Plea Agreement — United States v. Branko Aleksic, No. 20 CR 750-5 (Dkt. 173, N.D. Ill.)

Summary

This plea agreement in United States v. Branko Aleksic, No. 20 CR 750-5 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, was filed July 6, 2023 before Judge Nancy L. Maldonado. Aleksic agrees to plead guilty to Count 4 of the superseding indictment, wire fraud under Title 18, United States Code, Section 1343, and Count 21, domestic concealment money laundering. In the factual basis, Aleksic admits working with Marko Nikolic at SIM Express in Oak Brook, Illinois to obtain Economic Injury Disaster Loans through false applications, including approximately $149,900 disbursed for Flowering Consulting LLC on June 19, 2020. The agreement states an intended loss of approximately $930,000 and EIDL loan proceeds received totaling approximately $575,000. The two counts carry a total maximum sentence of 40 years’ imprisonment.

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

Text recognized from a scanned document; may contain errors.

FILED

JUL 06 2023

JUDGE NANCY L. MALDONADO

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT U.S. DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

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

PLEA AGREEMENT

Le This Plea Agreement between the Acting United States Attorney for the
Northern District of Illinois, MORRIS PASQUAL, and defendant BRANKO
ALEKSIC, and his attorneys, SAMI AZHARI and SERGEI KUCHINSKI, is made
pursuant to Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and is governed in
part by Rule 11(c)(1)(A), as more fully set forth below. The parties to this Agreement
have agreed upon the following:

Charges in This Case

2. The superseding indictment in this case charges defendant with two
counts of wire fraud, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1343 (Counts
4 and 7); and domestic concealment money laundering, in violation of Title 18, United
States Code, Section 1956(a)(1)(B)(i) (Count 21).

3. Defendant has read the charges against him contained in the
superseding indictment, and those charges have been fully explained to him by his

attorneys.
4, Defendant fully understands the nature and elements of the crimes with
which he has been charged.

Charges to Which Defendant Is Pleading Guilty
5. By this Plea Agreement, defendant agrees to enter a voluntary plea of
guilty to the following counts of the superseding indictment: Count 4, which charges
defendant with wire fraud, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1343;
and Count 21, which charges defendant with domestic concealment money
laundering, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1956(a)(1)(B)q@).

Factual Basis

6. Defendant will plead guilty because he is in fact guilty of the charges
contained in Counts Kand 21 of the indictment. In pleading guilty, defendant admits
the following facts and that those facts establish his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt
and constitute relevant conduct pursuant to Guideline § 1B1.3:
a. With respect to Count 4 of the indictment:

Beginning in or around March 2020, and continuing through in or around
September 2020, in the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, and elsewhere,
BRANKO ALEKSIC, together with codefendants Maja Nikolic, Marko Nikolic,
Nebojsa Simeunovic, and Milica Sumakovic, knowingly devised, intended to devise,
and participated in a scheme to defraud and to obtain money and property from the

Economic Injury Disaster Loan (““EIDL”) Program by means of materially false and

fraudulent pretenses, representations, and promises; and on or about June 19, 2020,

2
for the purpose of executing the scheme, BRANKO ALEKSIC knowingly caused to be
transmitted by means of wire communication in interstate commerce certain
writings, signs, and signals, namely, an interstate wire transmission of
approximately $149,900, from the Federal Reserve Bank to a Flowering Consulting
account maintained at Chase Bank, which funds represented the proceeds of an EIDL
to Flower Consulting, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1348.

ALEKSIC acknowledges that the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic
Security (“CARES”) Act was a federal law enacted in March 2020 and designed to
provide emergency financial assistance to the millions of Americans who were
suffering the economic effects caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. ALEKSIC further
acknowledges that one source of relief provided by the CARES Act was the expansion
of the EIDL program, which provided loan assistance (including advances of up to
$10,000) for businesses with, among other things, 500 or fewer employees and other
eligible entities. ALEKSIC acknowledges the EIDL program was designed to provide
economic relief to small businesses that were experiencing a temporary loss of
revenue.

ALEKSIC knew that, to gain access to funds through the EIDL Program, small
businesses applied through the U.S. Small Business Administration (“SBA”) via an
online portal and application. ALEKSIC knew that the SBA required applicants to
submit truthful information about the applying entity, its owner, and its condition

prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, including the entity’s number of employees as of

3
January 31, 2020; the entity’s gross revenues and cost of goods sold for the 12-month
period prior to January 31, 2020; the entity’s type of business; and the date on which
the current owner assumed ownership of the entity. ALEKSIC understood that
applicants who received EIDL proceeds were required to use those proceeds to pay an
array of working capital and normal operating expenses, such as continuation of
health care benefits, rent, utilities, and fixed debt payments. ALEKSIC acknowledges
that information about the EIDL applicants’ business expenses and employees, and
how the EIDL would be used, was material to the SBA’s approval, terms, and funding
of EIDL loans.

ALEKSIC learned of the scheme to defraud in approximately June 2020 from
Marko Nikolic and Simeunovic, and met with Simeunovic and Marko Nikolic in the
office of a business known as SIM Express in Oak Brook, Illinois, where he agreed to
work with Marko Nikolic and Simeunovic to obtain EIDL loans fraudulently. Marko
Nikolic and ALEKSIC prepared EIDL applications for businesses and shell entities,
which applications ALEKSIC was aware contained materially false and fraudulent
statements and representations.

For example, on or about June 16, 2020, with the assistance of Marko Nikolic,
ALEKSIC caused an EIDL application for BIA Trucking, Inc., a business he
incorporated in approximately July 2015, to be submitted to the SBA, in which he
intentionally made a number of materially false and fraudulent statements. For

example, in the application, ALEKSIC falsely and fraudulently overstated BIA

4
Trucking, Inc.’s number of employees (35), and inflated its gross revenues and costs
of goods sold during the 12 months prior to January 31, 2020. ALEKSIC did so
intending to increase the amount of funds that he would be approved to receive from
the SBA. ALEKSIC also falsely represented in the EIDL application that he was a
U.S. citizen, believing it would be more likely to be approved by the SBA than if he
truthfully identified himself as a non-U.S. citizen. ALEKSIC falsely certified that the
information he provided in the EIDL application was true and correct. ALEKSIC
knew at the time that BIA Trucking, Inc. did not employ the number of employees
represented in the applications, that it had not earned or incurred the amounts of
revenue or costs of goods stated in the applications, and that he was not a U.S. citizen.

In the BIA Trucking, Inc. EIDL application, ALEKSIC requested that he be
considered for an EIDL advance, which he knew could be $10,000 based upon his false
statement that BIA Trucking, Inc. employed more than 10 individuals. ALEKSIC’s
request for an EIDL advance and EIDL was approved by the SBA. On or about June
19, 2020, as a result of the false and fraudulent representations that he made in the
BIA Trucking, Inc. EIDL application, $159,900 was transmitted in interstate
commerce by the SBA to Chase Bank account x7067, a bank account controlled by
ALEKSIC which he had identified in the application as the account where EIDL
funds could be deposited.

In addition to obtaining EIDL funds fraudulently for BIA Trucking, ALEKSIC

also caused to be submitted to the SBA EIDL applications for shell entities he did not

5
own and which were not in operation. For example, on or about June 17, 2020,
ALEKSIC caused Flowering Consulting LLC, a previously dissolved, limited liability
corporation in Florida, to be reinstated and identified himself as the registered agent
of the shell entity in order to submit a fraudulent EIDL application in the name of
this shell entity.

Prior to causing the EIDL application to be submitted, ALEKSIC had opened
an account at Chase Bank (account x4112) in the name of BRANKO ALEKSIC dba
Flowering Consulting solely for the purpose of receiving any fraudulently obtained
EIDL proceeds. On or about the same date, ALEKSIC caused an EIDL application
for Flowering Consulting to be submitted to the SBA, which ALEKSIC knew included
a number of materially false and fraudulent statements. For example, in the
application, ALEKSIC falsely stated that Flowering Consulting employed 35
individuals, and submitted fictitious figures for its gross revenues and costs of goods
sold during the 12 months prior to January 31, 2020. ALEKSIC also falsely
represented in the EIDL application that he was a U.S. citizen, believing it would be
more likely to be approved by the SBA than if he truthfully identified himself as a
non-U.S. citizen. ALEKSIC falsely certified that the information he provided in the
EIDL application was true and correct. ALEKSIC knew at the time he submitted the
EIDL application that Flowering Consulting LLC was a shell entity that was not in

operation, that it had no employees, and no revenue during the stated time period.
ALEKSIC also sought a $10,000 EIDL advance for Flowering Consulting in the EIDL
application.

On or about June 17, 2020, ALEKSIC learned that the SBA intended to
approve a $150,000 EIDL for Flowering Consulting LLC. On or about that same date,
ALEKSIC electronically signed an SBA Loan Authorization and Agreement on behalf
of Flowering Consulting in which he falsely and fraudulently represented to the SBA
that all of the representations in his application were true, correct, and complete.
ALEKSIC also falsely and fraudulently represented in the agreement that he would
use the proceeds of the loan solely as working capital to alleviate the economic injury
caused by the pandemic. ALEKSIC knew each of these representations was false at
the time he submitted the agreement to the SBA.

As a result of this application and his execution of the agreement, on or about
June 19, 2020, ALEKSIC caused the SBA to disburse approximately $149,900 in
EIDL proceeds for Flowering Consulting LLC, by means of interstate wire
communication, into Chase Bank account x4112. ALEKSIC knew at the time that
neither he nor Flowering Consulting LLC was entitled to the EIDL funds and
acknowledges that the false information that he provided about the business’s
expenses and employees was material to the SBA’s approval and funding of this EIDL
loan. The SBA also approved a $10,0000 EIDL advance for Flowering Consulting and

disbursed those funds to Chase Bank account x4112 on or about June 30, 2020.
On or about the dates indicated below, ALEKSIC also caused EIDL
applications to be submitted to the SBA for at least four additional entities which he
knew included substantially identical false and fraudulent representations about the

EIDL applicant and his immigration status to the SBA:

Entity name Application date EIDL sought | Funds obtained
AB Freight LLC 06/18/2020 $ 160,000 $ 10,000
Gratz Logistics LLC 06/23/2020 $ 150,000 $ 150,000
Bianmarc LLC 07/02/2020 $ 150,000 $ 0
Pool B Clean LLC 07/13/2020 $ 150,000 $ 0

In addition, on behalf of Simeunovic and Nikolic, ALEKSIC recruited other
client-applicants seeking assistance obtaining EIDLs fraudulently from the SBA,
including Individual A and Individual B. ALEKSIC did so in exchange for a share of
the EIDL proceeds received by Nikolic and Simeunovic from the client-applicants.
ALEKSIC was paid $47,500 on two occasions, on or about June 25, 2020, and June
26, 2020, by wire transfer from a SIM Express account for referring client-applicants
to Simeunovic and Nikolic. ALEKSIC understood that the $95,000 he received was
from fraudulently-obtained EIDL funds.

Through his participation in the scheme, ALEKSIC intended to cause a loss of
approximately $930,000 when he sought to obtain approximately $930,000 in EIDL
proceeds to which he and his co-schemers were not entitled, and received EIDL loan

proceeds totaling approximately $575,000, which consisted of $480,000 received from
the SBA, and $95,000 transferred to him from a SIM Express for referring client-
applicants to Simuenovic and Marko Nikolic.
b. With respect to Count 21 of the indictment:

On or about June 29, 2020, in the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern
Division, and elsewhere, ALEKSIC knowingly conducted and attempted to conduct a
financial transaction, namely, the deposit of approximately $50,000 from a Gratz
Logistics bank account ending in 1441 maintained at Chase Bank into a Chase
account ending in 7067, in or affecting interstate commerce, which financial
transaction involved the proceeds of a specified unlawful activity, namely, wire fraud,
knowing that the transaction was designed in whole and in part to conceal and
disguise the nature, location, source, ownership, and control of the proceeds of the
specified unlawful activity, and that while conducting such financial transaction,
knew that the property involved in the financial transaction represented the proceeds
of some form of unlawful activity, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section

Specifically, ALEKSIC conducted financial transactions involving fraud
proceeds of the above-described scheme that he knew were designed to conceal and
disguise the nature, location, source, and ownership of the fraud proceeds. For
example, on or about June 28, 2020, ALEKSIC opened a Chase bank account ending
in 1441, for the shell entity Gratz Logistics LLC. ALEKSIC opened Chase account

x1441 for the purpose of receiving proceeds of the fraud scheme. On June 29, 2020,

9
the SBA transmitted the proceeds of an EIDL in the amount of $149,900 into the
Gratz Logistics LLC account. During the next several days, ALEKSIC withdrew
nearly all the fraudulently obtained EIDL proceeds from Chase account x1441
through several large, round-dollar cash withdrawals, and transfers to bank accounts
unassociated with Gratz Logistics LLC. For example, on or about the same day that
the EIDL proceeds were transmitted by the SBA to Chase account x1441, ALEKSIC
transferred $50,000 to Chase account x7067, maintained in the name of BIA Trucking
Incorporated. ALEKSIC transmitted and transferred the fraud proceeds in this
manner because he wanted to hide his ownership and his control of the proceeds, as
well as the nature, location, and source of the proceeds, from law enforcement and
the SBA.

Maximum Statutory Penalties

7. Defendant understands that the charges to which he is pleading guilty
carry the following statutory penalties:
a. Count 4 carries a maximum sentence of 20 years’ imprisonment.
Count 4 also carries a maximum fine of $250,000, or twice the gross gain or gross loss
resulting from that offense, whichever is greater. Defendant further understands that
with respect to Count 4, the judge also may impose a term of supervised release of
not more than three years.
b. Count 21 carries a maximum sentence of 20 years’ imprisonment.

Count 21 also carries a maximum fine of $500,000, or twice the value of the funds

10
involved in the transportation, transmission, or transfer, whichever is greater.
Defendant further understands that with respect to Count 21, the judge also may
impose a term of supervised release of not more than three years.

c. Defendant further understands that the Court must order
restitution to the victims of the offense in an amount determined by the Court. The
Court also may order restitution to any persons as agreed by the parties.

d. Pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 3013, defendant
will be assessed $100 on each count to which he has pled guilty, in addition to any
other penalty or restitution imposed.

e. Therefore, under the counts to which defendant is pleading guilty,
the total maximum sentence is 40 years’ imprisonment. In addition, defendant is
subject to a total maximum fine of $750,000, or twice the gross gain or gross loss
resulting from the wire fraud offense of conviction and twice the value of the funds
involved in the money laundering offense of conviction, whichever is greater, a period
of supervised release, and special assessments totaling $200, in addition to any
restitution ordered by the Court.

Sentencing Guidelines Calculations
8. Defendant understands that in determining a sentence, the Court is
obligated to calculate the applicable Sentencing Guidelines range, and to consider
that range, possible departures under the Sentencing Guidelines, and other
sentencing factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), which include: (i) the nature and

11
circumstances of the offense and the history and characteristics of the defendant; (ii)
the need for the sentence imposed to reflect the seriousness of the offense, promote
respect for the law, provide just punishment for the offense, afford adequate
deterrence to criminal conduct, protect the public from further crimes of the
defendant, and provide the defendant with needed educational or vocational training,
medical care, or other correctional treatment in the most effective manner; (iil) the
kinds of sentences available; (iv) the need to avoid unwarranted sentence disparities
among defendants with similar records who have been found guilty of similar
conduct; and (v) the need to provide restitution to any victim of the offense.

9. For purposes of calculating the Sentencing Guidelines, the parties agree
on the following points:

a. Applicable Guidelines. The Sentencing Guidelines to be
considered in this case are those in effect at the time of sentencing. The following
statements regarding the calculation of the Sentencing Guidelines are based on the
Guidelines Manual currently in effect, namely the November 2021 Guidelines
Manual.

b. Offense Level Calculations.

Count 4 (wire fraud)
i. The base offense level for Count 4 is 7, pursuant to

Guideline § 2B1.1(a)(1).

12
li. The offense level is increased by 14 levels pursuant to
Guideline § 2B1.1(b)(1)(H) because the amount of loss for which defendant is
accountable is approximately $1,025,000, which is more than $550,000 but not more
than $1,500,000.

iii. The offense level is increased by 2 levels pursuant to
Guideline § 2B1.1(b)(10)(C) because the offense involved sophisticated means and
defendant intentionally engaged in and caused the conduct constituting sophisticated
means.

iv. The offense level for Count 4 is therefore 23.

Count 21 (domestic concealment money laundering)

v. Pursuant to Guideline § 2S1.1(a)(1), the base offense level
for Count 21 is the offense level for the underlying offense from which the laundered
funds were derived, namely, the offense of conviction under Count 4, because (a) the
defendant committed the underlying offense; and (b) the offense level for the
underlying offense can be determined. The base offense level for Count 21 is therefore
23.

vi. The offense level is increased by 2 levels pursuant to
Guideline § 2S1.1(b)(2)(B) because the defendant was convicted under 18 U.S.C.
§ 1956.

Vii. The offense level for Count 21 is therefore 25.
Grouping

13
viii. Pursuant to Guideline § 3D1.2(c) and 251.1, cmt. n. 6,
Count 4 and Count 21 are grouped together into a single group because Count 4
embodies conduct that is treated as a specific offense characteristic in the guideline
applicable to Count 21. Pursuant to Guideline 3D1.3(a), the offense level for the
Group is the highest offense level of the counts in the group, which is level 25.

ix. Defendant has clearly demonstrated a recognition and
affirmative acceptance of personal responsibility for his criminal conduct. If the
government does not receive additional evidence in conflict with this provision, and
if defendant continues to accept responsibility for his actions within the meaning of
Guideline § 3E1.1(a), including by furnishing the United States Attorney’s Office and
the Probation Office with all requested financial information relevant to his ability to
satisfy any fine or restitution that may be imposed in this case, a two-level reduction
in the offense level is appropriate.

Xx. In accord with Guideline § 3E1.1(b), defendant has timely
notified the government of his intention to enter a plea of guilty, thereby permitting
the government to avoid preparing for trial and permitting the Court to allocate its
resources efficiently. Therefore, as provided by Guideline § 3E1.1(b), if the Court
determines the offense level to be 16 or greater prior to determining that defendant
is entitled to a two-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility, the government

will move for an additional one-level reduction in the offense level.

14
c. Criminal History Category. With regard to determining
defendant’s criminal history points and criminal history category, based on the facts
now known to the government, defendant’s criminal history points equal zero and
defendant’s criminal history category is I.

d. Anticipated Advisory Sentencing Guidelines Range.
Therefore, based on the facts now known to the government, the anticipated offense
level is 22 which, when combined with the anticipated criminal history category of I,
results in an anticipated advisory sentencing guidelines range of 41 to 51 months’
imprisonment, in addition to any supervised release, fine, and restitution the Court
may impose.

e. Defendant and his attorneys and the government acknowledge
that the above guidelines calculations are preliminary in nature, and are non-binding
predictions upon which neither party is entitled to rely. Defendant understands that
further review of the facts or applicable legal principles may lead the government to
conclude that different or additional guidelines provisions apply in this case.
Defendant understands that the Probation Office will conduct its own investigation
and that the Court ultimately determines the facts and law relevant to sentencing,
and that the Court’s determinations govern the final guideline calculation.
Accordingly, the validity of this Agreement is not contingent upon the probation

officer’s or the Court’s concurrence with the above calculations, and defendant shall

15
not have a right to withdraw his plea on the basis of the Court’s rejection of these
calculations.

10. Both parties expressly acknowledge that this Agreement is not governed
by Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(c)(1)(B), and that errors in applying or interpreting any of the
sentencing guidelines may be corrected by either party prior to sentencing. The
parties may correct these errors either by stipulation or by a statement to the
Probation Office or the Court, setting forth the disagreement regarding the applicable
provisions of the guidelines. The validity of this Agreement will not be affected by
such corrections, and defendant shall not have a right to withdraw his plea, nor the
government the right to vacate this Agreement, on the basis of such corrections.

Agreements Relating to Sentencing

11. Each party is free to recommend whatever sentence it deems
appropriate.

12. It is understood by the parties that the sentencing judge is neither a
party to nor bound by this Agreement and may impose a sentence up to the maximum
penalties as set forth above. Defendant further acknowledges that if the Court does
not accept the sentencing recommendation of the parties, defendant will have no right
to withdraw his guilty plea.

13. Regarding restitution, defendant acknowledges that he caused a loss to
the government of at least $575,000, and that, pursuant to Title 18, United States

Code, Section 3663A, the Court must order defendant, together with any jointly liable

16
co-defendants, to make full restitution in an amount to be determined by the Court
at sentencing, which amount shall reflect credit for any funds repaid prior to
sentencing.

14. Restitution shall be due immediately, and paid pursuant to a schedule
to be set by the Court at sentencing. Defendant acknowledges that pursuant to Title
18, United States Code, Section 3664(k), he is required to notify the Court and the
United States Attorney’s Office of any material change in economic circumstances
that might affect his ability to pay restitution.

15. Defendant agrees to pay the special assessment of $200 at the time of
sentencing with a cashier’s check or money order payable to the Clerk of the U.S.
District Court.

16. Defendant agrees that the United States may enforce collection of any
fine or restitution imposed in this case pursuant to Title 18, United States Code,
Sections 3572, 3613, and 3664(m), notwithstanding any payment schedule set by the
Court.

Forfeiture

17. Defendant understands that by pleading guilty, he will subject to
forfeiture to the United States all right, title, and interest that he has in any property
constituting or derived from proceeds obtained, directly or indirectly, as a result of
his violations of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1343; and any property involved

in transactions in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1956

17
18. Defendant acknowledges that on or about January 5, 2021,
administrative forfeiture proceedings were commenced against certain property
identified in Customs and Border Protection case number 2021390100094901
relating to property seized by Immigration and Customs Enforcement from defendant
on October 24, 2020, at O’Hare International Airport. Defendant also acknowledges
that this property represented proceeds of the fraud scheme.

19. By signing this plea agreement, defendant acknowledges that he had
notice of the administrative forfeiture proceeding, relinquishes any right, title, and
interest he may have had in this property, withdraws any previously filed claims, and
understands that an administrative decree of forfeiture has been entered, or will be
entered, thereby extinguishing any claim he may have had im the seized property.

20. Defendant understands that forfeiture shall not be treated as
satisfaction of any fine, restitution, cost of imprisonment, or any other penalty the
Court may impose upon defendant in addition to the forfeiture judgment.

21. Defendant agrees to waive all constitutional, statutory, and equitable
challenges in any manner, including but not limited to direct appeal or a motion
brought under Title 28, United States Code, Section 2255, to any forfeiture carried
out in accordance with this agreement on any grounds, including that the forfeiture
constitutes an excessive fine or punishment. The waiver in this paragraph does not
apply to a claim of involuntariness or ineffective assistance of counsel. Defendant

further agrees not to challenge or seek review of the civil or administrative forfeiture

18
of any property identified in this agreement subject to forfeiture, and will not assist
any third party with regard to such challenge or review.

22. After sentence has been imposed on the counts to which defendant
pleads guilty as agreed herein, the government will move to dismiss the remaining
count of the superseding indictment as to defendant.

Acknowledgments and Waivers Regarding Plea of Guilty
Nature of Agreement

23. This Agreement is entirely voluntary and represents the entire
agreement between the United States Attorney and defendant regarding defendant’s
criminal liability in case 20 CR 750-5.

24. This Agreement concerns criminal liability only. Except as expressly set
forth in this Agreement, nothing herein shall constitute a limitation, waiver, or
release by the United States or any of its agencies of any administrative or judicial
civil claim, demand, or cause of action it may have against defendant or any other
person or entity. The obligations of this Agreement are limited to the United States
Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Illinois and cannot bind any other
federal, state, or local prosecuting, administrative, or regulatory authorities, except
as expressly set forth in this Agreement.

Waiver of Rights
25. Defendant understands that by pleading guilty he surrenders certain

rights, including the following:

19
a. Trial rights. Defendant has the right to persist in a plea of not
guilty to the charges against him, and if he does, he would have the right to a public
and speedy trial.

i, The trial could be either a jury trial or a trial by the judge
sitting without a jury. However, in order that the trial be conducted by the judge
sitting without a jury, defendant, the government, and the judge all must agree that
the trial be conducted by the judge without a jury.

ii. If the trial is a jury trial, the jury would be composed of
twelve citizens from the district, selected at random. Defendant and his attorney
would participate in choosing the jury by requesting that the Court remove
prospective jurors for cause where actual bias or other disqualification is shown, or
by removing prospective jurors without cause by exercising peremptory challenges.

iii. If the trial is a jury trial, the jury would be instructed that
defendant is presumed innocent, that the government has the burden of proving
defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and that the jury could not convict him
unless, after hearing all the evidence, it was persuaded of his guilt beyond a
reasonable doubt and that it was to consider each count of the superseding indictment
separately. The jury would have to agree unanimously as to each count before it could
return a verdict of guilty or not guilty as to that count.

iv. If the trial is held by the judge without a jury, the judge

would find the facts and determine, after hearing all the evidence, and considering

20
each count separately, whether or not the judge was persuaded that the government
had established defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

V. At a trial, whether by a jury or a judge, the government
would be required to present its witnesses and other evidence against defendant.
Defendant would be able to confront those government witnesses and his attorney
would be able to cross-examine them.

Vi. At a trial, defendant could present witnesses and other
evidence in his own behalf. If the witnesses for defendant would not appear
voluntarily, he could require their attendance through the subpoena power of the
Court. A defendant is not required to present any evidence.

vii. At a trial, defendant would have a privilege against self-
incrimination so that he could decline to testify, and no inference of guilt could be
drawn from his refusal to testify. If defendant desired to do so, he could testify in his
own behalf.

b. Appellate rights. Defendant further understands he is waiving
all appellate issues that might have been available if he had exercised his right to
trial, and may only appeal the validity of this plea of guilty and the sentence imposed.
Defendant understands that any appeal must be filed within 14 calendar days of the

entry of the judgment of conviction.

21
26. Defendant understands that by pleading guilty he is waiving all the
rights set forth in the prior paragraphs. Defendant’s attorney has explained those
rights to him, and the consequences of his waiver of those rights.

Presentence Investigation Report/Post-Sentence Supervision

27. Defendant understands that the United States Attorney’s Office in its
submission to the Probation Office as part of the Pre-Sentence Report and at
sentencing shall fully apprise the District Court and the Probation Office of the
nature, scope, and extent of defendant’s conduct regarding the charges against him,
and related matters. The government will make known all matters in aggravation
and mitigation relevant to sentencing, including the nature and extent of defendant’s
cooperation.

28. Defendant agrees to truthfully and completely execute a Financial
Statement (with supporting documentation) prior to sentencing, to be provided to and
shared among the Court, the Probation Office, and the United States Attorney’s
Office regarding all details of his financial circumstances, including his recent income
tax returns as specified by the probation officer. Defendant understands that
providing false or incomplete information, or refusing to provide this information,
may be used as a basis for denial of a reduction for acceptance of responsibility
pursuant to Guideline § 3E1.1 and enhancement of his sentence for obstruction of
justice under Guideline § 8C1.1, and may be prosecuted as a violation of Title 18,

United States Code, Section 1001, or as a contempt of the Court.

22
29. For the purpose of monitoring defendant's compliance with his
obligations to pay a fine and restitution during any term of supervised release or
probation to which defendant is sentenced, defendant further consents to the
disclosure by the IRS to the Probation Office and the United States Attorney’s Office
of defendant’s individual income tax returns (together with extensions,
correspondence, and other tax information) filed subsequent to defendant’s
sentencing, to and including the final year of any period of supervised release or
probation to which defendant is sentenced. Defendant also agrees that a certified copy
of this Agreement shall be sufficient evidence of defendant’s request to the IRS to
disclose the returns and return information, as provided for in Title 26, United States
Code, Section 6103(b).

Other Terms

30. Defendant agrees to cooperate with the United States Attorney’s Office
in collecting any unpaid fine and restitution for which defendant is liable, including
providing financial statements and supporting records as requested by the United
States Attorney’s Office.

31. Defendant recognizes that pleading guilty may have consequences with
respect to his immigration status if he is not a citizen of the United States. Under
federal law, a broad range of crimes are removable offenses, including one or more
offenses to which defendant is pleading guilty. Indeed, because defendant is pleading

guilty to an offense that is an “aggravated felony” as that term is defined in Title 8,
23
United States Code, Section 1101(a)(43), removal is presumptively mandatory.
Removal and other immigration consequences are the subject of a separate
proceeding, however, and defendant understands that no one, including his attorneys
or the Court, can predict to a certainty the effect of his conviction on his immigration
status. Defendant nevertheless affirms that he wants to plead guilty regardless of
any immigration consequences that his guilty plea may entail, even if the
consequence is his automatic removal from the United States.
Conclusion

32. Defendant understands that this Agreement will be filed with the Court,
will become a matter of public record, and may be disclosed to any person.

33. Defendant understands that his compliance with each part of this
Agreement extends throughout the period of his sentence, and failure to abide by any
term of the Agreement is a violation of the Agreement. Defendant further
understands that in the event he violates this Agreement, the government, at its
option, may move to vacate the Agreement, rendering it null and void, and thereafter
prosecute defendant not subject to any of the limits set forth in this Agreement, or
may move to resentence defendant or require defendant’s specific performance of this
Agreement. Defendant understands and agrees that in the event that the Court
permits defendant to withdraw from this Agreement, or defendant breaches any of
its terms and the government elects to void the Agreement and prosecute defendant,

any prosecutions that are not time-barred by the applicable statute of limitations on

24
the date of the signing of this Agreement may be commenced against defendant in
accordance with this paragraph, notwithstanding the expiration of the statute of
limitations between the signing of this Agreement and the commencement of such
prosecutions.

34. Should the judge refuse to accept defendant’s plea of guilty, this
Agreement shall become null and void and neither party will be bound to it.

35. Defendant and his attorneys acknowledge that no threats, promises, or
representations have been made, nor agreements reached, other than those set forth
in this Agreement, to cause defendant to plead guilty.

36. Defendant acknowledges that he has read this Agreement and carefully
reviewed each provision with his attorneys. Defendant further acknowledges that he

understands and voluntarily accepts each and every term and condition of this

Agreement.
7¢ 2
AGREED THIS DATE: _~ ely 6 c £3 BS
Digitally signed by MICHELLE -
MICHELLE PETERSEN -Perersen EZ Exc <2 A
Date: 2023.04.24 22:20:35 -05'00"
MICHELLE PETERSEN on behalf of ‘BRANKO ALEKSIC
MORRIS PASQUAL Defendant

Acting United States Attorney

BRIAN HAYRS SAMI AZHARI~
MALGORZATA T. KOZAKA SERGEI KUCHINSKI
Assistant U.S. Attorneys Attorneys for Defendant

25


File and source

File

gov.uscourts.ilnd.392557.173.0.pdf

Size

1,399,898 bytes

SHA-256

646175caf1694bc52188ffbd0093173c3f6cb7359fafbbbec033b37303ff7c0b

Our copy

gov.uscourts.ilnd.392557.173.0.pdf

Original

archive.org