Plea Agreement — USA v. Erhinmwinrose et al (Dkt. 75, D. Colo.)

Summary

A Plea Agreement and Statement of Facts Relevant to Sentencing in United States of America v. Victor Henshaw Tobore a/k/a David Badru, Criminal Case No. 23-cr-00300-CNS-2, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado, filed January 10, 2024 as Document 75; defense counsel is Rick Kornfeld. The defendant agrees to plead guilty to count 2 of the Indictment, conspiracy to commit money laundering under 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h), to pay restitution in an amount to be determined at sentencing and not to contest forfeiture. The stipulated facts state that the Fraud Ring obtained more than $8,119,037 from government programs, including $2,332,600 in EIDL and $5,704,967 in PPP losses. They describe Tobore as 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. Page 14 of 22 is not shown because the text could not be recognized reliably.

Case No. 1:23-cr-O0300-CNS Document 75 __ filed 01/10/24 USDC Colorado pgi
of 22

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Criminal Case No. 23-cr-00300-CNS-2
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.
2. VICTOR HENSHAW TOBORE a/k/a DAVID BADRU,

Defendant.

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, Victor Henshaw Tobore (“Tobore” or
the “defendant”), personally and by counsel, Rick Kornfeld, 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.

L_ 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
of 22

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 to 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. n.4 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.S.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 U.S.8S.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-O0300-CNS Document 75 __ filed 01/10/24 USDC Colorado pg3
of 22

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 sentence imposed.

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 Gncluding, 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-O0300-CNS Document 75 __ filed 01/10/24 USDC Colorado pg4
of 22

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 revocation 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 sentence 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)G) 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:

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: (1) proceeds from the sale of property discussed in the restitution
section below, and (2) a money judgment in the amount of the proceeds obtained by

the conspiracy. The defendant agrees and consents to the forfeiture of these assets
Case No. 1:23-cr-O0300-CNS Document 75 __ filed 01/10/24 USDC Colorado pg5
of 22

pursuant to any federal criminal, civil, and/or administrative forfeiture action. The
defendant understands that pursuant to 18 U.S.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 any 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.
Case No. 1:23-cr-O0300-CNS Document 75 __ filed 01/10/24 USDC Colorado pg6
of 22

Il, ELEMENTS OF THE OFFENSE

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. § 1956(a)(1)(A)G) (Promotion) and
18 U.S.C. Section 1956(a)(1)(B)G) (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 manner, 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 (0th
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 of 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.1. § 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 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(1)(A)@, are as follows:

6
Case No. 1:23-cr-O0300-CNS Document 75 __ filed 01/10/24 USDC Colorado pg/7

of 22
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;
and

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. Johnson, 821 F.3d 1194, 1203 (10th
Cir. 2016).

Il, 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 lmited to,
the rights to possess firearms, vote, hold elected office, and sit on a jury. The
conviction may cause the defendant to be deported 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.
V. STIPULATION OF FACTS

The factual basis for this plea is set forth below. Because the Court must, as

7
Case No. 1:23-cr-O0300-CNS Document 75 __ filed 01/10/24 USDC Colorado pg8
of 22

part of its sentencing methodology, compute the advisory 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 may 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 2021, 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
(IRS) paid refunds to taxpayers whose federal income tax withheld for the year
exceeds the total tax they owe. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the Department of
Treasury and IRS also provided Economic Impact Payments based on information

provided on the previous year’s tax return and deposited these payments in the same
Case No. 1:23-cr-O0300-CNS Document75 _ filed 01/10/24 USDC Colorado pg9
of 22

bank account that received the previous year’s refund.
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 Protection Program (PPP),
Economic Injury Disaster Loan (EIDL) program, state unemployment insurance (UI)
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 June 2021 $ 5,704,967 Various
At least 2020- States included CO, IL, NJ,
UI 2021 Not calculated NY, OH, WA
April 2020-
Tax Refunds July 2022 $81,470 IRS
April 2020-
Total July 2022 $8,119,037

C. Summary of the Money Laundering Conspiracy

Upon receipt of the Wire Fraud Proceeds, Erhinmwinrose, Nyerhovwo Agbure,
Tobore, Oreoluwa Elegba, and other co-conspirators coordinated monetary
transactions with the objectives to conceal and disguise the nature, location, source,
ownership, and control of Wire Fraud Proceeds and to promote the carrying on of wire

fraud.

9
Case No. 1:23-cr-O0300-CNS Document 75 __ filed 01/10/24 USDC Colorado pgi10
of 22

D. Tobore’s Role in the Conspiracy

Tobore, who also used the alias David Badru, was one of multiple “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,
Agbure, and other co-conspirators coordinated the runners, including two runners
charged in this prosecution: Tobore and Elegba.

1. 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.,
D.P, J.J., J.W., M.C., M.P., R.W., and S.R. and request disbursement of Wire Fraud
Proceeds to these bank accounts and associated debit cards. Before opening Green
Dot accounts, Erhinmwinrose requested from Tobore a physical mailing address.
Tobore provided the mailing address for his previous apartment, to which he retained
a mailbox key. Subsequently, Erhinmwinrose and other conspirators listed Tobore’s
previous address as the address of record for mailing debit cards and other bank
communications. At least 77 Green Dot bank accounts listed Tobore’s previous
address as their address of record, including many established by Erhinmwinrose.
Conspirators set up alerts with the U.S. Postal Service to notify Tobore when mail
was delivered to his address and ready for pickup. After funds were deposited to the

debit cards, Tobore, at the direction of Erhinmwinrose and other conspirators,

10
Case No. 1:23-cr-00300-CNS Document 75 _ filed 01/10/24 USDC Colorado pgil
of 22

purchased 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. Tobore then transferred the proceeds to
Erhinmwinrose, less a fee of approximately five percent, as determined by
Erhinmwinrose.

As one example, on July 3, 2020, the SBA disbursed $9,300 for an EIDL
submitted in the name of identity theft victim M.R. to a Green Dot bank account in
the name of M.C. Immediately after these funds were received, on July 7, 2020,
Tobore visited four different businesses—three Kroger stores and Bank of America—
to empty the M.C. account while converting the money to cash or Western Union

money orders:

Date Total Amount {incl. fee} | Transaction amount |Merchant City State
7/7/2020)5983.00 $983.00 BANK OF AMERICA*ALEXANDER |FRANKLIN TN
7/7/2020)52,506.00 $2,500.00 KROGER #596210 FRANKLIN R BRENTWOOD|TN
7/7/2020) $2,802.64 $2,800.00 KROGER #5921203 MURFREESB ~~ | FRANKLIN TN
7/7/2020|$3,006.00 $3,000.00 KROGER #5921203 MURFREESB FRANKLIN TN
Total $9,297.64 $9,283.00

The same Green Dot bank account was used to receive UI benefits for five identity
theft victims from the State of New York on July 30, 2020 totaling $5,520. Between
approximately July 31 and August 3, 2020, Tobore visited five different businesses—
two Publix stores, a Kroger store, and two U.S. Bank branches—to empty the UI
benefits from the M.C. Green Dot account.

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

Another method was for Erhinmwinrose to provide identity theft victims’

information to Tobore for Tobore to establish individual and corporate bank accounts
11
Case No. 1:23-cr-O0300-CNS Document 75 __ filed 01/10/24 USDC Colorado pgi12
of 22

in other 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
identification numbers by making false statements to state governments and the
Internal Revenue Service. He then provided fabricated and fraudulent documents to
Tobore so that Tobore could establish bank accounts under synthetic identities
including the names Bobby Matt, Matthew Howard, and Wayne Coker. At the
direction of Erhinmwinrose, Tobore established individual accounts and accounts for
these individuals as owners of the fictitious entities Bobb Consulting Link, MH
Trucking, and WC Construction. For example, on August 10, 2020, Erhinmwinrose
emailed Tobore—using the subject line “Re: biz to open aza for victor”—the documents
and information needed to open corporate bank accounts for MH Trucking and WC
Construction. On August 11, 2020, Tobore used documents and information provided
by Erhinmwinrose and included in this email to open an MH Trucking bank account
at JPMorgan Chase Bank.

3. Erhinmwinrose provides information to Elegba to set up bank accounts
used by Elegba and Tobore to coordinate laundering of funds

Erhinmwinrose also provided fabricated and fraudulent documents and

information to Elegba to establish bank accounts under synthetic identities including

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.
12
Case No. 1:23-cr-O0300-CNS Document 75 __ filed 01/10/24 USDC Colorado pg13
of 22

Anthony Reed and AR Logistics. On August 12, 2020, Elegba used these documents
and information to open an AR Logistics bank account with JPMorgan Chase. On
September 18, 2020, Elegba texted the bank account information to Tobore so that
Tobore could deposit Wire Fraud Proceeds to the Elegba-controlled AR Logistics bank
account. Following this text, Tobore deposited $71,200.47 to the Elegba-controlled
account over three deposits. 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, Agbure deposits money orders for Tobore to withdraw as cash

On multiple occasions, Agbure made bulk deposits of money orders purchased
with Wire Fraud Proceeds to bank accounts including the MH Trucking account for
Tobore to subsequently withdraw as cash. For example, on September 15, Tobore
provided the bank account information for MH Trucking to Agbure. The same day,
Agbure stated in a message that he deposited $21,000 in previously purchased money

orders to this account:
Case No. 1:23-cr-O0300-CNS Document 75
of 22

filed 01/10/24

September 2020 MH Trucking bank statement

USDC Colorado

DATE. OFscnirTo. AMOUNT
031 Deposit | {oe214992 46,500 Ca
09-04 Degonl 1108214817 _ 27,600 Cd

181.00

25,000. A)

09-25 Degost 1920638357 ; 26.880 28
09-28 Crcs‘a3il 1940315878 10,000 00

pg 15

The money orders deposited on September 15 included three $1,000 money
orders purchased from a fraudulent EIDL application prepared by Erhinmwinrose
for a fake business named Kathryn’s Furs, submitted using the information of
identity theft victim K.H. Five other money orders were purchased from these same
EIDL proceeds and deposited to an individual account in the name of Matthew
Howard at a different bank. After the money orders were deposited to the MH
Trucking and the Matthew Howard bank accounts, Tobore withdrew the Wire Funds
Proceeds as cash from various banks and ATMs over a short time period. Tobore
subsequently gave the cash to Agbure or Ehrwinmwinrose, i.e. whoever directed
him to obtain and cash the money orders. Tobore received approximately five
percent of the proceeds as payment.

Erhinmwinrose also deposited Wire Fraud Proceeds to the MH Trucking bank
account, including an October 13, 2020 cash deposit of $34,000. Erhinmwinrose
messaged Tobore a photo confirming the deposit. Tobore replied the same day to
confirm receipt.

5. Agbure and Tobore coordinate additional layer of transactions for larger
PPP loans

15
Case No. 1:23-cr-O0300-CNS Document 75 __ filed 01/10/24 USDC Colorado pg16
of 22

After the conspirators began obtaining PPP loans for amounts of up to
$973,850, Agbure provided business checks from bank accounts he controlled—
including an account using the synthetic identity of Laurence Iyapo—to Tobore for
deposit into accounts controlled by Tobore using other names. For example, after the
conspirators obtained a PPP loan in the name of identity theft victim L.R. in February
2021 for the amount of $451,925, the loan proceeds were wired to the Lyapo account.
Agbure transmitted these proceeds to other conspirators by writing checks to
corporate entities from the Wire Fraud Proceeds, including (1) to WC Construction
for $48,522 on February 22, 2021 and (2) two checks to MH Trucking totaling $18,350
on February 22 and 26, 2021. After these checks were deposited into the accounts
Tobore controlled, he then 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. Tobore subsequently gave the cash he obtained at the direction of
Agbure to Agbure, and received approximately five percent of the funds as payment.
In conducting these transactions, Tobore knew they were designed to conceal the
nature, location, source, ownership, and control of Wire Fraud Proceeds.

6. Cash delivery to Erhinmwinrose

During the term of the conspiracy, on multiple occasions, Tobore—after moving
Wire Fraud Proceeds through various accounts and converting Wire Fraud Proceeds
to cash—delivered this cash to Erhinmwinrose at his automobile business, IGI
Autos.

7. Tobore used Wire Fraud Proceeds to promote further criminal activity

Tobore also received instructions from Agbure and Erhinmwinrose to use Wire
16
of 22

Fraud Proceeds to promote the criminal conspiracy. For example:

. Tobore purchased items later used in connection with the criminal
conspiracy such as mobile phone services from LycaMobile using Wire
Fraud Proceeds.

e Erhinmwinrose authorized Tobore to take a commission from the Wire
Fraud Proceeds he laundered. Tobore’scommission was
approximately five percent of the value of the funds he laundered.
Tobore was directed to take his portion of the profits before he delivered
the rest of the cash to Erhinmwinrose.

° In May 2020, Agbure directed Tobore to make cash deposits of Wire
Fraud Proceeds to corporate bank accounts in Agbure’s name to make it
appear that Agbure’s nonoperating businesses were receiving revenues,

Shortly after these deposits, Agbure submitted EJDL applications for
these same businesses and used inflated revenues on those applications.

In conducting these transactions, Tobore’s intent was that the transaction
would promote the carrying on of additional wire fraud that would result in additional
Wire Fraud Proceeds and commissions to Tobore.

BE. Knowledge of Unlawful Activity

At all relevant times, Tobore knew that the Wire Fraud Proceeds came from
unlawful activity. Specifically, he knew that the Wire Fraud Proceeds came from
Agbure’s and Erhinmwinrose’s submission of fraudulent loan applications to the SBA
and to state unemployment agencies for UI benefits. Tobore’s participation in the
conspiracy occurred for approximately thirteen months, from approximately March
2020 until April 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

17
of 22

money laundering conspiracy is $4,084,689.22, which includes (a) Wire Fraud
Proceeds obtained through tax refunds and the PPP, EIDL, and state UI programs,
(b) that also were involved in laundering 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 RD
Tax refund $73,567.22

Total $4,084,689.22

The defendant may argue at sentencing that some of these laundered funds
were not relevant conduct within the meaning of § 1B1.3.

With his share of the proceeds, Tobore purchased multiple properties in
Nigeria. Tobore specifically agrees that the following properties were purchased with
Wire Fraud Proceeds, and further agrees to place these properties for sale, and to
remit all proceeds from their sale to the restitution in this case:

1. Vendor's parcel of land situated at Obagie, Unuamen Desert, measuring
13 hectares in Edo State;

2. Piece of land described as plot no. A-19 meant for the development of a
5-bedroom duplex measuring approx. 700 square meters at Excellent
Megacity Estates, in the Cadastral Zone 07-07, Sabon Lugbe East
Extension, in Abuja.

3. Piece of land described as plot no. A-20 meant for the development of a
5-bedroom duplex measuring approx. 800 square meters at Excellent
Megacity Estates, in the Cadastral Zone 07-07, Sabon Lughbe East
Extension, in Abuja;

A. Piece of land described as plot no. A-21 meant for the development of a
5-bedroom duplex measuring approx. 800 square meters at Excellent
Megacity Estates, in the Cadastral Zone 07-07, Sabon Lugbe East

18
Case No. 1:23-cr-O0300-CNS Document 75 __ filed 01/10/24 USDC Colorado pg19
of 22

Extension, in Abuja;

5. Piece of land described as plot no. A-22 meant for the development of a
5-bedroom duplex measuring approx. 800 square meters at Excellent
Megacity Estates, in the Cadastral Zone 07-07, Sabon Lugbe East
Extension, in Abuja;

6. Piece of land described as plot no. A-23 meant for the development of a
5-bedroom duplex measuring approx. 800 square meters at Excellent
Megacity Estates, in the Cadastral Zone 07-07, Sabon Lugbe East
Extension, in Abuja;

7. Piece of land described as plot no. A-24 meant for the development of a
§-bedroom duplex measuring approx. 800 square meters at Excellent
Megacity Estates, in the Cadastral Zone 07-07, Sabon Lugbe East
Extension, in Abuja;

8. Piece of land described as plot no. A-25 meant for the development of a
5-bedroom duplex measuring approx. 800 square meters at Excellent
Megacity Estates, in the Cadastral Zone 07-07, Sabon Lugbe East
Extension, in Abuja;

9. Piece of land described as plot no. A-88 meant for the development of a
5-bedroom duplex measuring approx. 700 square meters at Excellent
Megacity Estates, in the Cadastral Zone 07-07, Sabon Lugbe East
Extension, in Abuja; and

10. Piece of land described as plot no. A-39 meant for the development of a
5-bedroom duplex measuring approx. 700 square meters at Excellent
Megacity Estates, in the Cadastral Zone 07-07, Sabon Lugbe East
Extension, in Abuja.

Tobore further agrees to provide a complete accounting of each sale to the government
within one month of sale.

The parties agree that Tobore regularly engaged in laundering funds over
thirteen months, laundered funds from multiple individuals and government
programs during that period, and was otherwise unemployed during this period.
Based on these facts, the parties agree that Tobore was in the business of laundering

funds within the meaning of § 251.1(b)(2)(C).

19
Case No. 1:23-cr-O0300-CNS Document 75 _ filed 01/10/24 USDC Colorado pg 20
of 22

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
computations, 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 government 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 §2B1.1 corresponding to the value of the
laundered funds. The government submits that there is an 18-level
increase based on more than $3,500,000, but less than $9,500,000, which
would make the base offense level 26. The defendant may argue that
the value of laundered funds reasonably foreseeable to defendant is

lower.

B. The defendant should receive a 4-level increase because subsection (a)(2)
applies and the defendant was in the business of laundering funds.

§ 251.1(b)(2)(C).

C. If the Court finds the value of laundered funds results in an 18-level
increase, the defendant should receive a 2-level reduction for role in the
20
Case No. 1:23-cr-O0300-CNS Document 75 __ filed 01/10/24 USDC Colorado pg21
of 22

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).

D. By the time of sentencing, the parties anticipate that the defendant will
qualify for a 2-level reduction applicable to certain zero-point offenders
who meet designated criteria. § 4C1.1.2

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

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

G. The adjusted offense level for Count 2 based on the government's
calculation is 28.

H. 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.

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

J. 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.

K. 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.

L. Pursuant to guideline § 5D 1.2, if the Court imposes a term of supervised
release, that term is at least 1 year, but not more than 3 years.

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

2 This reduction is part of changes to the criminal history provisions of the Sentencing
Guidelines expected to take effect on November 1, 2023.
21
Case No. 1:23-cr-O0300-CNS Document 75 _ filed 01/10/24 USDC Colorado

of 22

pg 22

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 (in 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.

VIL ENTIRE AGREEMENT

The agreement disclosed to the Court is the entire agreement. There are no

other promises, agreements or “side agreements,” terms, conditions, understandings,

or 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.

Date

]

ate

Date

VICTOR HENSHAW TOBORE
Defendant

RICK KORNFELD
Attorney for Defendant Victor Henshaw Tobore

CRAIG G. FANSLER
Assistant U.S. Attorney

22


File and source

File

75-plea-agreement-as-to-victor-henshaw-tobore.pdf

Size

797,072 bytes

SHA-256

a4ad74664ffc2d4140ba7dfd36fe19486689449bad5d531b7117b1d1932ff4a6

Our copy

75-plea-agreement-as-to-victor-henshaw-tobore.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)