Government’s Sentencing Memorandum and Motion for a Sentence Above the Guideline Range — United States v. John Trasacco, No. 3:22cr33 (OAW) (Dkt. 275, D. Conn.)
Summary
Prosecutors in the District of Connecticut ask for a sentence above the 33-41 month guideline range for John Trasacco, whom a jury convicted on December 2, 2022 of wire fraud conspiracy and wire fraud with Michael DiMassa. The memorandum, dated March 21, 2023, says Trasacco gave DiMassa phony invoices from two Trasacco entities, L&H and JIL, for COVID supplies and a $184,019 UV light cleaning never ordered by West Haven, which paid $431,982 in checks to those entities; Trasacco kept nearly all of it. It quotes DiMassa's trial testimony about being taken into an empty building and a post-arrest call, and cites six prior convictions, only one of which scored criminal history points. The government opposes a minor-role reduction and seeks restitution of $411,982, net of about $20,000 in cash kickbacks.
Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used
Full text
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA : Case No. 3:22cr33 (OAW)
:
v. :
:
JOHN TRASACCO : March 21, 2023
GOVERNMENT'S SENTENCING MEMORANDUM AND
MOTION FOR A SENTENCE ABOVE THE GUIDELINE RANGE
I. Introduction
John Trasacco conspired with Michael DiMassa to steal from the citizens of
West Haven over $400,000 in funds designated for COVID relief during the
pandemic. Trasacco himself kept virtually all of the proceeds of the crime. For
the reasons stated below, because § 2B1.1 of the Sentencing Guidelines does not
fully account for the particular nature and circumstances of Trasacco’s offense
conduct, the Court should exercise its discretion under § 3553(a) and impose a
sentence above the advisory Guideline range; order the defendant to pay restitution;
and impose a period of supervised release that will ensure that in the future,
Trasacco will at last live a life within the confines of the law.
II. Offense Conduct
On December 2, 2022, the jury convicted Trasacco of conspiring to commit
wire fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1349 and substantive wire fraud in violation of
18 U.S.C. § 1343. During the course of the trial, the Court heard extensive
testimony of how Trasacco gave DiMassa phony invoices from two entities
1
controlled by Trasacco, L&H and JIL, for products and services that had never been
ordered by West Haven. A litany of West Haven municipal officials testified that
they had neither ordered nor seen any of the goods listed on the fraudulent invoices.
Some of the buildings listed on the JIL invoice that were to be reviewed for a
supposed $184,019 ultraviolent (“UV”) light cleaning by JIL had been closed and
boarded up for some time. All told, the City of West Haven issued checks totaling
$431,982 to Trasacco’s entities, all of which he promptly cashed.
A. DiMassa Meets Trasacco Through Bernardo
At the time DiMassa met Trasacco, DiMassa and John Bernardo were
operating a scheme involving an entity called Compass Investments that would
eventually defraud West Haven of over $600,000. Bernardo introduced DiMassa to
Trasacco:.
Q. Let's reset the scene. You went to Mickey Blakes?
A. Yes.
Q. And that was the first time you met John Trasacco?
A. Yes.
Q. And John Bernardo was there?
A. That's correct.
Q. And did John Bernardo introduce you to Mr. Trasacco?
A. Yes.
Q. And you sat down at a table?
A. Correct.
2
Q. That the initial meeting, what did Mr. Trasacco tell you about
himself?
A. He told me that he wrote screenplays or was a writer. He told me
that he had been to prison in the past. He wrote in prison. He invented
in prison. He told me about a coffee cup.
DiMassa Trial Testimony at 32-33.
Trasacco would go on to tell DiMassa that he (Trasacco) had been to prison in
Mexico. He introduced DiMassa to an illegal gambling operation at Doma
restaurant, and eventually collected money from DiMassa for wagers DiMassa
made and lost through the Doma operation. Id. at 34-36, 40-44. Trasacco began
to give DiMassa L&H invoices for COVID supplies that had never been ordered by
West Haven. Id. at 44-45, 53-57, et seq. DiMassa processed the invoices and
gave the checks to Trasacco at Doma. See, e.g., id. at 62-63. Trasacco cashed the
checks despite delivering only a very small portion of the items on the invoices. Id.
at 63-65, 69-70.
B. Trasacco takes DiMassa to an Empty Building
When DiMassa expressed concerns that multiple L&H invoices had been paid
without much product, Trasacco took him into an empty building across the street.
Q. You walked out of Doma?
A. Correct.
Q. And did you walk across the street?
A. Yes.
Q. Where did you go after you walked across the street?
A. Through the alleyway back to the building.
3
Q. What happened next?
A. We proceeded to enter the building.
Q. And did you enter the building?
A. Yes.
Q. Once you are inside the building, what happened next?
A. We walked inside and kind of made a semi-circle
around the inside until I got to the point where there was
the glass-paned window and I was standing there and Mr.
Trasacco was standing in front of me.
Q. And what happened next?
A. He thanked me for my help and he told me it was
appreciated.
Q. Did he say anything else?
A. He didn't. But we didn't leave immediately. There
was, like, an awkward pause. It was kind of an awkward
pause. And then finally, yes, he proceeded to turn around
and we left the building and then entered out into the
alleyway in the back.
[…]
Q. Did he mention anything else?
A. He did mention that I had kept my word from our
original conversation about COVID relief.
Q. What did you understand that to mean?
A. That I had obviously delivered on the invoices that
he gave me.
Q. Without product?
A. Yes.
4
Q. And when you were standing there, where were you both
standing in relation to the exit?
A. Mr. Trasacco was between myself and the exit.
Q. And where was he standing relative to you?
A. Close. We were very close together.
Q. How did this make you feel?
A. Kind of uneasy, to say the least.
[…]
Q. You said you felt uneasy?
A. It did not make me feel comfortable, no.
[…]
Q. Where you concerned for your safety?
A. Yes.
Q. What do you mean by that?
A. I was concerned that after the first conversation
about L & H, about the amount of money, I was concerned
that there would be a continued push and that my pushing
back on further --
[…]
Q. Were you concerned for your safety?
A. Yes, I was.
Q. Why?
A. I was concerned because of our first conversation,
that because of my pushback on the amount of money and the
lack of product, that if I didn't continue doing this
5
there would be issues.
DiMassa Trial Testimony at 104-107.
Trasacco continued to provide DiMassa with fraudulent L&H invoices, and
Trasacco personally received all of the money that West Haven paid to L&H by
depositing the checks into an account controlled solely by Trasacco. Eventually,
the L&H fraud was abandoned because hundreds of thousands of dollars of invoices
have been processed for items never ordered or received by West Haven, and
DiMassa was concerned that the amount of money paid to L&H for these tangible
items would eventually draw attention. Id. at 114-16, 124-28. Trasacco,
Bernardo and DiMassa subsequently conspired to start a new fraud scheme,
proposed by Trasacco, in which Trasacco would purport to provide UV light cleaning
services to West Haven. Id. at 125. Bernardo, Trasacco and DiMassa agreed to
split to proceeds with each taking $40,000 with additional monies for Trasacco. Id.
at 128-29. The very next day, Trasacco emailed to DiMassa a fraudulent invoice
from JIL Sanitation Solutions LLC in the amount of $184,019. Id. at 129-30.
DiMassa called Trasacco and told him that given the amount of the invoice, more
detail was needed. Trasacco asked DiMassa to give him the square footage of the
buildings listed on the invoice, which DiMassa did; Trasacco then sent a revised
invoice to DiMassa. Id. at 131-32. DiMassa then arranged to have West Haven
issue a check to JIL for the $184,019, and delivered the check to Trasacco, who once
again retained all of the proceeds. Id. at 133-34.
6
After DiMassa realized that the FBI was investigating his schemes, he and
Bernardo called Trasacco to tell him that the “jig is up.” Id. at 138-40. DiMassa
and Bernardo were arrested shortly thereafter on a federal criminal complaint,
C. Trasacco Arranges a Post-Arrest Visit to DiMassa’s Home
After DiMassa was arrested on a federal criminal complaint, he received a
call from Trasacco, who had not yet been arrested:
Q. What did he say to you?
A. He reached out, basically said that the 116th District lost a good
representative, and he also advised me that some of the people from
Doma that I knew wanted to send food to the house, wanted to send
something to the house.
Q. Say that again?
A. That some of the people that we mutually knew from
Doma wanted to send food to my house.
DiMassa Trial Testimony at 145.
DiMassa indicated that he left his residence but that a security camera at his
home recorded the fact that a unknow male showed up at his home
Q. Tell the jury what happened.
A. So around early afternoon according to the time stamp
on the video, I was able to see a gentleman in a hoodie,
completely the hood covering most of his face from the
view of this camera.
Id. at 147.
DiMassa indicated to the federal law enforcement that he did not recognize
the man at his door and the individual did not have any food in his hands. No one
from Doma ever came to deliver food to DiMassa.
7
In the end, DiMassa explained he facilitated Trasacco’s schemes due to several
reasons:
Q. Is there, at the end of the day, is there a reason
that you and helped Mr. Trasacco steal $400,000 from West
Haven?
A. Yes. I mean, as far as the scheme progressed the
fear that there was no way for me to stop it was another
reason to continue, for my participation to continue.
Q. Why did you feel there was no way for you to stop it?
A. A couple of reasons. One being I did not know
whether or not Mr. Trasacco was aware of Compass. I knew
of the connection with my gambling debts with Mr. Perreta
and Mr. Trasacco, from paying Mr. Trasacco. I also,
obviously through my pushing back on L & H invoices at
times, the dollar amount, was concerned when he reacted
negatively to that. It was concerning. And certainly the
experience across the street from Doma was a factor. So
all of those items.
[…]
Q. What do you mean by the experience across the street
from Doma?
A. The walk through the alley into the shop in the back
that he was looking to rent, and obviously the experience
in that shop, the awkward encounter.
Q. Was it just awkward?
A. No, it was scary.
Q. You were scared?
A. Absolutely.
Q. Are you scared of John Trasacco?
8
A. Yes, I am.
DiMassa Trial Testimony at 184-185.
III. Guideline Calculation
In the PSR, the probation officer concluded that the base offense level for
Trasacco’s conduct under § 2B1.1 is 7, Twelve levels are added because the loss
exceeded $250,000 but was less than $550,000, resulting in a total offense level of
19. PSR ¶¶ 31-41. Thus, the total offense level is 19. With a CHC of II, the
Guidelines recommend a term of incarceration of 33-41 months, a fine of $10,000 to
$100,000, and a term of supervised release of between 2 and 5 years. Id. ¶¶ 90, 96,
102.
In his sentencing memorandum, Trasacco argues that he was a minimal or
minor participant in the conspiracy, and that the Court should therefore
downwardly depart from the Guideline range. See Def’s Sentencing Memo at 6
(Doc 267). For the reasons stated below, the facts clearly establish that Trasacco
was not a minor participant in the wire fraud conspiracy. As also stated below, the
Government believes that in consideration of the factors under § 3553(a), a sentence
of incarceration above the applicable Guideline range is warranted in this case.
IV. Restitution
During his conspiracy with DiMassa, Trasacco received a total of $431,982 in
COVID relief funds from West Haven, through L&H and JIL. The PSR
recommends that Trasacco be ordered to pay restitution in that amount. PSR
¶ 104. The Government notes, however, that Trasacco provided cash kickbacks of
9
about $20,000 in total to DiMassa and Bernardo. Thus, like the other defendants
in this case, the Government believes that Court should apportion Trasacco’s
restitution to include the amount that Trasacco gained from the scheme, and order
him to pay restitution in the amount of $411,982.
V. A Sentence above the Suggested Guideline Range is Warranted
Under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)
In this case, a sentence above the suggested guidelines range is warranted
because there aggravating circumstances of a kind or to a degree not adequately
taken into consideration by the Sentencing Commission. See e.g. 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(b). An enhanced sentence is warranted under § 3553(a) for three reasons.
First, the Guidelines that apply to this case do not adequately capture the
totality of Trasacco’s offense conduct. Both parties agree that the relevant
Guideline section is § 2B1.1, which is primarily driven by loss amounts, and that
calculation similarly will apply to DiMassa and the two other co-conspirators (Knox
and Bernardo) who separately conspired with DiMassa. Trasacco’s conspiracy with
DiMassa occurred in a materially different manner than DiMassa’s other
conspiracies. With Bernardo and Knox, DiMassa approached each of them to
initiate the fraud schemes. DiMassa prepared the fraudulent invoices used to
perpetrate the schemes, and DiMassa kept the bulk of the stolen money for himself.
In sharp contrast, Trasacco approached DiMassa first with the L&H scheme and,
when that scheme had run its course, Trasacco later proposed the JIL scheme.
Trasacco provided the phony invoices from L&H and JIL to DiMassa. And unlike
DiMassa’s other co-conspirators, Trasacco kept the vast majority of the fraudulent
10
proceeds of his conspiracy, providing only limited cash kickbacks to DiMassa and
Bernardo. Moreover, Trasacco tried to keep the schemes going through subtle
manipulation. He told DiMassa that he been in prison in the United States.
Trasacco also told DiMassa that he had been in prison in Mexico. Trasacco has
been incarcerated in the U.S., but the FBI has not been able to confirm whether
Trasacco’s assertion that he spent time in a Mexican prison is correct. Whether
this assertion is true or was merely Trasacco attempting to portray himself as an
intimidating figure is irrelevant, because DiMassa believed it to be true, meaning
that Trasacco achieved his desired result. Additionally, Trasacco collected
gambling debts from DiMassa at Doma in Branford. When DiMassa started to
push back on the L&H scheme, Trasacco took him into an abandoned building and
thanked DiMassa for keeping his “word” regarding the processing of the invoices for
COVID relief funds.
After the FBI visited West Haven City Hall, DiMassa and Bernardo informed
Trasacco that the “jig was up.” After DiMassa was arrested, Trasacco called him
and said an individual from Doma as going to stop by DiMassa’s home to deliver
food. Thereafter, a man in a hoodie arrived on DiMassa’s doorstep. He was not
carrying any food.
Trasacco’s repeated, successful efforts to manipulate and intimidate
DiMassa, perpetuate the L&H scheme, and to begin the new scheme involving JIL
are far beyond a typical fraud scheme, and are not accounted for under the ordinary
operation of § 2B1.1 of the Guidelines. Trasacco’s conduct during his conspiracy
11
with DiMassa places him in a league apart from DiMassa’s other co-conspirators,
and a sentence above the suggested Guidelines range is warranted on these facts
alone. In sum, Trasacco’s criminal conduct was not like the other two related
conspiracies and exceeds the normal considerations inherent in § 2B1.1. And as
should be clear, they belie any effort by Trasacco to now cast himself as a “minimal”
or “minor” participant in his conspiracy with DiMassa.
Second, a sentence above the recommended Guidelines range is necessary to
serve the goal of specific deterrence. For two of the defendant’s convictions, he
spent over six years in jail. But this term of incarceration plainly did not deter him
from committing the crimes in this case. Indeed, it appears that Trasacco used the
fact that he had previously been incarcerated to influence DiMassa to continue with
their scheme.
Third, Trasacco has an extensive criminal history that is not fully quantified
in the Guideline analysis. According to the PSR, Trasacco has six prior criminal
convictions, including for the Sale of a Controlled Substance, Assault in the First
Degree, Robbery in the First Degree, and twice refusing a DNA test. Yet only one
of these convictions counted for the purpose of assigning Criminal History points,
and five prior convictions are not included in his criminal history score. In general,
if a defendant’s criminal history category substantially underrepresents the
seriousness of his criminal history or the likelihood that the defendant will commit
other crimes, a sentence above the suggested Guideline range can be imposed
(emphasis added). See e.g. U.S.S.G. § 4A1.3. Here Trasacco committed two
12
independent crimes on different dates for which he received one sentence of seven
years’ incarceration. PSR ¶¶ 48-49. While serving that sentence, he was placed
in punitive segregation. But these convictions and period of incarceration plainly
did not decrease the likelihood that Trasacco would commit another crime. As a
result, the Court needs to impose a significant sentence in order to provide specific
deterrence to Trasacco and to protect the public from further crimes of the
defendant. See e.g. § 3553(a)1(B) and § 3553(a)1(C).
Taking these three considerations together, a sentence above the suggested
Guideline range is warranted for the defendant in this case.
VI. The Defendant was Not a Minor Participant
The defendant argues that he deserves a reduction for minor role because, inter
alia, his “charges are solely related to Michael DiMassa.” Def’s Brief at 7. Further,
the defendant attempts to argue that “[g]iven the relative culpability between
participants and the fact that Mr. Trasacco was the one who made any effort to
provide goods and services, Mr. Trasacco should be afforded a mitigating role
adjustment. Id.
It is difficult to understand how this argument entitles the defendant to a
reduction for a minor role. The uncontested evidence at trial was that both the L&H
scheme and the JIL scheme originated from the defendant once he learned that
DiMassa had access to Covid funds from West Haven. Further, Trasacco kept
almost all of the proceeds from those schemes.
13
The defendant attempts to advance the fiction that he is a legitimate
businessman who intended to deliver goods to West Haven, ignoring the facts that
none of the goods and services had ever been requested by West Haven. But the
jury rejected this narrative and convicted him on all counts. As the individual who
initiated both schemes, kicked back a small portion of the proceeds to DiMassa, and
kept the rest of that money which he dissipated for his own interests (largely at a
casino), it is plain that a mitigating role is not warranted in this case. Indeed the
facts show that, while DiMassa was an essential part of these conspiracies, the
defendant was the driving force behind these crimes.
Further, the defendant attempts to make much that L&H made apparel and
had a warehouse in Branford. See Def’s Brief at 7 and Exhibit B. The company
does not appear to generate any income for the defendant and appears to have
never filed a tax return. Further, according to the PSR, it is not clear how the
defendant financially supports himself or where he obtained $500,000 for this
business venture. PSR ¶ 119. The defendant has no stable income and lives with
his girlfriend who works as a waitress and owns the home in which he lives. PSR
¶ 79. The defendant indicates that the businesses outlined in the Offense conduct
in this case are no longer operating and he did not provide any additional
information about those companies. PSR ¶ 80.
14
VII. Analysis of the § 3553(a) Factors
Section 3553(a) directs the district court to consider a number of factors in
imposing a fair and just sentence. Each criminal case is different and emphasizes
different combinations of § 3553(a) factors. In this matter, the Government
believes the most important § 3553(a) factors are the (1) the nature and
circumstances of the offense, (2) promoting respect for the law; (3) just punishment,
(4) specific deterrence and (5) general deterrence.
A. The Nature and Circumstances of the Offense
There’s little doubt that the theft of public funds designated for COVID relief
constitutes of a serious offense. And while the defendant was not a public official,
he plainly exploited the situation to obtain COVID funds through DiMassa. As
indicated above, this conspiracy was largely driven by the defendant for his own
benefit. A significant sentence of incarceration is warranted.
B. The Sentence Must Promote Respect for the Law and Provide Just
Punishment
The sentence in this case must promote respect for the law.
Considering the municipal funds were specifically earmarked to address an ongoing
historic pandemic, a significant period of incarceration is particularly warranted to
promote respect for the law. And such a sentence provide just punishment. Those
who take from the public in a time of need deserve a significant punishment.
C. The Sentence Must Provide Specific Deterrence
In this case for this defendant, specific deterrence is one of the most
important considerations for the Court under § 3553. This defendant has six prior
15
convictions, including for both Assault in the First Degree and Robbery in the First
Degree. And then he committed these crimes years later. It is plain that the
defendant has little respect for the law. Of the defendant’s six convictions, only
one resulted in criminal history points being used to determine the applicable term
of incarceration under the Guidelines.
For the assault and robbery convictions , the defendant effectively received a
sentence of seven years in prison, even though the offenses occurred approximately
one month apart. See PSR ¶ ¶ 48-49. But even in prison, his conduct did not
change. While incarcerated, he was cited for flagrant disobedience and received a
period of time in punitive segregation. It is notable that this significant term of
incarceration did not dissuade the defendant from committing the new offenses in
this case. This augers for a sentence of incarceration above the applicable range in
this case.
D. The Sentence Must Provide General Deterrence
Additionally, the Court should consider general deterrence. Here, the
defendant conspired to steal municipal funds with an employee of that municipality
But, these funds were specifically designed to provide relief from the COVID
pandemic for the citizens of West Haven. The public should know that stealing
municipal funds earmarked to alleviate the economic ravages of the pandemic will
result in a felony conviction and a period of incarceration.
16
VIII. Conclusion
After considering the Sentencing Guidelines and the other sentencing factors
under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), the Court should impose a term of incarceration above
the applicable Guideline range and order the defendant to pay $411,982 in
restitution.
Respectfully submitted,
VANESSA ROBERTS AVERY
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
/s
RAY MILLER
ASSISTANT UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
FEDERAL BAR NO. CT 20451
DAVID J. SHELDON
FEDERAL BAR NO. CT 07997
ASSISTANT UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
157 CHURCH STREET, 23RD FLOOR
NEW HAVEN, CT 06510
(203) 821-3700
17
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
This is to certify that on March 21, 2023 a copy of the foregoing
Memorandum was filed electronically. Notice of this filing will be sent by email to
all parties by operation of the Court’s electronic filing system or by mail on anyone
unable to accept electronic filing as indicated on the Notice of Electronic Filing.
Parties may access this filing through the Court=s CM/ECF System.
/s
Ray Miller
Assistant U.S. Attorney
18
File and source
- File
- gov.uscourts.ctd.148455.275.0.pdf
- Size
- 208,137 bytes
- SHA-256
- c757c094203a4923465f5899eb8c5abae67e796b2efa02f66ab98b1bef712794
- Original
- archive.org