Plea Agreement — USA v. Erhinmwinrose et al (Dkt. 126, D. Colo.)

Summary

A Plea Agreement and Statement of Facts Relevant to Sentencing in United States of America v. Oreoluwa Abdul-Jabbar Elegba, Criminal Case No. 23-cr-00300-CNS-4, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado, filed August 1, 2024 as Document 126; defense counsel is Thomas Goodreid. The defendant agrees to plead guilty to count 2 of the Indictment, conspiracy to commit money laundering under 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h), and to pay restitution in an amount to be determined at sentencing. The stipulated facts state that the Fraud Ring obtained more than $8,119,037 from government programs, including $2,332,600 in EIDL, $5,704,967 in PPP and $422,047 in unemployment insurance losses. They state that Elegba was one of multiple runners who converted proceeds to cash and money orders. The government agrees to recommend imprisonment not greater than the low end of the guideline range.

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

Full text

Text recognized from a scanned document; may contain errors.

Case No. 1:23-cr-00300-CNS Documenti126 filed 08/01/24 USDC Colorado pg1
of 20 _

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Criminal Case No. 23-cr-00300-CNS-4
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.
4, O(REOLUWA ABDUL-JABBAR ELEGBA,

PLEA AGREEMENT AND STATEMENT OF FACTS
RELEVANT TO SENTENCING

The United States of America, by and through Craig G. Fansler, Assistant
United States Attorney for the United States Attorney’s Office for the District of
Colorado (the “government”), and the defendant, Oreoluwa Abdul-Jabbar Elegba
(“Elegba” or the “defendant”), personally and by counsel, Thomas Goodreid, submit the
following Plea Agreement pursuant to D.C.COLO.LCrR 11.1. This agreement binds
only the Criminal Division of the United States Attorney’s Office for the District of
Colorado and the defendant.

I], AGREEMENT
A. Defendant’s Plea of Guilty:
The defendant agrees:

(1) to plead guilty to count 2 of the Indictment charging a violation of 18
U.S.C. § 1956(h) (Conspiracy to Commit Money Laundering);

(2) to waive certain appellate and collateral attack rights, as explained in

COURT
EXHIBIT
i
Case No. 1:23-cr-00300-CNS Documenti126 filed 08/01/24 USDC Colorado pg2
of 20

detail below;

(3) to pay restitution to the victims of this offense in an amount to be
determined at sentencing. In advance of the sentencing hearing, the
parties intend to confer and endeavor to reach an agreement as to the
amount of restitution;

(4) not to contest forfeiture, as more fully described below.
B. The Government’s Obligations:

This agreement is made pursuant t6 Fed.R.Crim.P.11(c)(1)(A). The government
agrees not to bring other charges against the defendant based on information
currently known to the United States Attorney's Office, District of Colorado
concerning the money laundering conspiracy described below. Should the plea of
guilty be vacated on the motion of the defendant, the government may, in its sole
discretion, file a superseding indictment.

Provided the defendant does not engage in prohibited conduct or otherwise
implicate U.S.S.G. §§ 3C1.1 and 3E1.1, cmt. n4 between the guilty plea and
sentencing in this case, the government agrees that the defendant should receive a
two-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility pursuant to U.S.8.G. § 3E1.1(a)
and agrees to file a motion requesting that the defendant receive a one-level reduction
for acceptance of responsibility pursuant to USS.G. § 3E1.1(b). The government
agrees to recommend a term of imprisonment not greater than the low-end of the
applicable guideline range calculated by the court at sentencing.

C. Defendant’s Waiver of Appeal: ‘

The defendant is aware that 18 U.S.C. § 3742 affords the right to appeal the

sentence, including the manner in which that sentence is determined. Understanding

2
Case No. 1:23-cr-00300-CNS Documenti26 filed 08/01/24 USDC Colorado pg3
of 20

this, and in exchange for the concessions made by the government in this agreement,
the defendant knowingly and voluntarily. waives the right to appeal any matter in
connection with this prosecution, conviction, or sentence (including the restitution

order), unless it meets one of the following criteria:

~

(1) the sentence exceeds the maximum sentence provided in the statute of
conviction, 18 U.S.C. § 1956;

(2) the sentence exceeds the top end of the advisory guideline range from
the Sentencing Guidelines that applies for the defendant’s criminal
history (as determined by the district court) at a total offense level of 23;
or

(3) the government appeals the sentencejmposed.

If the first criterion applies, the defendant may appeal only the issue of how his

sentence exceeds the statutory maximum sentence. But if one of the latter two criteria

apply, the defendant may appeal on any ground that is properly available in an
appeal that follows a guilty plea.

The defendant also knowingly and voluntarily waives the right to challenge this
prosecution, conviction, or sentence (including the restitution order) in any collateral
attack (including, but not limited to, a motion brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2255). This
waiver provision does not prevent the defendant from seeking relief otherwise

available in a collateral attack on any of the following grounds:

~

(1) the defendant should receive the benefit of an explicitly retroactive
change in the sentencing guidelines or sentencing statute;

(2) the defendant was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel; or

(3) the defendant was prejudiced by prosecutorial misconduct.

The defendant also waives the right to appeal any sentence imposed below or
Case No. 1:23-cr-00300-CNS Documenti26 filed 08/01/24 USDC Colorado pg4
of 20

~

within the Guideline range upon a revocation of supervised release in this case
number, except where the defendant unsuccessfully objects to the grade of violation
applied by the court during the district court cen proceedings. In that event,
this waiver does not apply and the defendant may appeal the sentence imposed upon a
revocation of supervised release, even if that séntence falls below or within the
guideline range calculated by the court.

The defendant also waives the right to appeal the denial of any motion filed
under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) where such denial rests in any part upon the court's
determination that a sentence reduction is not warranted under the factors set forth
in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). This waiver does not ‘apply to an appeal of a denied
§ 3582(c)(1)(A)\(i) motion where the district court, in denying the motion on § 3553(a)
grounds, failed to consider the facts allegedly” establishing extraordinary and
compelling circumstances as part of its § 3553(a) analysis.

D. Forfeiture of Assets: on

The defendant admits the forfeiture allegations. The defendant further agrees to
forfeit to the United States immediately and voluntarily any and all assets and
property, or portions thereof, subject to forfeiture, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 982(a)(1)
whether in the possession or control of the United States, the defendant, the
defendant's nominees, or elsewhere. The assets to be forfeited specifically include but
are not limited to a money judgment in the amount of the proceeds obtained by the

conspiracy. The defendant agrees and consents~to the forfeiture of these assets

pursuant to any federal criminal, civil, and/or administrative forfeiture action. The
Case No. 1:23-cr-00300-CNS Documenti126 filed 08/01/24 USDC Colorado pg5
of.20 7

defendant understands that pursuant ta 18 U.&C. § 983, the seizing agency is
required to send notice in non-judicial civil forfeiture matters. Having been advised of
said rights regarding notice, the defendant hereby knowingly and voluntarily waives
his rights to notice being sent within the time frames in 18 U.S.C. § 983 and to having
the property returned to him if notice is not sent within the prescribed time frames.
The defendant further agrees to the forfeiture of ally substitute assets up to the value
of any property described above pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 853(p) and Federal Rules of
Criminal Procedure 32.2(e). =

Forfeiture of the defendant's assets shall not be treated as satisfaction of any
fine, restitution, cost of imprisonment, or any other penalty this Court may impose
upon the defendant in addition to forfeiture.

The United States Attorney’s Office for the District of Colorado will recommend to
the Attorney General that any net proceeds derived from the sale of the judicially
forfeited assets be remitted or restored to eligible victims of the offense, for which the
defendant has pleaded guilty, pursuant to-18 U.S.C: § 981(e), 28 C.F.R. pt. 9, and any
other applicable laws, if the legal requirements for recommendation are met and to
relay any such payments made to victims through remission or restoration to the
Clerk of Court to be offset against restitution. The defendant understands that the
United States Attorney's Office only has authority to recommend such relief and that

the final decision of whether to grant relief rests solely with-the Department of

Justice, which will make its decision in accordance with applicable law.

Il. ELEMENTS OF THE OFFENSE
Case No. 1:23-cr-00300-CNS Documenti126 filed 08/01/24 USDC Colorado pg6
of 20

~

A. Count 2 (Money Laundering Conspiracy)

The parties agree that the elements of Count 2, a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h),
Money Laundering Conspiracy, are as follows:

1. the defendant agreed with at least one other person to commit money
laundering in violation of 18 U.S.C. c 1956(a)(1)(A)G) (Promotion) and
18 U.S.C. §1956(a)(1)(B)(i) (Concealment);

2. the defendant knew the essential objectives of the conspiracy;

3. the defendant knowingly and voluntarily participated in the conspiracy;
and

4, there was interdependence among the members of the conspiracy; that

is, the members, in some way or magner, intended to act together for
their shared mutual benefit within the scope of the conspiracy charged.

Tenth Circuit Pattern Jury Instructions for Conspiracy, § 2.19 (2021) (modified) (no
10th Circuit Pattern Instruction); see 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h); United States v. Keck, 643
F.3d 789, 794 (10th Cir. 2011); United States v. Fishman, 645 F.3d 1175, 1187 (10th
Cir. 2011); Whitfield v. United States, 543 U.S. 209, 215-216 (2005) (there is no overt
act requirement for a 1956(h) conspiracy).

The parties agree that the elements of the first object of the conspiracy, Money
Laundering (Concealing Illegal Proceeds), -a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(1)(B)Q),
are as follows:

1. the defendant conducted a financial transaction;
2. the transaction involved the proceeds df wire fraud;

3. the defendant knew that the property involved in the financial
transaction represented the proceeds of some form of unlawful activity;
and

4. the defendant conducted the financial transaction knowing it was
designed in whole or in part to conceal or disguise the nature, location,
source, ownership, or control of the proceeds of unlawful activity.

See 10th Cir. Crim. J.I. § 2.73.1, United States v. Gonzalez, 918 F.3d 808, 812 (10th
Cir. 2019):

The parties agree that the elements of the second object of the conspiracy, Money
Laundering (Promotion), a violation of 18 US.C. § 1956(a)(1)(A)Q), are as follows:
Case No. 1:23-cr-00300-CNS Documenti126 filed 08/01/24 USDC Colorado pg/7

of 20
1. the defendant conducted or attempted to conduct a financial
transaction;
2. the transaction involved the proceeds of wire fraud;

3. the defendant knew that the property involved in the financial
transaction represented the proceeds of some form of unlawful activity;

4, the defendant conducted the financial transaction with the intent to
promote the carrying on of wire fraud.

See 10th Cir. Crim. J.I. § 2.73, United States v. Johmson, 821 F.3d 1194, 1203 (10th
Cir. 2016).

Ill. STATUTORY MAXIMUM SENTENCE

=

The maximum sentence for a violation of Count 2 of the Indictment is: not more
than 20 years’ imprisonment; maximum fine of not more than $500,000 or twice the
value of the property involved in the transaction, whichever is greater, or both fine
and imprisonment; not more than three years of supervised release; $100 mandatory
victim’s fund assessment fee; and restitution in an amount to be determined at the

time of sentencing.

Iv. COLLATERAL CONSEQUENCES

“=

The conviction may cause the loss of civil rights, including, but-not limited to,
the rights to possess firearms, vote, hold elected office, and sit on a jury. The
conviction may cause the defendant to be deportéd and removed from the United
States, or confined indefinitely if there is no country to which the defendant may be
deported, denied future admission into the United States, and/or to be denied

citizenship.

~
Case No. 1:23-cr-00300-CNS Documenti26 filed 08/01/24 USDC Colorado pg8
of 20

V. STIPULATION OF FACTS

The factual basis for this plea is set forth below. Because the Court must, as
part of its sentencing methodology, compute the Bayieony guideline range for the
offense of conviction, consider relevant conduct, and consider the other factors set
forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553, additional facts miay be included below which are pertinent to
those considerations and computations. To the extent the parties disagree about the
facts set forth below, the stipulation of facts identifies which facts are known to be in
dispute at the time of the execution of the plea agreement.

This stipulation of facts does not preclude either party from presenting non-
contradictory additional facts which are relevant to the Court’s guideline computation,
to other 18 U.S.C. § 3553 factors, or to the Court’s overall sentencing decision.

The parties stipulate that the following facts are true and correct.
A. Background on Relevant Federal Programs

Between March 2020 and at least April 2024, Congress authorized emergency
financial assistance to millions of Americans suffering adverse economic effects
caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, including through the Economic Injury Disaster
and Paycheck Protection Programs (EIDL and PPP, respectively) administered by the
Small Business Administration (SBA) and by providing funding to extend and expand
state unemployment insurance (UI) benefit programs. The Internal Revenue Service
(RS) paid refunds to taxpayers whose federal income tax withheld for the year

exceeds the total tax they owe. During the COVIB-19 pandemic, the Department of

Treasury and IRS also provided Economic Impact Payments, also referred to as tax
Case No. 1:23-cr-O0300-CNS Document126 __ filed 08/01/24 USDC Colorado pg9
of 20 :

stimulus payments, based on information*provided on the previous year’s tax return
and nenoaied these payments in the same bank account that received the previous
year’s refund. F ~
B. Summary of the Fraud Ring

Between March 2020 and July 2022, Ikponmwosa Erhinmwinrose and co-
conspirators (“Fraud Ring”) obtained more than $8,119,037 from government
programs (“Wire Fraud Proceeds”) by using information of identity theft victims to
submit (1) fraudulent applications under the Paycheck Prétection Program (PPP),
Economic Injury Disaster Loan (EIDL) program, and state unemployment insurance
(Ul) benefit programs, and (2) fraudulent tax returns to obtain tax refunds and

Economic Impact payments. Fraud proceeds included:

Begin and

Program End Dates Loss Amount Victim
April 2020 —
EIDL Sept. 2020 $2,332,600 SBA
Feb. 2021 —
PPP ‘dune 2021: $ 5,704,967 — Various
At least 2020- States including CO, IL, KS,
UI 2021 $422,047 NJ, NY, OH, WA
April 2020-
Tax Refunds July 2022 $81,470 ™~ IRS
April 2020-
Total July 2022 $8,541,084
Cc. Summary of the Money Laundering Conspiracy

Upon receipt of the Wire Fraud Proceeds, Elegba, alongwith his co-defendants

Erhinmwinrose, Nyerhovwo Agbure, Victor Tobore, and other co-conspirators

coordinated monetary transactions with the objectives to conceal_and disguise the
Case No. 1:23-cr-00300-CNS Document126 filed 08/01/24 USDC Colorado pg
100f20 ~

nature, location, source, ownership, and control of Wire Fraud Proceeds and to promote
the carrying on of wire fraud.
D. Elegba’s Role in the Conspiracy

Elegba’s role was limited to the money laundering conspiracy: he was one of
multiple “soldiers” or “runners” whose role in the scheme was to convert the Wire
Fraud Proceeds from bank accounts in other names that received the proceeds to cash
and money orders that could be distributed among the co-conspirators, without the
intermediate transactions being directly traceable to the Fraud Ring organizers.
Erhinmwinrose and Agbure—who were referred to as “Chairman” and “CEO,”
respectively—coordinated the runners, including the two runners charged in this

prosecution: Elegba and Tobore.

L, | Concealment money laundering through Green Dot bank accounts

One method utilized was for Erhinmwinrose and other conspirators to open
Green Dot bank accounts under various names of identity theft victims including B.J.,
K.T., M.P., P.S., R.W., and S.R. and request disbursement of Wire Fraud Proceeds to
these bank accounts and associated debit cards.

Initially, Erhinmwinrose and other conspirators directed Elegba and other
runners to visit retail stores such as Walmart to purchase debit cards. Elegba then
sent the debit card’ information to Erhinmwinrose and Agbure using messaging
applications such as WhatsApp so that the bank accounts could be registered online in

other names before Erhinmwinrose and other conspirators listed the accounts on

fraudulent applications to receive fraud proceeds. ~

10
Case No. 1:23-cr-O00300-CNS Document126 filed 08/01/24 USDC Colorado pg
11 of 20

At the time Erhinmwinrose and other conspirators registered the debit cards,
they listed Elegba’s address as the address of record for mailmg debit cards and other
bank communications.

After funds were deposited to the debit cards, Elegba—at the direction of
Erhinmwinrose and other conspirators—used the debit cards to purchase blank

money orders from multiple retail stores and withdrew cash from banks or ATMs in

~

close geographic proximity over a short time frame, typically for amounts at or below
$3,000.

After obtaining cash or blank money orders, Elegba then transferred the funds
to Erhinmwinrose, Agbure, and other conspirators. Elegba received a commission of
approximately five percent of the proceeds re laundered, as determined by
Erhinmwinrose and Agbure.

2. Erhinmwinrose provides information to Elegba to set up bank accounts
used to launder funds ~

Another method was for Erhinmwinrose to provide identity theft victims’
information to Elegba for Elegba to establish corporate bank accounts in these names
to facilitate the laundering of proceeds, without transactions being directly traceable
to Erhinmwinrose.!

As initial steps, Erhinmwinrose obtained fabricated identity documents such

as drivers’ licenses and fraudulently obtained corporate registrations and tax

1 Many of these accounts were established using synthetic identities, which means
they used a combination of real information—such as real social security numbers—
with other false information so that the resulting identity is not associated with a real

person. In these circumstances, names rather than initials are used.
11
Case No. 1:23-cr-O00300-CNS Document126 filed 08/01/24 USDC Colorado pg
12 of 20

identification numbers by making false statements to state governments and the
Internal Revenue Service. He then provided fabricated and fraudulent documents to
runners including Elegba so they could establish bank accounts under synthetic
identities including the name Anthony Reed. At the direction of Erhinmwinrose,
Elegba established an account in the name of Anthony Reed as owner of the fictitious
corporate entity AR Logistics.

More specifically, Erhinmwinrose saved a draft email on August 11, 2020 with
the title “New .ore”. containing PII for Anthony Reed and corporate registration
information for AR Logistics. “Ore” is the first three letters of Elegba’s first name and
was a nickname used for him by Erhinmwinrose and°* other conspirators.
Erhinmwinrose provided Elegba with a fake driver’s license bearing the name of Reed
but Elegba’s picture, as well as corporate repistration documents fraudulently
obtained from the state of Indiana. Elegba traveled to Indiana on August 12, 2020 to

open a bank account under the AR Logistics name. ~

3. Use of fraudulently obtained bank accounts by Elegba, Agbure, and
Tobore to coordinate laundering of funds

On September 18, 2020, Elegba texted the bank-account information for AR
Logistics to Tobore so that Tobore could deposit Wire Fraud Proceeds into the Elegba-
controlled AR Logistics bank account. Following thig text, Tobore deposited $71,200.47
into the Elegba-controlled account over three deposits and confirmed each deposit by

text message:
Case No. 1:23-cr-O0300-CNS Document126 filed 08/01/24 USDC Colorado pg

13 of 20
16156782184@s. whatsapp.nct ri)
30K done
& Ore
Okay bros
29743 done
Chay boss tamorow | go start
[] 9/23/2020 4:41:24 PM(LTC+0)
=.
161567821842s.whatsapy net
11,456.97
Sources (3)
~

- - - -

Okay boss

On September 18, 2020, Tobore deposited ‘a $30;000-check; on September 23
and 25, 2020, Tobore made bulk deposits of money orders that had been purchased
with Wire Fraud Proceeds. Tobore saved a notes file.on his phone to record these three
deposits and to track other monetary transactions he handled.

4. ._ Elegba, Agbure, and Tobore coordinate additional layer of transactions
for larger PPP loans “ -

After conspirators began obtaining EIDL and PPP loans for larger amounts,
Agbure provided business checks from bank accounts he controlled—including an

account using the synthetic identity of Laurence Iyape—for deposit into accounts

13
Case No. 1:23-cr-O00300-CNS Document126 filed 08/01/24 USDC Colorado pg
14 of 20

Elegba, Tobore, and Conspirator 2 controlled using other names. As one example,
after an EIDL was obtained in the name of identity theft victim W.L. in August 2020 in
the amount of $85,400, the loan proceeds were wired to the Iyapo account. Agbure
transmitted these proceeds from the Iyapo bank account to other conspirators by writing
checks to corporate entities, including a check to AR Logistics for $15,000 on August
20, 2020. After this check was deposited into the account Elegba controlled, Elegba
visited local banks multiple times over a short time period to withdraw amounts at or
below $3,000 from ATMs and amounts below $10,000 from bank tellers. Elegba
subsequently gave the cash he obtained at the direction of Agbure to Agbure.

As another example, after a PPP loan was obtained in the name of identity theft
victim L.R. in February 2021 for the amount of $45 1,995, the loan preceeds were wired
to the Iyapo account. Agbure transmitted these proceeds to other conspirators via
checks to corporate entities from the Iyapo bank account, including a check to AR
Logistics for $8,750 on March 1, 2021. After this check was deposited into the account
Elegba controlled, Elegba visited local banks multiple times over a short time period to
withdraw amounts at or below $3,000 from ATMs. Elegba subsequently gave the cash
he obtained at the direction of Agbure to Agbure.

Evidence obtained during the iaeeetigation indicates that money runners in
Elegba’s position received approximately five percent of the funds they each laundered
as payment. i

In conducting these transactions, Elegba knew they were designed to conceal

the nature, location, source, ownership, and controlof Wire Fraud Proceeds.

14
Case No. 1:23-cr-O00300-CNS Document126 filed 08/01/24 USDC Colorado pg
15 of 20

5. Delivery of money to Agbure and Erhinmwinrose

During the term of the conspiracy, on multiple occasions, Elegba—after moving
Wire Fraud Proceeds through various accounts and converting Wire Fraud Proceeds to
cash—delivered cash to Agbure and Erhinmwinrose, including at Erhinmwinrose’s
automobile business, IGI Autos, and by depositing cash to corporate bank accounts

linked to Agbure’s businesses.

~

6. Elegba used Wire Fraud Proceeds to promote further criminal activity
Elegba also received instructions from Agbure and Erhinmwinrose to use Wire
Fraud Proceeds to promote the criminal conspiracy. For example, on multiple
occasions, Elegba was provided with Wire Fraud Proceeds and instructed to purchase
debit cards at retail locations including Walmart. When purchasing these debit cards,
a small initial deposit, which was often around $20, was made to establish a Green
Dot bank account linked to the debit card. Elegba then transmitted the card
information to Erhimwinrose and other conspirators -on messagirig applications
including WhatsApp. After this transmittal, Erhinmwinrose and other conspirators
registered the bank accounts using the information of identity-theft victims and then
used the bank account and routing number associated with the cards to submit
additional fraud applications for government benefits including EIDLs and UI
benefits and on tax returns.
In conducting these transactions, Elegba’s intent was that the purchases of

debit cards would promote the carrying on of additional wire fraud that would result

in additional Wire Fraud Proceeds and resulting commissions to Elegba.

15
Case No. 1:23-cr-O00300-CNS Document126 filed 08/01/24 USDC Colorado pg
16 of 20

E. Knowledge of Unlawful Activity
At all relevant times, Elegba knew that the Wire Fraud Proceeds came from
unlawful activity. Specifically, he knew ode the Wire Fraud Proceeds came from
illegal activity, which he initially understood to include romance fraud schemes.
Eventually, Elegba learned that Wire Fraud Proceeds also came from submission of
fraudulent applications for government benefits. Elegba’s participation in the conspiracy
occurred for approximately fourteen months, from approximately April 2020 until
approximately June 2021.
F. Value of Laundered Funds and Restitution
The government submits that, for purposes of § 251.1, the proper calculation of
the value of laundered funds known at this time to be involved in the charged money
laundering conspiracy is $4,084,689.22, which includes (a) Wire. Fraud Proceeds
obtained through tax refunds, tax stimulus payments, and the PPP, EIDL, and state

UI programs, (b) that also were involved-in laundéring-transactions by members of

the conspiracy within the meaning of § 251.1 app. note 1:

Program Value_of laundered funds involved
“| in transactions’

PPP $2,494,075

EIDL $1,095,000

UI benefits includes UI payments from | $422,047

CO, IL, IA, KS, NY, and RI - ~ oo
Tax refund - $73,567.22.
Total $4,084,689.22

During Elegba’s involvement in the conspiracy, he used shell corporations set
up for the purpose of laundering funds and engaged in two or more levels of

laundering transactions, including purchasing money orders, withdrawing cash,

ta.

16
Case No. 1:23-cr-O00300-CNS Documenti126 _ filed 08/01/24 USDC Colorado pg
17 of 20

transporting cash, and depositing cash to bank accounts tied to other conspirators and

other shell corporations.

VI. ADVISORY GUIDELINE COMPUTATION

The parties understand that the imposition of a sentence in this matter is
governed by 18 U.S.C. § 3553. In determining the particular sentence to be imposed,
the Court is required to consider seven factors. One of those factors is the sentencing

range computed by the Court under advisory guidelines issued by the United States

Sentencing Commission. In order to aid the Court in this regard, the parties set forth
below their estimate of the advisory guideline range called for by the United States
Sentencing Guidelines. To the extent that the parties disagree about the guideline
eee the recitation below identifies the matters which are in dispute.

The Guideline calculation below is the good-faith estimate of the parties, but it
is only an estimate. The parties understand that the government also has an

independent obligation to assist the Court in making an accurate determination of the

correct guideline range. To that end, the parties may argue that facts identified in the

presentence report, or otherwise identified during the sentencing process, affect the

estimate below.

A, The parties agree that the applicable guideline is §251.1(a)(2) and that
under §2S1.1(a)(2), the base offense level is 8 plus the number of the
offense levels from the table in §2B1.4corresponding to the value of the
laundered funds. The government submits that there _is an 18-level
increase based on a value of laundered funds of more than $3,500,000,
but less than $9,500,000, which would make the base offense level 26.
The defendant reserves the right to contest this Guideline calculation,
based upon the proper application of “relevant- conduct” to his offense
conduct.

17
Case No. 1:23-cr-O00300-CNS Document126 filed 08/01/24 USDC Colorado pg

B. The defendant should receive a 2-level increase because he is pleading
guilty under 18 U.S.C. § 1956. § 251.1(b)(2)(B).

C. The defendant should receive a 2-level increase because the offense
involved sophisticated laundering. § 251.1(b)(3).?

D. The government submits that the defendant should receive a 2-level
reduction for minor role in the offense, because the loss amount greatly
exceeds the defendant’s personal gain from the offense and the defendant
received direction from others above him in the conspiracy. § 3B1.2 app.
note 3(A). The defendant reserves the right to argue that he should
receive a 3-level reduction for role in the offense.

E. The defendant should qualify for a 2-level reduction applicable to certain
zero-point offenders who meet designated criteria. § 4C1.1.

F. There are no victim-related adjustments, obstruction, grouping, and/or
multiple-count adjustments.

G. The defendant should receive a 3-level reduction for acceptance of
responsibility. § 3E1.1(b). oO

H. The adjusted offense level for Count 2 based on the government’s
calculation is 23.

~

I. The parties understand that the defendant’s criminal history
computation is tentative. The criminal history category is determined by
the Court based on the defendant’s prior convictions. Based on
information currently available to the parties, it is estimated that the
defendant’s criminal history category Would be I-

J. The career offender/criminal livelihood/armed career criminal
adjustments would not apply.

K. The advisory guideline range resulting? from these calculations is 46-57
months. However, in order to be as accurate as: possible, with the
criminal history category undetermined at this time, the offense level(s)
estimated above could conceivably result in a range from 46 months
(bottom of Category I) to 115 months (top of Category VI). The guideline
range would not exceed, in any case, the statutory maximum applicable to
the count of conviction.

2 Although some factors relevant to the enhancemeiit for the business of laundering
funds are satisfied, see § 2S51.1(b)(2)(B), the application of that enhancement instead

of sophisticated laundering would result in the same offense level.
18
Case No. 1:23-cr-O00300-CNS Document126 filed 08/01/24 USDC Colorado pg
19 of 20

L. Pursuant to guideline § 5E1.2, assuming the estimated offense level
above, the fine range for this.offense would be $20,000 to $200,000, plus
applicable interest and penalties.

M. ‘Pursuant to guideline § 5D1.2, if the Court imposes a term of supervised
release, that term is at least 1 year, but not more than 3 years.

=

N. Pursuant to guideline §5E1.1(a)(1), the Court shall. enter a restitution
order for the full amount of the victims’ losses.

The parties understand that the Court is free, upon consideration and proper
application of all 18 U.S.C. § 3553 factors, to impose that reasonable sentence which it
deems appropriate in the exercise of its discretion and that such sentence may be less
than that called for by the advisory guidelines Gn length or form), within the advisory
guideline range, or above the advisory guideline range up to and including
imprisonment for. the statutory maximum term, regardless of any computation or

position of any party on any 18 U.S.C. § 3553 factor.

19
filed 08/01/24 USDC Colorado

Case No. 1:23-cr-O0300-CNS Document 126
20 of 20

ENTIRE MENT
The agreement disclosed to the Court is the entire agreement. There are no
other promises, agreements or “side agreements,” teums, conditions, understandings,
ox assurances, express or implied. In entering this agreement, neither the government

nor the defendant has relied, or is relying, on any other terms, promises, conditions or

assurances.

OREOLUWA ABDUL-JABBAR ELEGBA |

Date 3
Defendant A ~
Date THOMAS GOODREID

Attommey for Defendant -

CRAIG G. FANSLER

Date
Assistant U.S. Attorney

pg


File and source

File

126-plea-agreement-as-to-oreoluwa-abdul-jabbar-elegba.pdf

Size

619,709 bytes

SHA-256

d57bd716c52fb396aaebb5b578d4cb80ac029ff46bdaa8ac23767a14418a5353

Our copy

126-plea-agreement-as-to-oreoluwa-abdul-jabbar-elegba.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)