 186 Filed: 10/25/23 Page 7 of 22 PageID #:914

stimulus packages and expanded financial resources to include not only individuals

and families, but also to small businesses, non-profit organizations, sole proprietors,

and independent contractors. In total, Congress approved nearly $4 trillion dollars in

financial aid.

The CARES Act generously made billions of government-guaranteed loans

available to qualified small businesses. Specifically, the U.S. Small Business

Administration (“SBA”) made government-guaranteed loans available to qualified

small businesses through the Payroll Protection Program (“PPP”) and Economic

Injury Disaster Loan (“EIDL”) programs to provide working capital and operating

expenses during the pandemic. Almost immediately, and in collaboration with

various state and federal government agencies, the U.S. Treasury began disbursing

government stimulus checks, PPP loans, and EIDL loans, in conjunction with other

standard benefits such as social security, disability, unemployment, and tax credits.

The public received financial assistance quickly and efficiently, whether through

direct deposit, postal mail, or a combination of both.

As the nation plunged deeper into the pandemic, Congress repeatedly

approved and announced billions of dollars in stimulus packages every few months,

and released that money directly to the public within mere days. Auditing became an

afterthought. With the anticipated “wall of money” dispersing from Washington and

a country halted by a global pandemic, the perfect storm of opportunity and

circumstances arose for thousands to commit COVID-19-related crimes. This

defendant was no exception. At a time of incredible uncertainty, with millions of

7
Case: 1:20-cr-00750 Document #: 186 Filed: 10/25/23 Page 8 of 22 PageID #:915

Americans struggling to survive and pay their bills, defendant saw opportunity.

Tone-deaf to the global health crisis, plight of millions, and the laws of this

country, defendant repeatedly and for months chose to exploit the United States by

fraudulently submitting EIDL applications, successfully obtaining numerous

fraudulent loans for his own materialistic gain. Defendant’s actions were not a

mistake, a misunderstanding, or undertaken in either good faith or acts of

desperation. He had the benefit of being employed and having a steady source of

income as well as enviable skills and options to seek out legitimate income. PSR at

¶¶79-85. Instead, defendant chose the path of least resistance to get “easy money”

through government benefits which should have been used as working capital for

those with legitimate businesses and needs.

Once he received the fraud proceeds into domestic bank accounts, defendant

did not spend the money on necessary living expenses or medical bills. Instead,

defendant either laundered it overseas or bought luxurious toys, including electronic

gadgets and expensive jewelry, such as a Rolex watch. Simply put, defendant did not

need to commit this crime. So while defendant may have projected an outward

appearance of material wealth and success when he boarded his international flight

at O’Hare Airport in October of 2020, it was a mirage resulting directly from

fraudulent proceeds he had stolen from the American people. His offense was a crime

of choice, not of necessity, and it came at a great cost to taxpayers and this country.

This was the same country that had welcomed him and granted him immigration

benefits, albeit benefits that defendant obtained fraudulently.

8
Case: 1:20-cr-00750 Document #: 186 Filed: 10/25/23 Page 9 of 22 PageID #:916

The circumstances surrounding this defendant’s criminal conduct are

particularly troubling because he used a national tragedy to enrich himself through

fraud, using supplies meant to alleviate the legitimate economic suffering. This Court

should give great weight to this factor in imposing a carceral sentence. See Gall, 522

U.S. at 59 (holding it was “quite reasonabl[e]” for the sentencing for the sentencing

court to have “attached great weight” to a 3553(a) factor.); see also Kimbrough v.

United States, 552 U.S. 85, 111 (2007) (holding that appellate court should not find

the sentencing court’s reliance on a single factor unreasonable, so long as the court

imposes a sentence sufficient, but not greater than necessary to accomplish the

sentencing goals advanced in § 3553(a)(2)”) (internal quotation marks omitted); see

also United States v. Pauley, 511 F.3d 468, 476 (4th Cir. 2007) (permitting a district

court to “reasonably accord significant weight to a single sentencing factor in

fashioning its sentence.”)

Here, the victim of the fraud is a federal agency that is unable to recover the

loss amount from an insurance policy or a bank, and instead, must collect it from

taxes imposed on those who already suffer economically from the pandemic. The

personal toll of Covid-19 fraud is high because it imposes a financial hardship on

United States citizens, leading to years of investigations, prosecutions, and attempts

at recouping stolen funds. Defendant knew he was taking money that would have

otherwise gone to real people. After all, defendant and his co-schemers re-instated

real businesses, signed real names on LLC documents, passed the shell business

names and associated bank account details to the United States, all in an effort to

9
Case: 1:20-cr-00750 Document #: 186 Filed: 10/25/23 Page 10 of 22 PageID #:917

fraudulently obtain federal funds, launder them, and then flee the country.

A total Guidelines sentence of 51 months reflects the nature and circumstances

of the offense, including the substantial effects on individual victim taxpayers and

the economy at large. In contrast, any below-Guidelines sentence in this case would

undercut that message, and instead, show that financial fraud on our government is

a victimless crime, which this case makes clear is far from the truth.

B. HISTORY AND CHARACTERISTICS OF THE DEFENDANT

The government acknowledges the mitigating circumstances surrounding the

defendant, including his childhood spent in a war-torn country, his extensive work

history, and his immigration into the United States for, presumably, a better life.

PSR at ¶2. It is also clear that defendant is devoted to his family, for whom his

imprisonment has been challenging, especially in light of the birth of his first child.

PSR at ¶¶61. Def. Sent. Mem. at 5. The Court must balance these mitigating

circumstances against defendant’s own choices and actions within the fraud scheme.

Here, the mitigation cuts both ways, and defendant’s history and

characteristics support a lengthy period of incarceration. For the reasons further

explained below, even though defendant has no criminal history and was not the

mastermind behind the fraud scheme, his repeated participation in the scheme

coupled with his recruitment and the amount of money illegally syphoned from the

United States and wired overseas or spent haphazardly on unnecessary luxury goods

suggests that only a custodial sentence would serve as just punishment.

10
Case: 1:20-cr-00750 Document #: 186 Filed: 10/25/23 Page 11 of 22 PageID #:918

In aggravation, defendant did not commit this crime out of financial

desperation or slowly drift into a criminal scheme from otherwise lawful employment.

In fact, his history and characteristics show that he used his talents and potential to

commit himself to participate in fraud. Defendant began working at age 14, and held

numerous jobs before he made the intentional choice to turn to criminal conduct. In

years past, he worked hard to support himself through an honest living, whether in

a conflict zone or a peaceful democracy, and successfully transitioned and established

himself here in the United States after emigrating from Montenegro.

In addition to his strong work ethic, defendant clearly had remarkable

ambition and marketable skills he could have been used to excel legally in this

country. Defendant is fluent in both English and Montenegrin and understands

Italian. PSR at ¶¶79. He traveled extensively through Europe and to every state in

the US except Alaska. PSR at ¶¶70. In his formative years, he excelled academically.

Defendant graduated from high school, earned a Bachelor’s degree in International

Relations and Diplomacy from University of Donja Gorica (U.D.G.) in 2011, and

enrolled in a Master’s degree program in Business Relationships. PSR at ¶¶74. In

2013, defendant received his postgraduate diplomas in both Humanistic Studies as

well as Foreign Policy and Diplomacy. PSR at ¶¶74. While attending university,

defendant served as a “volunteer” for student rights, acting as a student

representative at the university. He took numerous courses in international

relationships, and was encouraged to be part of both NATO and a non-governmental

organization. PSR at ¶¶74. In addition to his scholastic achievements, he was also

11
Case: 1:20-cr-00750 Document #: 186 Filed: 10/25/23 Page 12 of 22 PageID #:919

one of the top tennis players in the country of Montenegro and completed several

internships, attended seminars, and earned numerous certificates. PSR at ¶¶57, 74.

Def. Sent. Mem. at 2-3.

Once in this country, however, defendant turned his back on his own potential.

Instead of pursing lawful employment, defendant sought to make more money more

easily than the difficult jobs in trucking and other industries he had previously

undertaken. PSR at ¶¶79-85. And when his crimes caught up with some of his co-

conspirators on October 23, 2020, defendant thought he could simply flee the country,

taking the fraudulently obtained funds and luxury items with him, including laptops,

tablets, phones, other electronic devices, $21,000 in cash, Rolex watches, and

diamonds. PSR at ¶¶23. He had also had the foresight to ship cars to Europe months

earlier as well. Additionally, this was not the first time defendant had exploited the

United States for government benefits; years earlier, he had entered into a fraudulent

marriage for purposes of obtaining permanent immigration benefits as well. PSR at

¶¶24. Fortunately for taxpayers, that plan failed.

Defendant’s fraudulent conduct was not a one-time lapse in judgement. He

made a series of choices over several months. He chose to commit overt acts to execute

the fraud scheme himself. He chose to assist the co-schemers with applying for

pandemic relief loans. He chose to recruit others to participate in the fraud. He chose

to launder money overseas. He chose to try and flee with fraud proceeds in tow. In

summary, defendant submitted at least seven fraudulent EIDL applications for at

least six companies, and received funding for four applications. Admittedly,

12
Case: 1:20-cr-00750 Document #: 186 Filed: 10/25/23 Page 13 of 22 PageID #:920

defendant received a smaller percentage of the fraud proceeds as compared to other

co-defendants, but he directly received $575,000 in fraud proceeds for his own

personal use. Dkt. No. 173. We do not know how much money remains, but we do

know that none of it went back to the defendant’s victim, the United States.

C. THE NEED FOR THE SENTENCE TO REFLECT THE SERIOUSNESS OF THE
OFFENSE, PROVIDE JUST PUNISHMENT AND PROTECT THE PUBLIC

Defendant’s conduct demonstrates a blatant disregard for this country’s laws

and failure to appreciate the purpose of pandemic relief loans and the context

surrounding them, including the lived experiences of millions who suffered through

economic hardships without choosing to exploit others. Defendant used funds

designed to supplement payroll expenses, sick leave, production costs, and fixed

debts, such as utilities, rent, and mortgage payments to personally enrich himself

with luxury items at the expense of taxpayers, small businesses, and the United

States as a whole. The impact of his actions, however, extends far beyond this case.

In addition to the financial loss amount incurred by the SBA, defendant’s

fraudulent actions caused an unquantifiable loss of confidence in the government.

Specifically, his conduct directly undermined public confidence in the institution’s

ability to provide for its citizens during a national emergency. This country and its

citizens incurred the added expense of granting him immigration benefits under false

pretenses, due to his marriage fraud, then allocating financial resources to

investigate his criminal conduct, implementing measures to deter others from similar

criminal activity, and raising taxes to mitigate the actual loss from his fraud.

13
Case: 1:20-cr-00750 Document #: 186 Filed: 10/25/23 Page 14 of 22 PageID #:921

A Guideline sentence of 51 months’ imprisonment accounts for the appropriate

factors and aligns with the goals of the sentencing guidelines espoused in 18 U.S.C.

§ 3553, including acknowledging the seriousness of the offense, providing just

punishment, and protecting the public.

D. THE NEED TO DETER FUTURE CRIMINAL CONDUCT AND PROMOTE
RESPECT FOR THE LAW

The Covid-19 pandemic relief loan frauds represent deliberate and calculated

crimes of choice. At a time when the country was on lockdown during a pandemic,

faces were hidden behind masks, and self-preservation mandated prioritizing one’s

own health and that of one’s family over all other responsibilities, criminals like this

defendant saw an opportunity for financial fraud. Individuals who consider using

national emergencies as an opportunity to repeatedly exploit governmental efforts

intended to aid the public during times of economic uncertainty must be deterred.

Furthermore, defendant is not a passive participant in a victimless crime.

During the largest global health crisis in over a century, Covid-19-related fraud ran

rampant. As much as $136 billion dollars in EIDL funds and $64 billion dollars in

PPP funds were stolen by people like this defendant. 3 Congress recognizes the

importance of general deterrence in the context of white-collar crime such as this.

Every time federal benefits are obtained through fraud it misappropriates taxpayer

3 “The Great Grift: More than $200 billion in Covid-19 aid may have been stolen, says federal

watchdog,” by Richard Lardner and Jennifer McDermott, available at
https://apnews.com/article/pandemic-covid19-fraud-small-business-inspector-general-
7e651b3e405863f0be9f2e34ca47b93e (last visited October 17, 2023); See also, “Government
Watchdog Estimates U.S. Lost $200 billion to COVID Fraud,” by Erin Doherty, Axios, available at
https://www.axios.com/2023/06/27/covid-relief-fraud-inspector-general-sba (last visited October 17,
2023) (quoting the Small Business Administration’s Office of Inspector General’s report.)

14
Case: 1:20-cr-00750 Document #: 186 Filed: 10/25/23 Page 15 of 22 PageID #:922

dollars and shakes public confidence in the government itself. Moreover, financial

fraud is lucrative and can be difficult to detect. See, e.g., United States v. Hefferman,

43 F.3d 1144, 1149 (7th Cir. 1994) (“Considerations of (general) deterrence argue for

punishing more heavily those offense that either are lucrative or are difficult to detect

and punish, since both attributes go to increase the expected benefits of a crime and

hence the punishment required to deter it.”)

With over $200 Billion in stolen pandemic relief funds, it is imperative to

underscore the scale of fraud undertaken by criminals during an unprecedented

health crisis. As government agencies increase scrutiny and auditing of the

disbursement of COVID-19 relief funds in this post-pandemic world, proactive steps

must be taken to not only investigate fraud but also maximize efforts to deter future

conduct by others. Imposing a strong sentence provides a cost-cutting strategy that

enables this country, and this Court, to meet the challenging realities of preventing

recidivism and future criminal conduct.

Additionally, this sentence is needed for purposes of specific deterrence.

Defendant has a history of defrauding the government of its benefits. As mentioned

above, he entered into a fraudulent marriage to illegally obtain favorable immigration

status in the United States. While staying in this country illegally, he subsequently

stole and internationally laundered government funding designated to relieve

economic injury resulting from the Covid-19 pandemic. A Guideline sentence of 51

months’ imprisonment sends a message to defendant and his cohorts that they face

consequences for violating the laws of other countries, and that their behavior will

15
Case: 1:20-cr-00750 Document #: 186 Filed: 10/25/23 Page 16 of 22 PageID #:923

not be tolerated. It also affords adequate deterrence to other, similarly situated

individuals who consider engaging in sophisticated financial fraud.

E. THE NEED TO AVOID UNWARRANTED SENTENCING DISPARITIES

A sentence that bears a relationship to the guidelines provides guardrails for

the Court and avoids unwarranted sentencing disparities with other offenders who

are sentenced in this district and across the United States. When considering an

appropriate sentence, the government recommends a Guideline sentence that is not

greater than necessary to reflect the goals of sentencing espoused in 18 U.S.C. § 3553.

Although not at the bottom of the Guidelines range which defendant faces, this

significant sentence of imprisonment sends a direct message of zero tolerance for

exploitation of government benefits during a national crisis at the expense of

taxpayers. It also aligns with the goals of the sentencing guidelines espoused in 18

U.S.C. § 3553.

For all of the reasons outlined above, defendant should not receive a downward

departure.

IV. SUPERVISED RELEASE

The government agrees with Probation that a term of supervised release may

not be necessary in this case, pursuant to Guideline § 5D1.1, because it is not required

by statute and the defendant is likely to be deported following his term of

imprisonment. PSR at ¶1-2. Consistent with Probation’s recommendation, however,

the government agrees with recommending a term of supervised release and proposed

mandatory, discretionary, and special conditions of supervised release in case there

16
Case: 1:20-cr-00750 Document #: 186 Filed: 10/25/23 Page 17 of 22 PageID #:924

is a gap between the date defendant finishes his sentence and the date of his

deportation. PSR at ¶16-22. The government would also ask that the Court impose

Discretionary Condition #2, requiring the defendant to make restitution to the victim

of his offense.

Although defendant is undoubtedly remorseful and wishes to change his life

for the better, he has demonstrated that he excels most when met with consequences

worthy of his attention. The conditions set forth in the PSR will serve as boundaries

needed to curtail his criminal behavior. Imposing a term of supervised release would

place the defendant under the jurisdiction of the Probation Department, allowing for

additional restrictions if his opportunistic impulses return. In addition to reducing

the chances of recidivism, these proposed conditions would encourage rehabilitation

and facilitate supervision. See United States v. Flores, 929 F.3d 443, 451 (7th Cir.

2019) (“We have long assumed that probation officers work with defendants, not

against them, to help defendants transition back into society after prison.”) (emphasis

in original); United States v. Lewis, 823 F.3d 1075, 1080 (7th Cir. 2016) (“When it is

managed well, supervised release can serve the complimentary goals of protecting

the public and rehabilitating an offender who is returning to free society.”); United

States v. Neal, 810 F.3d 512, 519 (7th Cir. 2016) (“The point of supervised release is

to rehabilitate persons discharged from prison and to assist their law-abiding return

to society.”); United States v. Thompson, 777 F.3d 368, 374 (7th Cir. 2015) (reducing

recidivism and encouraging rehabilitation are goals of supervised release); United

States v. Siegel, 753 F.3d 705, 708 (7th Cir. 2014) (“Reducing recidivism is the main

17
Case: 1:20-cr-00750 Document #: 186 Filed: 10/25/23 Page 18 of 22 PageID #:925

purpose of supervised release, though some of the conditions of supervised release are

intended to help the released prisoner adjust to life on the outside even if there is no

worry that without them he would be likely to commit crimes.”).

For the reasons discussed above, supervised release is appropriate, as outlined

below.

MANDATORY CONDITIONS:

1. The defendant shall not commit another federal, state or local crime.
Justification: This condition is mandatory under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(d) and
would serve to support defendant’s rehabilitation and reintegration into the
community and ensure that the defendant is engaged in lawful pursuits
rather than criminal activity.

2. The defendant shall not unlawfully possess a controlled substance.
Justification: This condition is mandatory under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(d) and would
serve to support defendant’s rehabilitation and reintegration into the
community and ensure that the defendant is engaged in lawful pursuits rather
than criminal activity.

3. The defendant shall cooperate in the collection of a DNA sample if the
collection of such a sample is required by law. Justification: This condition is
mandatory under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(d) and would serve to facilitate supervision
by the probation officer, thus assisting in encouraging defendant’s compliance
with the law and deterring the defendant from future crimes.

DISCRETIONARY CONDITIONS:

4. The defendant shall provide financial support to dependents if financially able.
Justification: Defendant currently has a young dependent (PSR ¶ ___), and this
condition would serve to support defendant’s rehabilitation and reintegration
into the community and ensure that the defendant is engaged in lawful
pursuits rather than criminal activity.

5. The defendant shall seek, and work conscientiously at, lawful employment or
pursue conscientiously a course of study or vocational training that will equip
the defendant for employment. Justification: This condition would serve to
support defendant’s rehabilitation and reintegration into the community and
ensure that the defendant is engaged in lawful pursuits rather than criminal
activity.

18
Case: 1:20-cr-00750 Document #: 186 Filed: 10/25/23 Page 19 of 22 PageID #:926

6. The defendant shall refrain from knowingly meeting or communicating with
any person whom the defendant knows to be engaged, or planning to be
engaged, in criminal activity. Justification: This condition would serve to
support defendant’s rehabilitation and reintegration into the community and
ensure that the defendant is engaged in lawful pursuits rather than criminal
activity. See United States v. Kappes, 782 F.3d 828, 849 (7th Cir. 2015) (“A
suggested modification would be to forbid the defendant ‘to meet,
communicate, or otherwise interact with a person whom he knows to be
engaged, or planning to be engaged, in criminal activity.’”) (quoting Thompson,
777 F.3d at 377); United States v. Poulin, 809 F.3d 924, 934 (7th Cir. 2016)
(same).

7. The defendant shall refrain from excessive use of alcohol (defined as having a
blood alcohol concentration greater than 0.08%), or any use of a narcotic drug
or other controlled substance, as defined in § 10.2 of the Controlled Substances
Act (21 U.S.C. § 802), without a prescription by a licensed medical practitioner.
Justification: This condition would serve to support defendant’s rehabilitation
and reintegration into the community and ensure that the defendant is
engaged in lawful pursuits rather than criminal activity. See United States v.
Hudson, 908 F.3d 1083, 1084 (7th Cir. 2018) (“[A] condition of supervised
release prohibiting ‘excessive’ alcohol use, without more, is impermissibly
vague.”) (quoting Kappes, 782 F.3d at 849).

8. The defendant shall refrain from possessing a firearm, destructive device, or
any other dangerous weapon. Justification: This condition would serve to
facilitate supervision by the probation officer, thus assisting in encouraging
defendant’s compliance with the law and deterring the defendant from future
crimes, while protecting the public. See United States v. Speed, 811 F.3d 854,
861 (7th Cir. 2016) (“[A] condition prohibiting dangerous weapons provides
sufficient notice of the prohibited conduct to a person of reasonable
intelligence.”).

9. The defendant shall not knowingly leave the federal judicial district where he
or she is authorized to reside without first getting permission from the court
or the probation officer. Justification: This condition would serve to facilitate
supervision by the probation officer, thus assisting in encouraging defendant’s
compliance with the law and deterring the defendant from future crimes. See
United States v. Gawron, 929 F.3d 473, 478 (7th Cir. 2019) (this condition
should contain a scienter requirement); United States v. Hunt, 930 F.3d 921,
925 (7th Cir. 2019) (same); United States v. Hudson, 908 F.3d 1083, 1085 (7th
Cir. 2018) (“The better term to use in this standard condition is ‘judicial
district,’ as it denotes geographical (as opposed to jurisdictional) boundaries.”);
United States v. Givens, 875 F.3d 387, 390 (7th Cir. 2017) (“[T]his particular
condition is administrative in nature and can be imposed whenever a district

19
Case: 1:20-cr-00750 Document #: 186 Filed: 10/25/23 Page 20 of 22 PageID #:927

court adequately explains the need for supervised release in the first
instance.”).

10. The defendant shall report to a probation officer as directed by the Court or a
probation officer. Justification: This condition would serve to facilitate
supervision by the probation officer, thus assisting in encouraging defendant’s
compliance with the law and deterring the defendant from future crimes.

11. The defendant shall permit a probation officer to visit the defendant at any
reasonable time at home, work, school, community service location, and other
reasonable location specified by a probation officer and permit confiscation of
any contraband observed in plain view of the probation officer. Justification:
This condition would serve to facilitate supervision by the probation officer,
thus assisting in encouraging defendant’s compliance with the law and
deterring the defendant from future crimes. See United States v. Downey, 908
F.3d 205, 207 (7th Cir. 2018) (“[T]he concern with the probation officer
choosing an inconvenient, inappropriate or remote location could be alleviated
by including a requirement of reasonableness.”); United States v. Bloch, 825
F.3d 862, 875 (7th Cir. 2016) (“[T]his condition helps the defendant ‘reintegrate
into society after his time in prison and to ensure that he is abiding by the
conditions of his supervised release.’”) (quoting United States v. Armour, 804
F.3d 859, 870 (7th Cir. 2015)); United States v. Carson, 821 F.3d 849, 851 (7th
Cir. 2016) (“Home visits might turn up guns, drugs, or other signs of trouble.”).

12. The defendant shall notify a probation officer promptly, within 72 hours, of any
change in residence, employer, or workplace and, absent constitutional or other
legal privilege, answer inquiries by a probation officer. Justification: This
condition would serve to facilitate supervision by the probation officer, thus
assisting in encouraging defendant’s compliance with the law and deterring
the defendant from future crimes.

13. The defendant shall notify a probation officer promptly, within 72 hours, if
arrested or questioned by a law enforcement officer. Justification: This
condition would serve to facilitate supervision by the probation officer, thus
assisting in encouraging defendant’s compliance with the law and deterring
the defendant from future crimes. See Kappes, 782 F.3d at 850 (“[T]his
condition assists the probation officer in monitoring the defendant’s conduct
and compliance with the other conditions of release, most notably, the
mandatory condition that the defendant commit no other criminal offenses.”).

14. The defendant shall be surrendered to a duly authorized official of the
Homeland Security Department for a determination on the issue of
deportability by the appropriate in accordance with the laws under the
Immigration and Nationality Act and the established implementing
regulations. If ordered deported, the defendant shall not reenter the United

20
Case: 1:20-cr-00750 Document #: 186 Filed: 10/25/23 Page 21 of 22 PageID #:928

States without obtaining, in advance, the express written consent of the
Attorney General or the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security.
Justification: Due to the defendant’s background and immigration status, this
condition would serve to facilitate compliance with the laws under the
Immigration and Nationality Act.

SPECIAL CONDITIONS:

15. The defendant shall not incur new credit charges or open additional lines of
credit without the approval of a probation officer unless the defendant is in
compliance with the financial obligations imposed by this judgment.
Justification: This condition would serve to ensure that defendant is engaged
in responsible financial behavior while on supervised release, consistent with
the need to meet the financial obligations ordered as part of his sentence.

16. The defendant shall provide a probation officer with access to any requested
financial information necessary to monitor compliance with conditions of
supervised release. Justification: This condition would serve to ensure that
defendant is engaged in responsible financial behavior while on supervised
release, consistent with the need to meet the financial obligations ordered as
part of his sentence.

17. The defendant shall notify the Court, within 72 hours, of any material change
in the defendant’s economic circumstances that might affect the defendant’s
ability to pay restitution, fines, or special assessments. Justification: This
condition would serve to ensure that defendant is engaged in responsible
financial behavior while on supervised release, consistent with the need to
meet the financial obligations ordered as part of his sentence.

18. The defendant shall pay any financial penalty that is imposed and remains
unpaid at the commencement of the term of supervised release. The
defendant’s monthly payment schedule shall be an amount that is at least 10%
of defendant’s net monthly income, defined as income net of reasonable
expenses for basic necessities such as food, shelter, utilities, insurance, and
employment-related expenses. Justification: This condition would serve to
ensure that defendant is engaged in responsible financial behavior while on
supervised release, consistent with the need to meet the financial obligations
ordered as part of his sentence.

19. The defendant shall not enter into any agreement to act as an informer or a
special agent of a law enforcement agency without the permission of the
probation officer. Justification: The government recommends modifying this
condition to require the probation officer’s—as opposed to the Court’s—
permission.

21
Case: 1:20-cr-00750 Document #: 186 Filed: 10/25/23 Page 22 of 22 PageID #:929

V. RESTITUTION

The government agrees with the mandatory restitution amount ($575,000) and

lists the victim as the SBA, as set out by Probation in the Presentence Investigation

Report. PSR ¶¶91.

VI. CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, the government respectfully requests that this

Court impose a Guidelines sentence of 51 months’ imprisonment on both Counts Four

and Count 21, sentences to run concurrently, followed by the conditions discussed in

the PSR. This sentence reflects the serious nature of the offense and the history and

characteristics of the defendant, but is not greater than necessary to reflect the goals

of sentencing espoused in 18 U.S.C. § 3553.

Respectfully submitted,

MORRIS PASQUAL
Acting United States Attorney

By: /s/ Malgorzata Tracz Kozaka
MALGORZATA TRACZ KOZAKA
Special Assistant United States Attorney
219 S. Dearborn Street, 5th Floor
Chicago, Illinois 60604
(312) 353-5300

File and source

File: 186.pdf
Size: 233,973 bytes
SHA-256: ba8835a4ae30138cd66427e8f834773e597e73b8bbdaff4dd95ff92ec67c82fc
Our copy: 186.pdf
Original: No public link identified.