Government's Position with Respect to Sentencing Factors — USA v. Ukashat (Dkt. 216)
Summary
The United States' Position with Respect to Sentencing Factors in United States of America v. Mubarak Sulaiman Ukashat, Case No. 2:23-cr-00111-HCN, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah, filed July 29, 2025 as Document 216. The government asks for a 36-month term of imprisonment, the top of the agreed range of 12- to 36-months, plus $392,827 in restitution and $101,000 in forfeiture. It argues that Ukashat, then a Ph.D. candidate at Utah State University, used stolen identities to obtain about $333,900 in EIDL Loans routed through a student club account and at least $58,927 in state unemployment benefits. It describes spending including a $45,900 GMC Yukon bought with cash and transfers of over $100,000 to places including Nigeria and Dubai. It is signed by Assistant United States Attorney Todd C. Bouton.
Summary drafted by a model from the text of the original file linked on this page 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 with Respect to Sentencing Factors — USA v. Ukashat (Dkt. 216).”
Original at ecf.utd.uscourts.gov. Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/source-documents/government-s-position-with-respect-to-sentencing-factors-usa-v-ukashat-dc2a929200/
, SHA-256 2f515dbd08f4cfbc89dce51cc54a671b595f310f0f39dc81941623832b0d744b.Full text
Case 2:23-cr-00111-HCN Document 216 Filed 07/29/25 PageID.1248 Page 1 of
26
FELICE JOHN VITI, Acting United States Attorney (#7007)
TODD C. BOUTON, Assistant United States Attorney (#17800)
MARK Y. HIRATA, Assistant United States Attorney (#5087)
Attorneys for the United States of America
111 South Main Street, Suite 1800
Salt Lake City, Utah 84111
Telephone: (801) 524-5682; todd.bouton@usdoj.gov
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF UTAH
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Case No. 2:23-cr-00111-HCN
Plaintiff, UNITED STATES’ POSITION WITH
RESPECT TO SENTENCING FACTORS
vs.
MUBARAK SULAIMAN UKASHAT, Judge Howard C. Nielson, Jr.
Defendant.
During the pandemic, the SBA Office of Inspector General estimates that the SBA “disbursed
more than $200 billion in potentially fraudulent loans through its COVID-19 relief programs.” 1
Lady Liberty does not invite thieves and criminals into her borders and onto her shores. 2
1. INTRODUCTION
Mubarak Sulaiman Ukashat was born in Nigeria. In 2015, he came to America to
successfully pursue a Ph.D. in physics. He became a lawful permanent resident. He married and
had children and contributed to Muslim student organizations. He sought to become an American
citizen. Outwardly, he appeared to have the makings of a good future citizen. But while he enjoyed
all that America had to offer him, he was stealing from the United States and its citizens.
1
U.S. Small Business Administration Office of Inspector General, White Paper Report 23-09 re COVID-19 Pandemic
EIDL and PPP Loan Fraud Landscape (June 27, 2023) page 8 at
https://www.oversight.gov/sites/default/files/documents/reports/2023-06/SBA-OIG-Report-23-09.pdf (last visited
July 23, 2025). The SBA OIG specifically estimates that more than $136 billion in COVID-19 EIDL Loans and more
than $64 billion in Paycheck Protection Program funds may have been fraudulently obtained. Id.
2
Original thought.
Case 2:23-cr-00111-HCN Document 216 Filed 07/29/25 PageID.1249 Page 2 of
26
During the global COVID-19 pandemic, while so many Americans were struggling, and
Mr. Ukashat was earning a subsidized Ph.D. at Utah State University, Mr. Ukashat betrayed
America and broke her trust. He engaged in a wire fraud scheme to use stolen identifies to
fraudulently obtain about $333,900 in Economic Injury Disaster Loans (EIDL Loans) and at least
$58,927 in state unemployment insurance benefits that he did not qualify for. Within just a few
months, he quickly intercepted and spent the money on things like a $45,900 GMC Yukon
(purchased with cash), $27,000 in electronics, $21,000 to pay off a car loan, $20,000 in debt
payments, $10,000 in earnest money to buy a house, and $5,200 for college expenses. He also
transferred over $100,000 outside of the United States to places like Nigeria and Dubai. He repaid
the United States’ generosity in welcoming him to its shores by exploiting the United States’
pandemic response, misusing COVID relief funds, and damaging the credit of innocent Americans.
After driving the United States to the brink of trial and facing a string of unfavorable rulings
at the final pretrial conference, Mr. Ukashat fired his attorney and obtained another trial
continuance. Seven months later, he belatedly agreed to accept responsibility for his actions by
pleading guilty to a single count of Failure to File Currency and Other Monetary Instrument
Reports (for over $100,000 in currency transactions) in violation of 31 U.S.C. § 5324(c)(1).
Mr. Ukashat has agreed to a sentencing range between 12- to 36-months’ imprisonment.
(ECF 209 [Plea Agreement] ⁋ 12.b.). He has agreed to pay $392,827 in restitution. (Id.) And he
has agreed to $101,000 in forfeiture. (Id. ⁋⁋ 12.b. and 12.h.). He should be sentenced to a 36-month
term of imprisonment. Any lesser sentence would scoff at his related COVID-fraud, identity theft,
wire fraud, and unemployment benefits fraud. The Court should hold Mr. Ukashat fully
accountable for his crimes. He should serve 36 months in prison and pay full restitution.
2
Case 2:23-cr-00111-HCN Document 216 Filed 07/29/25 PageID.1250 Page 3 of
26
2. STATEMENT OF FACTS
2.1 In early 2020, in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, Congress passed the
CARES Act which provided Economic Injury Disaster Loans to help small
businesses weather the pandemic by providing them with working capital.
By March 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic had threatened the United States economy.
Offices, restaurants, and businesses began closing. In response, Congress acted to keep businesses
afloat—ultimately spending over 2 trillion dollars to help protect millions of workers, families,
small businesses, industry sectors, and others from economic disruption caused by the pandemic.
To facilitate this economic rescue effort, on March 25, 2020, Congress passed the
Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act, 15 U.S.C. § 9001 et seq. (the “CARES Act”).
The CARES Act was designed to provide emergency financial assistance to millions of Americans
who were suffering the economic effects caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.
As part of the CARES Act, Congress authorized the U.S. Small Business Administration
(“SBA”) to provide low-interest Economic Injury Disaster Loans (“EIDL Loans”) of up to $2
million to eligible small businesses experiencing substantial financial disruption due to the
COVID-19 pandemic. These EIDL Loans were intended to provide “working capital” to help these
businesses weather the pandemic. In addition, the CARES Act authorized the SBA to issue
advances of up to $10,000 to small businesses within three days of applying for an EIDL Loan.
2.2 From June 23 to July 13, 2020, Mr. Ukashat received approximately $333,900
in EIDL Loan funds into his USUSA Muslim Students Club Account.
In the summer of 2020, Mr. Ukashat was a Ph.D. candidate in Physics at Utah State
University and the President of the university’s Muslim Students Club. Between June 15 and July
8, 2020, he submitted, caused to be submitted, or aided and abetted the submission of at least four
EIDL Loan applications to the SBA. These loan applications contained false statements and
3
Case 2:23-cr-00111-HCN Document 216 Filed 07/29/25 PageID.1251 Page 4 of
26
misrepresentations and purported to be submitted on behalf of four agricultural companies and
their respective representatives or owners who did not know their identities had been stolen and
used to obtain EIDL Loan funds. One of those stolen identities supports the aggravated identity
theft charged in count 5 of the Third Superseding Indictment.
As club President, Mr. Ukashat used his near-exclusive access to the USUSA Muslim
Students Club’s bank account (“Club Account”) to direct fraudulently obtained EIDL Loan funds
to the Club Account in four tranches of approximately $81,200, $48,800, $125,500, and $62,400
in loan proceeds, and another $16,000 in loan advances. The four interstate wire transfers of loan
proceeds into the Club Account support the acts of wire fraud charged in counts 1 through 4. 3 In
just three weeks, the Club Account received approximately $333,900 in ill-gotten funds.
2.3 After receiving each tranche of EIDL Loan funds, Mr. Ukashat promptly
transferred the money out of the Club Account and then further transferred,
withdrew, wired, and spent the money.
On receipt of each deposit of EIDL Loan funds into the Club Account, Ukashat promptly emptied
the Club account. Through cash withdrawals, cashier’s checks, and transfers to other accounts
under his direction or control, he quickly drained the Club Account. He drained it rapidly, before
his fraud could be discovered and any of the EIDL Loan funds could be recovered. From there,
the EIDL Loan money was used for, among other things, personal items and expenses, including
the purchase of a GMC Yukon. Ukashat also caused others to wire-transfer fraud proceeds totaling
over $35,000 to Nigeria and Dubai. A cashier’s check and two international wire transfers support
the acts of money laundering charged in Counts 6 to 8.
///
3
All references to charges relate to the charges in the Third Superseding Indictment against Mr. Ukashat. (ECF 71).
4
Case 2:23-cr-00111-HCN Document 216 Filed 07/29/25 PageID.1252 Page 5 of
26
The chart below graphically depicts how Mr. Ukashat quickly collected the $333,900 in
EIDL Loan funds into the Club Account and then drained the Club Account of those funds:
(Tr. Exhibit 27 [Main Chart]). 4
2.4 Mr. Ukashat used at least five more accounts to move the money out of the
Club Account, which the funds had no business being in, in the first place.
As Mr. Ukashat collected the EIDL Loan funds into the Club Account, he also used at least
five more separate bank accounts to promptly move the money out of the Club Account. These
five additional accounts included:
● An America First Credit Union (“AFCU”) account, controlled by an acquaintance
named Ibrahim Sesay;
4
For the Court’s convenience, the trial exhibits cited in this memorandum are also attached hereto.
5
Case 2:23-cr-00111-HCN Document 216 Filed 07/29/25 PageID.1253 Page 6 of
26
● A Mountain America Credit Union (“MACU”) account, controlled by Mr. Ukashat;
● A Utah State University Credit Union (“USCU”) account, jointly controlled by Mr.
Ukashat and his wife;
● A second AFCU account, jointly controlled by Mr. Ukashat and his wife; and
● A Security Service Federal Credit Union (“SSFCU”) account controlled by his
wife.
This web of accounts through which Mr. Ukashat directly moved much of the fraudulently
obtained EIDL Loan money can be depicted as follows:
(Tr. Ex. 27.4 [Ukashat Movement of Funds]).
6
Case 2:23-cr-00111-HCN Document 216 Filed 07/29/25 PageID.1254 Page 7 of
26
An innocent person who believed he had properly obtained the EIDL Loan money, and
who had no need to disguise the source and disposition of the funds, would have had no need to
shuffle the money through so many accounts. One single account would have sufficed.
Moreover, the use of the Club Account was, itself, suspicious. In 2019, the Club Account
was used to deposit modest amounts of money, primarily to fund evening meals for Muslim
students at Utah State University who were observing Ramadan and fasting during the day. Other
than these Ramadan dinners, the Muslim Students Club (the “Club”) had few other events. More
important, by around June and July 2020, the Club was essentially dormant, and Utah State
University was not holding in-person classes during this early period of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Because the Club was dormant and had nothing to do with EIDL Loans for agricultural businesses,
there was no legitimate reason to direct any of the funds into the Club Account at all.
Further, both the speed at which Mr. Mubarak drained the Club Account of the four
tranches of EIDL Loan funds, and the way that he funneled those funds through his web of
accounts show that he knew the funds were fraudulently obtained and had to be moved quickly.
2.5 After Mr. Ukashat received the EIDL Loan funds, his expenditures spiked
dramatically in the next ten weeks (from June 23 through August 31, 2020).
After Mr. Ukashat received the EIDL Loan funds, his and his wife’s personal expenditures
dramatically increased in a short period of time. From January 1, 2020 to June 22, 2020, he and
his wife spent a total of just $37,327.35. 5 On June 23, 2020, the first tranche of EIDL Loan funds
(in the form of $81,200) hit the Club Account. In the next ten weeks, from June 23 through the end
of August 2020, Mr. Ukashat and his wife spent approximately $147,545.10. 6
5
See Tr. Exhibit 27.5 [Chart (living expenses)].
6
See Tr. Exhibit 27.5 [Chart (living expenses)].
7
Case 2:23-cr-00111-HCN Document 216 Filed 07/29/25 PageID.1255 Page 8 of
26
The charts below illustrate this dramatic increase in Mr. Ukashat’s expenditures in the ten
weeks after the EIDL Loan money began pouring into the Club Account he controlled:
(Tr. Ex. 27.5 [Chart (living expenses)]).
Notably, from 2018 to 2022, Mr. Ukashat and his wife never reported on their tax returns
income greater than $79,397 per year. And for 2020, they only reported a total of $47,197 in
income—despite spending over $147,545 from just June 23 through August 31, 2020.
Furthermore, while $333,900 in EIDL Loan money was pouring into and out of the Club Account,
Mr. Ukashat and his wife were receiving Utah unemployment benefits. Mr. Ukashat’s dramatic
spending spree was apparently financed by the fraudulently obtained EIDL Loan money.
///
8
Case 2:23-cr-00111-HCN Document 216 Filed 07/29/25 PageID.1256 Page 9 of
26
2.6 After America First Credit Union prohibited Mr. Ukashat from sending wires,
he used his wife and another man to wire funds to Nigeria and Dubai.
One of the financial institutions that Mr. Ukashat used to move money from the
fraudulently obtained EIDL Loans was AFCU. An AFCU witness would have testified that on or
about May 14, 2020, Mr. Ukashat tried to send a $6,000 wire from Utah to Nigeria, from one of
his AFCU accounts (account number x3679). An AFCU witness would have further testified that
AFCU denied the wire based on suspected scam activity on the account. This same witness would
have testified that, given her concerns, at the same time that she denied the wire, she placed Mr.
Ukashat’s AFCU account (x3679) on a “no-wire” list. This meant that, among other things, Mr.
Ukashat was not permitted to send any more wires from the account without preapproval from
AFCU’s fraud department. 7 It effectively foreclosed his ability to use the account to wire money.
But Mr. Ukashat’s placement on the “no-wire” list did not deter him from sending EIDL
Loan money overseas. Rather than forego further wires, Mr. Ukashat went around the “no-wire”
list by using his wife, Anabella Hunt, and an acquaintance, Ibrahim Sesay, to wire money to
Nigeria and Dubai through their accounts.
2.6.1 Mr. Ukashat used his wife to wire money to Nigeria.
First, on July 8, 2020, Mr. Ukashat used his wife to send $15,000 of EIDL Loan money to
Nigeria. One can follow the money as follows:
● On July 8, 2020, $62,400 flooded into the Club Account (AFCU x5012) from EIDL
Loan No. 3 to Lambright. Before that money hit the Club Account, there were only
$98.83 in the Club Account (AFCU x5012).
7
Because his account was placed on the “no-wire” list, Mr. Ukashat was also prohibited from making cash
transactions into that account. He could not access online banking for that account. And he had to go into the branch
to withdraw funds from that account.
9
Case 2:23-cr-00111-HCN Document 216 Filed 07/29/25 PageID.1257 Page 10 of
26
● That same day—July 8, 2020—Mr. Ukashat transferred $30,000 from the Club
Account into his and his wife’s joint account at AFCU (AFCU x9711). Before that
$30,000 landed in the joint account, the joint account only had a balance of $481.40.
● That same day—July 8, 2020—a cashier’s check was issued from the joint account
(AFCU x9711) to Mr. Ukashat’s wife for $19,000.
● That same day—July 8, 2020—that $19,000 cashier’s check was deposited into Mr.
Ukashat’s wife’s account at SSFCU (SSFCU x0000). (At the time, the SSFCU
account had $48,551.27 in it—from cash deposits, check deposits, checks from Mr.
Ukashat’s and his wife’s joint account, and checks from the Club Account.)
● That same day—July 8, 2020—$15,000 in EIDL Loan funds shot through the
SSFCU account (SSFCU x0000) like an arrow in a wire transfer to a man named
Muhammad Danasabe Muhammad in Nigeria.
The chart below depicts how Mr. Ukashat used his wife to wire the funds to Nigeria:
(Tr. Exhibit 27.1 [Count 6 – Money Laundering]).
10
Case 2:23-cr-00111-HCN Document 216 Filed 07/29/25 PageID.1258 Page 11 of
26
2.6.2 Mr. Ukashat used Ibrahim Sesay to wire money to Dubai.
Then, just 5 days after using his wife to wire money to Nigeria, on July 13, 2020, Ukashat
used an acquaintance, Ibrahim Sesay, to send another $20,000 of EIDL Loan money to Nigeria.
● On July 13, 2020, another $125,000 of EIDL Loan funds flooded into the Club
Account (AFCU x5012) from EIDL Loan No. 4 to Nelson Farms. Before that
$125,000 hit the Club Account, there were, again, only $98.83 in the Club Account.
● That same day—July 13, 2020—Mr. Ukashat transferred $40,000 from the Club
Account into Ibrahim Sesay’s AFCU account (AFCU x8097). Before that $40,000
deposit, Mr. Sesay’s AFCU account (AFCU x8097) only had 46 cents (46¢) in it.
● That same day—July 13, 2020—Ibrahim Sesay wired $20,000 from his AFCU
account (AFCU x8097) to man named Emmanuel Ejitu Nnanna in Dubai.
The chart below further graphically depicts how Mr. Ukashat used Ibrahim Sesay to wire
the $20,000 of EIDL Loan funds to Dubai:
(Tr. Exhibit 27.2 [Chart (Count 7- Money Laundering)]).
11
Case 2:23-cr-00111-HCN Document 216 Filed 07/29/25 PageID.1259 Page 12 of
26
2.7 The same day that Mr. Ukashat used Ibrahim Sesay to wire money to Dubai,
he also used EIDL Loan funds to withdraw a cashier’s check for $15,000.
On July 13, 2020, the very same day that Mr. Ukashat used Ibrahim Sesay to wire at least
$20,000 of EIDL Loan funds to Dubai, Mr. Ukashat also cut himself a cashier’s check for $15,000.
● On July 13, 2020, $125,000 of EIDL Loan funds flooded into the Club Account
(AFCU x5012) from EIDL Loan No. 4 to Nelson Farms. Before that $125,000 hit
the Club Account, there were, again, only $98.83 in the Club Account.
● That same day—July 13, 2020—Mr. Ukashat withdrew from the Club Account a
cashier’s check for himself for $15,000.
The chart below graphically depicts how Mr. Ukashat diverted this additional $15,000 of
the EIDL Loan funds to himself with a cashier’s check:
(Tr. Exhibit 27.3 [Chart (Count 8 – Money Laundering)]).
12
Case 2:23-cr-00111-HCN Document 216 Filed 07/29/25 PageID.1260 Page 13 of
26
2.8 Around the same time, Mr. Ukashat was also receiving fraudulently obtained
unemployment benefits, ostensibly on the behalf of nine other persons from
three other states in a similar fashion.
Around the same time that $333,900 of EIDL Loan funds were flooding into the Club
Account controlled by Mr. Ukashat, Mr. Ukashat was also receiving a total of $58,927 in
unemployment insurance benefits obtained in the names of nine other persons from three other
states—Washington, Michigan, and Arizona. Like the EIDL Loan funds, these unemployment
insurance benefits were obtained using the stolen identities of other persons to direct government
funds to bank accounts controlled by Mr. Ukashat. Then, in similar fashion, Mr. Ukashat promptly
withdrew, transferred, or spent the fraudulently obtained benefits before they could be rescinded.
The chart below depicts graphically the flow of unemployment insurance benefits obtained
on behalf of the nine other persons from three other states into five of Mr. Ukashat’s Utah accounts.
From May 14 to June 26, 2020, those funds streamed into his personal, Utah bank accounts:
13
Case 2:23-cr-00111-HCN Document 216 Filed 07/29/25 PageID.1261 Page 14 of
26
(Tr. Exhibit 27.6 [Chart (UIB Flow of Funds)]; see also Tr. Exhibit 27.6A [UIB Summary]). 8
Because, around the same time, Mr. Ukashat and his wife were also receiving
unemployment benefits in their own name from the State of Utah, Mr. Ukashat was familiar with
the unemployment benefits process and would have recognized these deposits as fraudulent.
Most important, the unemployment applications for these out-of-state benefits tend to show
that Ukashat had the pattern (modus operandi) of using stolen identities and false information to
fraudulently obtain government funds and benefits intended for others by diverting them to bank
accounts under his control, and then, often within a day or less of their deposit, transferring or
withdrawing the funds for his own personal use before the fraud could be detected and the funds
could be reversed. The unemployment benefits for other victims of identity theft funneling into his
accounts also tend to show that Mr. Ukashat was likewise aware of how the EIDL Loan fraud
scheme worked and knew that the EIDL Loan money was likewise obtained from fraud. His and
his wife’s own unemployment insurance applications also tend to show that Mr. Ukashat had a
financial motive to engage in fraud, because they were unemployed at the time.
2.9 Mr. Ukashat compelled the United States to fully prepare for trial, then fired
his lawyer, and obtained a last-minute trial continuance.
This case was set for trial on June 14, 2024. (ECF 63, 163). On Friday June 7, 2024, the
parties attended what was to be the Final Pretrial Conference for the case. (ECF 162). At that
hearing, the Court ruled on multiple pretrial motions in a way that was unfavorable to Mr. Ukashat.
(See ECF 162). Over the weekend, Mr. Ukashat apparently decided to terminate his defense
attorney, and just three days later, the next Monday, his counsel filed a motion to withdraw. (ECF
8
Mr. Ukashat initially obtained at least $67,516 in fraudulently obtained unemployment insurance benefits funds. But
the State of Arizona managed to claw back and recover $8,589 of those funds.
14
Case 2:23-cr-00111-HCN Document 216 Filed 07/29/25 PageID.1262 Page 15 of
26
151). On June 12, 2024—just 2 days before jury selection, the Court granted Mr. Ukashat’s
counsel’s motion to withdraw. (ECF 160). The trial was continued, and Mr. Ukashat received
court-appointed counsel from the Utah Federal Public Defender’s Office. (ECF 161).
Before the Final Pretrial Conference, the parties had designated experts. The United States
had litigated a motion in limine. The United States had filed and litigated a Rule 404(b) motion.
The United States had filed Daubert motions. The United States had prepared its witness list and,
more important, its witnesses. It had prepared and exchanged all its trial exhibits. It had prepared
voir dire questions and jury instructions. It also filed a comprehensive Trial Brief. The United
States was ready to proceed with trial.
Up to that point, Mr. Ukashat had not assisted authorities in the investigation or
prosecution of his own misconduct by timely notifying authorities of his intention to enter a plea
of guilty, thereby permitting the government to avoid preparing for trial and permitting the
government and the Court to allocate their resources efficiently. USSG § 3E1.1(b).
2.10 Seven months later, after the United States had already fully prepared for
trial, Mr. Ukashat agreed to plead guilty to one count of failure to file currency
and other monetary instrument reports, and to restitution and forfeiture.
Seven months after Mr. Ukashat fired his counsel on the eve of trial, Mr. Ukashat pled
guilty to 1 count of a felony information for Failure to File Currency and Other Monetary
Instruments Reports in violation of 31 U.S.C. § 5324(c)(1). (ECF 203 [Felony Information]; ECF
209 [Plea Agreement] ⁋⁋ 1, 12.a.). Mr. Ukashat also agreed to pay total restitution of $392,827.
(ECF 209 [Plea Agreement] ⁋ 12.g.). Of that total restitution, $333,900 would go to the SBA in
relation to the EIDL Loan funds that Mr. Ukashat fraudulently obtained. (Id.). The other $58,927
would go to the Washington, Michigan, and Arizona unemployment insurance departments to
cover the unemployment insurance benefits Mr. Ukashat fraudulently obtained. (Id.). Mr. Ukashat
15
Case 2:23-cr-00111-HCN Document 216 Filed 07/29/25 PageID.1263 Page 16 of
26
also agreed to forfeiture in the form of a money judgment for $101,000. (Id. ⁋ 12.h.). This money
judgement represents the amount of money that Mr. Ukashat admittedly transferred outside of the
United States without filing required currency and monetary instrument reports.
While ultimately commendable, Mr. Ukashat’s belated acceptance of responsibility did not
spare the United States from having to prepare fully for trial—at least once.
3. GUIDELINE CALCULATION BY THE UNITED STATES
The United States calculates the defendant’s sentencing guidelines as follows:
Count 1: 31 U.S.C. § 5324(c)(1) (Failure to File Currency or Other Monetary
Instruments Reports (“Structuring”)) § 2S1.3(a)(2)
Base Offense Level + 6
§ 2B1.1(b)(1)(E) Loss amount > $95,000 < $150,000 + 8
Structuring ($101,000)
§ 2S1.3(b)(1) Def. knew funds were proceeds of unlawful
activity, or offense involved cash smuggling
of over $100,000 w/in a 12-month period. + 2
§ 2S1.3(b)(2) Committed the offense while violating another
U.S. law in a pattern of unlawful activity
involving over $100,000 in a 12-month period. + 2
§ 3B1.1(c) Aggravating Role – Organizer Leader or Mgr. + 2
Adjusted Offense Level = 20
§ 3E1.1(a) Acceptance of Responsibility - 29
Total Offense Level: + 18
9
Because Mr. Ukashat required the United States to fully prepare for trial, the United States does not believe that Mr.
Ukashat should receive the additional 1-point deduction under USSG § 3E1.1(b). This additional 1-point deduction is
only available where “the government stat[es] that the defendant has assisted authorities in the investigation or
prosecution of his own misconduct by timely notifying authorities of his intention to enter a plea of guilty, thereby
permitting the government to avoid preparing for trial and permitting the government and the court to allocate their
resources efficiently.” Mr. Ukashat’s belated acceptance of responsibility came far too late to allow the United States
to avoid preparing for trial. Nor did it permit the United States to allocate its resources more efficiently to other cases.
16
Case 2:23-cr-00111-HCN Document 216 Filed 07/29/25 PageID.1264 Page 17 of
26
Criminal History Category II (2 Points)
Guideline Sentence Range: 30 to 37 Months
Plea Agreement: 12 to 36 month’s imprisonment (upper end is within Guidelines)
4. THE UNITED STATES’ RECOMMENDED SENTENCE IS REASONABLE
As noted above, the United States recommends that the Court sentence Mr. Ukashat to 36
months’ imprisonment, 3 years of supervised release, $392,827 in restitution, and $101,000 in
forfeiture. (See ECF 209 [Plea Agreement] ⁋⁋ 2, 12.b., and 12.h.). The United States’
recommended sentence is reasonable and supported by the Section 3553(a) factors.
Section 3553(a) of Title 18 of the United States Code (“Section 3553(a)”) provides that
“[t]he court shall impose a sentence sufficient, but not greater than necessary, to comply with the
purposes set forth in paragraph [(a)](2). . . .” 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (emphasis added). These
purposes include the need for the sentence imposed to do the following: (A) to reflect the
seriousness of the offense, to promote respect for the law, and to provide just punishment for the
offense; (B) to afford adequate deterrence to criminal conduct; (C) to protect the public from
further crimes of the defendant; and (D) to provide the defendant with needed educational or
vocational training, medical care, or other correctional treatment in the most effective manner. 18
U.S.C. §§ 3553(a)(2)(A)-(D).
In imposing a sentence, the court should consider these overriding purposes in weighing
all the factors to be considered under Section 3553(a). These factors include: (1) the nature and
circumstances of the offense and the history and characteristics of the defendant; (2) [the
aforementioned overriding purposes]; (3) the kinds of sentences available; (4) the kinds of
sentences and the sentencing range established for the applicable category of offense committed
17
Case 2:23-cr-00111-HCN Document 216 Filed 07/29/25 PageID.1265 Page 18 of
26
by the applicable category of defendant as set forth in the guidelines; (5) any pertinent policy
statement; (6) the need to avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities among defendants with similar
records who have been found guilty of similar conduct; and (7) the need to provide restitution to
any victims of the offense. 18 U.S.C. §§ 3553(a)(1)-(7).
Carefully considered, these factors support the United States’s recommended sentence of
36 months’ imprisonment.
4.1 The nature and circumstances of the offenses and the history and characteristics
of the defendant justify the recommended sentence of 36 months’ imprisonment.
Mr. Ukashat’s education level (Ph.D.); his criminal history; his aggravating role in the
EIDL-Loan fraud, aggravated identity theft, money laundering, unemployment insurance benefits
fraud, and unreported money transfers outside the United States; and the nature and circumstances
of his offenses all support, if not require, a sentence at the top of his Guideline range.
4.1.1 Given the nature of Mr. Ukashat’s criminal offenses, the Court should
impose a sentence at or near the top of his Guideline range.
As noted above, during a global pandemic, and while earning his Ph.D. in physics at a local
university, Mr. Ukashat engaged in a wire fraud scheme to obtain at least $392,827 in COVID-19
relief funds intended for struggling Americans and American businesses. Rather than devoting
himself exclusively to his doctorate and teaching, he used stolen identities to obtain EIDL-Loan
funds and state unemployment insurance benefits under false pretenses. He also laundered his ill-
gotten gains, sending some of it to Nigeria and Dubai. He and his wife spent the money on personal
expenses, living well beyond their means for just over 2 months while they both collected
unemployment—spending about $147,545.10 of EIDL-Loan funds in just 10 weeks. (Tr. Ex. 27.5).
He enlisted others in his scheme—including his wife, an acquaintance named Ibrahim Sesay,
18
Case 2:23-cr-00111-HCN Document 216 Filed 07/29/25 PageID.1266 Page 19 of
26
others in Nigeria and Dubai (who received the money), and potentially others who may have
assisted him in submitting the fraudulent loan applications in execution of his scheme. He
admittedly transferred over $100,000 of (fraudulent) funds overseas without reporting it. And he
concealed these activities over several months, using his dormant Muslim Students Club account
obtained through the Utah State University, the same university that subsidized his Ph.D.
Given Mr. Ukashat’s criminal history and offense level, the United States calculates his
Guideline range at 30-37 months of imprisonment. (See supra, § 3). Mr. Ukashat came to America
and took full and proper advantage of its educational opportunities, even securing a physics
teaching position at a respected liberal arts college in the Midwest. But rather than giving back to
America for all that it provided him – a doctorate, an elite teaching job, and a good life – he stole
from America and fraudulently diverted emergency funds intended for Americans who were truly
suffering in the throes of a pandemic. Worse, he used the stolen identities of many individuals to
carry out his scheme and, in the process, jeopardized the invaluable credit worthiness of his
victims. Given the egregious nature of Mr. Ukashat’s offenses, the Court should sentence Mr.
Ukashat to 36 months in prison—at the top of the parties’ agreed-upon sentencing range.
4.1.2 Mr. Ukashat’s personal history and circumstances also support a
sentence near the top of his Guideline range.
Mr. Ukashat is 38 years old. (PSR at p. 2). 10 He has a Ph.D. in physics from Utah State
University, where he had fully subsidized tuition. (See PSR ⁋ 80). 11 From 2015 to 2022, he worked
10
All references to the PSR relate to the Draft Presentence Investigation Report prepared on July 3, 2025.
11
His dissertation was titled “Graviweak Theory in Biconformal Space.” (PSR ⁋ 80). Apparently, Mr. Ukashat, Ph.D.
sought to create a mathematical model to explain the four basic forces in nature— “the electromagnetic force, which
accounts for interactions of particles with charges; the weak force, which is responsible for radioactive decay; the
strong force, which holds the particles inside a nucleus tightly bound together; and the gravitational force, which is
responsible for keeping us on our beautiful planet, Earth[,] and holding together our entire solar system.” Graviweak
19
Case 2:23-cr-00111-HCN Document 216 Filed 07/29/25 PageID.1267 Page 20 of
26
as an assistant professor at Utah State University. (Id. ⁋ 82). In 2022, he also taught a semester at
Berea College in Kentucky. (Id.). He had the education, training, and experience to make an honest
living in academia. But while completing his Ph.D. in America, he chose to defraud the United
States and innocent Americans by stealing their identifies and diverting COVID-19 relief funds
for his and his wife’s personal expenses and enjoyment, at his victims’ expense.
He has no substance abuse issues and no major medical issues to excuse his behavior. (PSR
⁋⁋ 74-75, 79). His reported anxiety from being charged in this case also postdates the commission
of his crimes. (Id. at 75). Rather, Mr. Ukashat committed his crimes with clear eyes, an American-
educated-physicist’s mind, and, apparently, no remorse. Indeed, he cared little for the harm he
caused the United States and other American victims in his adopted homeland.
In his relatively short time in the United States (10 years), Mr. Ukashat has also managed
to rack up a criminal history. (PSR ⁋⁋ 57-60). 12 His convicted crimes include beating an eight-
year-old child with a stick and kicking her while she was on the ground outside a movie theater,
and driving on a suspended or revoked license—which he did while he was on pretrial release in
this Court. (Id.). Mr. Ukashat’s criminal history is on the low end. But he still falls under Criminal
History Category II and cannot and should not be treated like a zero-point offender. (Id. ⁋⁋ 61-62;
USSG Ch. 5 Pt. A; cf. USSG Ch. 4.C1.1). Under the circumstances, the United States recommends
that Mr. Ukashat be sentenced to 36 months in prison.
4.2. The recommended sentence would further the purposes of § 3553(a).
The purposes of sentencing under Section 3553(a) also support the recommended sentence.
Theory in Biconformal Space, Public Abstract at p. v, at
https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=9769&context=etd (last visited July 25, 2025).
12
Mr. Uksahat came to the United States in 2015 to pursue his Ph.D. (PSR ⁋ 71).
20
Case 2:23-cr-00111-HCN Document 216 Filed 07/29/25 PageID.1268 Page 21 of
26
18 U.S.C. §§ 3553(a)(2)(A)-(D). In this case, a 36-month sentence, along with an appropriate term
of supervised release (3 years) is sufficiently severe, without being excessive. Coupled with full
restitution ($392,827) and appropriate forfeiture ($101,000), the sentence would be appropriate.
The sentence would reflect the seriousness of the offenses (using stolen identifies to fraudulently
obtain $333,900 in COVID-19 relief funds and $58,927 in unemployment insurance benefits),
promote respect for the law, and provide just punishment for Mr. Ukashat’s offenses, without
punishing him more than necessary. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(A).
Mr. Ukashat’s crimes of wire fraud, aggravated identity theft, money laundering, and
related failure to file currency reports are serious. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(A). The loss amount he
obtained—$392,827 in fraudulently obtained COVID-relief funds—is significant. Even worse, he
damaged the credit of innocent victims and left them on the hook for his fraudulent loans until they
could convince the SBA that they had never taken them out. He abused America’s hospitality and
trust while earning a Ph.D. at a state university and involved others in his scheme. Under the
circumstances, a sentence of 36 months’ imprisonment would adequately reflect the seriousness
of his crimes, without punishing him more than necessary. He would receive a felony conviction,
be forced to pay full restitution, and be subject to forfeiture and supervised release. Although on
the harsher side, the sentence would be just and not overly punitive.
Sentencing Mr. Ukashat to 36 months in prison would likewise promote respect for the law
and deter other criminal conduct. 18 U.S.C. §§ 3553(a)(2)(A) and (B). Stealing from COVID-19-
relief programs is a serious offense. Using stolen identities to do it is even more serious. Mr.
Ukashat knew better. He was earning a Ph.D. in physics at the time. He is an intelligent but cunning
man, with little or no regard for the consequences of his actions. He left Americans and American
21
Case 2:23-cr-00111-HCN Document 216 Filed 07/29/25 PageID.1269 Page 22 of
26
small businesses on the hook for his fraud and damaged their credit and faith in humanity while
he callously accepted educational and other benefits from the United States as a noncitizen and
frivolously spent the fraudulently obtained funds. To promote respect for the law and to deter Mr.
Ukashat and others from committing similar crimes, his sentence should be 36 months in prison.
A 36-month prison sentence would provide just punishment for Mr. Ukashat. But it would
not be excessive. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(A). Mr. Ukashat’s crimes were calculated and egregious.
He stole identities from innocent Americans and American small businesses to fraudulently obtain
COVID-relief funds and then spent those funds frivolously and sent at least $101,000 overseas to
places like Nigeria and Dubai. His fraud was a direct attack on this land and country of opportunity.
His fraud was insensitive to struggling Americans and small businesses and was remorseless. He
knew better. Sending him to prison for 36 months would not be excessively punitive.
A sentence of 36 months’ imprisonment, with an appropriate term of supervised release
(likely 3 years) would also serve to protect the public from further crimes. The United States
believes that three years of supervised release would be appropriate, here. Imprisoning Mr.
Ukashat for 36 months would protect the public from his fraud for at least that amount of time. An
additional three years of supervised release would further protect the public from further fraud.
Although the COVID EIDL-Loan program is now closed, absent supervision, Mr. Ukashat cannot
be trusted not to revert to fraud. Three years of supervised release would help prevent Mr. Ukashat
from succumbing to any financial temptation to resort to fraud again. It would perhaps help him
to build a moral compass aligned with American values. And it would likely encourage him to
remain on the straight and narrow path—through sustained honesty, integrity, and full
transparency—while he begins to pay off his significant restitution. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(C).
22
Case 2:23-cr-00111-HCN Document 216 Filed 07/29/25 PageID.1270 Page 23 of
26
Lastly, there is no need to provide Mr. Ukashat with any educational or vocational training,
medical care, or other correctional treatment. 18 U.S.C. §§ 3553(a)(2)(A)-(D). He has all the
education and vocational training he needs. Nor does he need any exceptional medical care that
would be unavailable in federal prison. What he needs is incarceration, extended time well spent
in reflection and thought, to teach him that crime does not pay in America. He needs time to
contemplate his crimes and to pay for them by serving a meaningful prison sentence. He needs
time in prison to turn his life around, regain respect, and become a highly contributing, reformed
member of society. This correctional treatment could best be facilitated with a sentence of 36
months’ imprisonment and 3 years of supervised release. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(D).
For these reasons, the purposes of sentencing support a 36-month prison sentence.
4.3. The recommended sentence is consistent with the kinds of sentences available
under the Guidelines.
The kinds of sentences available under the Guidelines for Mr. Ukashat’s offenses are
consistent with a 36-month prison sentence. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(3). The Guideline range is 30-37
months of imprisonment. (See supra § 3). Because the applicable Guideline range falls within
Zone D of the Sentencing Table, the Guidelines recommend a prison sentence. USSG § 5C1.1(f).
Therefore, a prison sentence is presumed.
Mr. Ukashat’s offenses also support the other aspects of the proposed sentence—
supervised release, restitution, and forfeiture. Mr. Ukashat’s offenses support a term of supervised
23
Case 2:23-cr-00111-HCN Document 216 Filed 07/29/25 PageID.1271 Page 24 of
26
release of up to three years. 13 His offenses support restitution. In fact, restitution is mandatory. 14
His offenses also support forfeiture. 18 U.S.C. §§ 981(a)(1)(C) and 982(a)(3) and 28 U.S.C. §
2461(c). 15 Therefore, the United States’ recommended sentence comports with the sentences
available under the Guidelines. A sentence of 36 months’ imprisonment is appropriate.
4.4. Under the circumstances, a sentence at or near the top of the Guideline sentencing
range for Mr. Ukashat’s crimes would be reasonable.
As noted above, a sentence of 36-months’ imprisonment, with an appropriate term of
supervised release (3 years), full restitution and appropriate forfeiture would reasonable. Mr.
Ukashat is an extremely well-educated man. He is an intelligent man. He could have made an
honest and adequate living teaching university courses in physics or doing a variety of other jobs.
Instead, he chose to steal from the United States and American citizens. His crimes were blatant,
egregious, and remorseless. He deserves 36 months in prison.
4.5. There are no pertinent policy statements regarding Mr. Ukashat’s offenses.
The United States does not believe that any Guidelines Policy Statements are pertinent to
this case or applicable to Mr. Ukashat’s offense(s) and circumstances.
///
///
13
18 U.S.C. § 3583(b)(2) authorizes up to three years of supervised release for a Class C felony. Mr. Ukashat’s
admitted crime of Failure to File Currency and Other Monetary Instruments Reports is a Class C felony. 31 U.S.C. §
5324(c)(1) and (d)(2) (imposing a maximum sentence of 10 years); 18 U.S.C. § 3559(a)(3) (an offense with a
maximum sentence of 10 or more years but less than 25 years is a Class C felony).
14
Restitution is mandatory for crimes causing an identifiable victim a pecuniary loss. 18 U.S.C. §§ 3663A(a)(1) and
(c)(1).
15
“The court in imposing sentence for any violation of section . . . 5324 of this title, or any conspiracy to commit such
violation, shall order the defendant to forfeit all property, real or personal, involved in the offense and any property
traceable thereto. 31 U.S.C. § 5317(c)(1)(A).
24
Case 2:23-cr-00111-HCN Document 216 Filed 07/29/25 PageID.1272 Page 25 of
26
4.6. The recommended sentence would not result in any unwarranted sentencing
disparities among similarly situated defendants.
The need to avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities among similarly situated defendants
is not implicated in this case. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(6). Mr. Ukashat’s extensive wire fraud,
aggravated identity theft, money laundering, and related failure to file currency reports are
uncommonly egregious. His scheme was calculated and extensive, spanning at least four states
and three countries. He enlisted help from at least two to four other people. He defrauded at least
two COVID-19 relief programs—the COVID-19 EIDL Loan program and the COVID-19
unemployment insurance benefits program. He funneled money overseas. The full extent of his
fraud is unknown. And he did it all as a noncitizen while taking advantage of America’s hospitality.
Mr. Ukashat’s crimes have few comparators. Admittedly, some defendants have stolen
more money from COVID relief programs—even by orders of magnitude. But few have stolen
COVID-relief funds in such an egregious manner under these kinds of circumstances. Therefore,
a sentence of 36 month’s imprisonment would not result in any unwarranted sentencing disparity
among Mr. Ukashat and other similarly situated defendants.
4.7. To the extent feasible, the recommended sentence would require Mr. Ukashat to
provide full restitution to the victims of his crimes.
The United States proposes that Mr. Ukashat be ordered to pay full restitution to the SBA
in the amount of $333,900, and full restitution to the States of Washington, Michigan, and Arizona
in the total amount of $58,927. (ECF 209 [Plea Agreement] ⁋ 12.g.); 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(7). Mr.
Ukashat has agreed to pay this restitution. However, based on his pretrial services officer’s
analysis, it appears that Mr. Ukashat can likely afford to pay no more than $100 to $250 per month
25
Case 2:23-cr-00111-HCN Document 216 Filed 07/29/25 PageID.1273 Page 26 of
26
in restitution. (PSR ⁋ 86, 89). 16 If he could only pay $100 per month, it would take him over 327
years to pay his restitution. 17 That is longer than the United States has been in existence and well
beyond his life expectancy. Even if he could pay $250 per month, it would still take him over 130
years to pay his restitution, and he would still be long dead before the restitution could be repaid.
The unlikelihood that full restitution will be made also supports a longer, 36-month sentence.
5. STATEMENT OF GOOD FAITH
As required by DUCrimR 32-1(b) the United States has conferred in good faith with
opposing counsel and with the probation officer in an attempt to resolve any disputed matters. The
United States recommends that the Court impose the United States’ recommended sentence.
DATED this 29th day of July, 2025.
FELICE JOHN VITI
Acting United States Attorney
/s/ Todd C. Bouton
TODD C. BOUTON
Assistant United States Attorney
16
The pretrial services officer recommends that Mr. Ukashat pay restitution at a minimum rate of 10% of gross income
or $100 per month, whichever is greater. (PSR ⁋ 89). This amounts to no more than $250 per month. (Id. ⁋ 86).
17
This does not take into account interest or the loss to the United States from inflation.
26
File and source
- File
- 216-government-s-position-with-respect-to-sentencing-factors-as-.pdf
- Size
- 1,108,076 bytes
- SHA-256
- 2f515dbd08f4cfbc89dce51cc54a671b595f310f0f39dc81941623832b0d744b
- Original
- PACER (login required)