Government’s Sentencing Memorandum — United States v. Desmond Fodje Bobga, Criminal No. 21-430 (Dkt. 65, W.D. Pa.)
Summary
Prosecutors in the Western District of Pennsylvania ask for 27 months in prison and three years of supervised release for Desmond Fodje Bobga, who pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit wire fraud over a puppy scam run from Romania and Cameroon between June 2018 and June 2020. The memorandum says the conspirators sold puppies and other animals they never had to at least 70 victims, then demanded more money for transport, crates and vaccines, and coronavirus exposure, with intended loss exceeding $100,000. The guideline range is 21 to 27 months, and the plea agreement puts restitution at $79,030. It quotes texts in which a Pennsylvania victim paid $1,100 for a crate and vaccine, and compares United States v. Fonjeck Eric Azoh, a puppy-scam defendant sentenced to 30 months. The government opposes dropping supervised release on deportation grounds.
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
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )
)
v. ) Criminal No. 21-430
)
DESMOND FODJE BOBGA )
GOVERNMENT’S SENTENCING MEMORANDUM
AND NOW, comes the United States of America, through its counsel, Cindy K. Chung,
United States Attorney for the Western District of Pennsylvania, and Christopher M. Cook,
Assistant United States Attorney for said District, and Gustav W. Eyler, Director, and Wei Xiang,
Trial Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice, Consumer Protection Branch, and respectfully submits
its Sentencing Memorandum.
A. Factual Background
From in and around June 2018, and continuing thereafter until in and around June 2020, in
the Western District of Pennsylvania and elsewhere, the Defendant did knowingly and willfully
conspire, combine, confederate and agree with other persons known and unknown, to commit an
offense against the United States, that is, wire fraud, in violation of Title 18, United States Code,
Sections 1349 and 1343.
From Romania and Cameroon, the Defendant and his co-conspirators executed a “puppy
scam” against consumer-victims in Pittsburgh and across the United States. The conspirators
offered puppies and other animals for sale on internet websites. The Defendant and others
communicated by text message and email with victims to induce purchases of puppies and/or other
animals. Following each purchase, the Defendant and his co-conspirators claimed that a
transportation company would deliver the puppy or other animal and provided a false tracking
number for the pet. The Defendant and his co-conspirators, posing as the transportation company,
1
then claimed the pet transport was delayed and that the victim needed to pay additional money for
delivery of the pet.
The Defendant and other members of the conspiracy received money directly and indirectly
through wire communications from victims who thought they were purchasing pets. After
supposed purchases of pets were made, the Defendant and co-conspirators told some victims that
they needed to pay more money for delivery because the pet had been exposed to the coronavirus.
Some members of the conspiracy used false promises and bogus documents regarding shipping
fees and coronavirus exposure to extract successive payments from victims. The Defendant and
his co-conspirators never possessed, shipped, or delivered the puppy or other animals that at least
70 victims were fraudulently induced to purchase, with intended loss attributable to the Defendant
exceeding $100,000.
The Defendant was charged for this conduct on June 30, 2020, in a 12-count Criminal
Complaint. The Defendant waived indictment and pled guilty to the one-count Information
charging him with Conspiracy to Commit Wire Fraud.
B. The Sentencing Guidelines and Restitution
The Probation Office prepared a Presentence Investigation Report in this case. The
advisory sentencing Guideline range, based on an offense level of 16 (with credit for acceptance
of responsibility) and a Criminal History Category of I, is 21 to 27 months. For the reasons stated
below, the United States requests that the Court impose a sentence at the high end of that range.
The Presentence Investigation Report notes that the statutory maximum term of supervised
release is three years, and the United States requests that the Court impose the full three-year term
of supervised release. The Defendant recognizes that pleading guilty may have consequences with
respect to his immigration status, and that removal proceedings after a guilty plea are
2
presumptively mandatory. However, no one can predict to a certainty the effect of his conviction
on his immigration status. There is no guarantee that the Defendant will be deported subsequent
to his conviction in this case. As such, the United States submits that the Defendant should not
be granted an exception with regards to a term of supervised release, and requests that the full
three-year term be imposed.
Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3663A, restitution shall be ordered in this case. There are multiple
victims in this case who have suffered financial loss. In their plea agreement, the parties had
calculated the amount of restitution for which the Defendant is liable as a total of $79,030.
C. The Sentencing Factors at 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)
The Court is required to thoroughly consider all of the sentencing factors set forth in 18
U.S.C. § 3553(a). Those factors include the following: (1) the nature and circumstances of the
offense and the history and characteristics of the defendant; (2) the need for the sentence imposed
to reflect the seriousness of the offense, to promote respect for the law, and to provide just
punishment for the offense; (3) the need to afford adequate deterrence to criminal conduct, and to
protect the public from further crimes of the defendant; (4) the need to provide the defendant with
educational or vocational training, medical care, or other correctional treatment in the most
effective manner; (5) the guidelines and policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission;
(6) the need to avoid unwarranted sentence 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. A sentence at the high end of the Guidelines range is a sufficient but not
greater than necessary sentence for this fraud scheme.
The impact of the Defendant’s fraud scheme warrants a sentence at the high end of the
Guidelines range. First, the USSG sentence is appropriately calculated. In addition to the
3
undisputed intended fraud loss of $95,000 to $150,000, specific offense characteristics for the
offense involving 10 or more victims (PSR p. 6) and conducting a substantial part of the scheme
outside the United States (Id.) were accurate increases to the Defendant’s base offense level.
Furthermore, the Guidelines in this case are, to a large degree, driven by victim-related
considerations and rightly so. The Defendant knowingly exploited the emotional vulnerabilities
of his victims. Some victims sought to obtain a puppy to fill the void left by a former beloved pet;
some victims wanted to find a companion for their parent, child, or other loved one. The COVID-
19 pandemic exacerbated these emotional needs in the later months of the conspiracy. As
exemplified in the following excerpted messages between the Defendant and a victim who resided
in New Brighton, Pennsylvania (who was referred to as “Victim-1” in the Criminal Complaint and
during the Preliminary Hearing conducted on May 21 and June 9, 2021, and who lost thousands
of dollars), no lie was beneath the Defendant to spin to fleece these victims:
Date Sender Message
3/13/20 Victim-1 Have u found out anything yet?
3/13/20 Defendant There is some delays There is no direct flight and delivery
will be done tomorrow morning with your total refunds ok.
3/14/20 Victim-1 What's the news on my puppy?
3/14/20 Defendant We are having a situation at the agency , you will need to get
a Crate and Vaccine for your puppy.
3/14/20 Victim-1 So I have to spend more money before I will be able to get
her so wasnt [sic] I told about this yesterday
3/14/20 Victim-1 I'm trying to get this dog for my mom since we had to put
hers down and this one looks exactly like her.
3/14/20 Defendant All you need to do is get a Refundable Crate and Vaccine for
your puppy and the fee is 100% refundable upon delivery of
your puppy today at your home address. This is to regulate
your pups temperature and protect your puppy through out
the flight keep your pups temperature stable and also protect
your puppy against the Virus
3/14/20 Defendant The fee for the Crate and Vaccine is 1100$ refundable upon
delivery of your puppy at your home address. Once you able
to get that done you will be getting your puppy delivered to
you in the next 3hours maximum
4
3/14/20 Victim-1 [After paying the $1,100] So is this gonna be everything now
and my puppy will be delivering [sic] to me
3/14/20 Defendant Ok everything is good to go
3/14/20 Victim-1 So is everything going ok and my puppy will be delivered
3/14/20 Defendant Yes i totally assure you and give you all guarantee
3/14/20 Victim-1 Ok great. So is she on the flight now for me to pick up at the
Pittsburgh airport
3/14/20 Defendant Yes you babies [sic] crate and vaccine has been confirmed
there is no direct flight so she took off for Kentucky, where
there is a transit and from there to PA.
3/18/20 Defendant Your baby is on the way to PA already, once the shippers get
to the Airport they will give you updates. Also to confirm
when you are available to drive over to your home for the
delivery. So you will be getting your baby today.
3/18/20 Victim-1 I thought I was picking her up at the airport
3/18/20 Defendant That won't be the case cause [sic] they will be landing at the
Philadelphia International Airport.
3/18/20 Defendant 2 cases of Corona Virus where detected upon arrival , cause
every flight once it lands is well checked. On the flight on
which Pansy was it was detected 2 people have Corona Virus.
3/18/20 Victim-1 So in a way I have to pay 1500 so they can check my puppy
to see if shes in good health and then there send her or will
they still keep her the 10 days
3/18/20 Defendant If we can do that they will send her in like 5days she wont
spend 10days . Also today the Insurance department will be
needing your Bank Info after that to process and send your
refunds they will email you
3/18/20 Victim-1 Do u have a flight number? That pansy was on
3/18/20 Defendant On a follow up to get all details, due to the cases of the
Corona Virus on board, i am sorry that information cannot be
released ,please do understand . This is because people will
spread the information and it can cause serious panic.
3/18/20 Victim-1 I just wanted to see if my puppy is actually in philly to make
sure cause I do not want to get scammed on
3/18/20 Defendant I am a Christian and i have been working here for more than
7 years , i am a dad of 2 and i cannot get my self involved
into any scam , my family is build [sic] on the teachings of
Jesus Christ and i cannot get myself into something which is
not correct.
3/18/20 Defendant If we will be able to get the fee so the refunds can be
processed tomorrow and you get your baby Friday
3/18/20 Victim-1 I dont have the fee to process anything I'm fucken broke
3/18/20 Defendant I also to [sic] tell you but it [sic] we do not get this , you wont
be able to get your refunds , neither your puppy. [. . .]
5
Thus far, the United States has received Victim Impact Statements from 11 of the
Defendant’s victims. Significant emotional and financial strain to the victims are apparent in their
descriptions of the Defendant’s crime and its effect on their lives and the lives of their family
members. These impact statements are consistent with what numerous other victims have
experienced in this case. Therefore, under the §3553 factors, the need for “just punishment” and
to reflect the seriousness of the offense weigh as the greatest considerations for this court. The
following excerpts from the victim impact statements underscore the need for a sentence at the
high end of the Guidelines:
J.A., a 72-year old victim in Rhode Island ($1,438 loss), see generally, Exhibit A
“It took money I had saved for a long time.”
“I was so Disappointed I would never receive the puppy. I cryed [sic] when he told me it
got sick.”
L.M.F., a victim in Iowa ($1,797 loss), see generally, Exhibit B
“Kids suffered emotional trauma thinking they were getting this dog, then the dog got sick
with no one to care for it.”
The Defendant’s victims have suffered greatly, not only from being defrauded of their
money by the Defendant and his co-conspirators, but also from being concerned for sick puppies
that, unbeknownst to them, never existed. While other § 3553 factors are relevant, the need for
just punishment is the overriding reason for a sentence at the high end of the Guideline range. The
sentence should appropriately reflect the scope of the Defendant’s exploitation of his victims.
A sentence at the high end of the Guideline range is also needed “to afford adequate
deterrence to criminal conduct” by others who might engage in such a crime. 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a)(2)(B). Puppy scams are not unique to the Defendant’s conspiracy. Although high in
6
emotional trauma to victims, they are often lower in individual economic loss compared to
romance scams and other fraud schemes. When combined with the national or transnational nature
of such organized crime, puppy scams become challenging, if not impossible, for most resource-
stretched law enforcement authorities to combat. Exploiting emotionally vulnerable victims in
this manner must therefore be met with stern sentences to deter other would-be perpetrators.
Additionally, imposition of a sentence within the advisory Guideline range best serves “the
need to avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities among defendants with similar records who have
been found guilty of similar conduct.” 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(6). Congress sought uniformity in
sentencing by narrowing the wide disparity in sentences imposed by different federal courts for
similar criminal conduct prior to the Guidelines. Since uniformity remains an important goal of
sentencing, § 3553(a)(6) directs district courts to consider the need to avoid unwarranted
disparities.
The government has found only one federal sentence for puppy scams. In United States v.
Fonjeck Eric Azoh, 1:21-cr-412-CJN (D.D.C.), that defendant, like the Defendant, was initially
charged by criminal complaint with multiple offenses, including wire fraud and conspiracy to
commit wire fraud, for his role in a puppy scam that spanned 2019 and 2020. (Azoh Dkt. 1). Azoh
then waived indictment and pleaded guilty to a one-count information charging one count of wire
fraud. (Azoh Dkt. 34). Based on an agreed-upon loss of $158,000, Azoh had a total offense level
that was two levels higher than the Defendant’s. (Azoh Dkt. 36). Combined with a Criminal
History Category of I, Azoh had a Guidelines range of 27 to 33 months. (Azoh Dkt. 44). The
district court sentenced Azoh to a term of imprisonment of 30 months. (Azoh Dkt. 50). A term of
imprisonment of 27 months for the Defendant would be consistent with that given to Azoh.
7
2. The Defendant does not deserve a downward variance or departure from
the Guidelines range.
In his plea agreement, the Defendant reserved the right to request a downward variance
from the Guidelines ranges. Whether or not he requests such a variance, no sentence below the
advisory Guidelines range is merited here, for the reasons discussed above.
Furthermore, the Defendant has requested the Court to not impose any term of supervised
release, citing the recommendation of USSG § 5D1.1(c) for deportable aliens who likely will be
deported after imprisonment. The Court should decline such request. Travel and other restrictions
relating to COVID-19 still exist globally, and are difficult to predict for even the foreseeable future.
Thus, whether the Defendant will be successfully removed from the United States immediately
following his imprisonment here is not a foregone conclusion.
WHEREFORE, for the reasons set for above, the Court should sentence the Defendant to
a term of imprisonment of 27 months, followed by a three-year term of supervised release.
Respectfully submitted,
CINDY K. CHUNG GUSTAV W. EYLER
United States Attorney Director
Christopher M. Cook Wei Xiang
CHRISTOPHER M. COOK WEI XIANG
Assistant United States Attorney Trial Attorney
700 Grant Street, Suite 4000 Consumer Protection Branch
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15219 U.S. Department of Justice
KS ID No. 23860 450 Fifth Street NW, Suite 6400
Washington, DC 20001
FL ID No. 85604
8
File and source
- File
- gov.uscourts.pawd.283620.65.0.pdf
- Size
- 208,356 bytes
- SHA-256
- ae7b2e38f70af2867881b57f959f72a61acef1d18a00c86cb36852254fcdd42a
- Original
- archive.org