United States v. Adepoju Babatunde Salako — Plea Agreement, District of Colorado (Document 29)

Summary

The Plea Agreement and Statement of Facts Relevant to Sentencing in United States v. Adepoju Babatunde Salako, Criminal Case No. 25-cr-00162-CNS, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado, filed November 3, 2025 as Document 29. The defendant agrees to plead guilty to counts 1 and 8 of the Indictment, conspiracy to commit wire fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1349 and conspiracy to commit money laundering, and to pay restitution of at least $5,781,631.50. The defendant also agrees to plead guilty to counts 1-7 of a criminal information in the District of Alaska and not to contest forfeiture; the government agrees to dismiss counts 2-7 and 9-12 at sentencing. The agreement sets out the elements of each offense, a maximum of 20 years' imprisonment per count, appeal waivers and a stipulation of facts that opens with background on COVID-19 relief programs under the CARES Act.

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 12 of 21 is not shown because the text could not be recognized reliably.

Case No. 1:25-cr-00162-CNS Document 29 _ filed 11/03/25 USDC Colorado pgi
of 21

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Criminal Case No. 25-cr-00162-CNS

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,

v.

1. ADEPOJU BABATUNDE SALAKO,

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, Adepoju Babatunde Salako (“Salako”
or the “defendant”), personally and by counsel, Michael Becker, 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

COURT

A, Defendant’s Plea of Guilty: EXHIBIT

The defendant agrees:

(1} to plead guilty to counts 1 and 8 of the Indictment charging
violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1349 (conspiracy to commit wire
fraud) and 18U.5S.C. § 1956(h) (conspiracy to commit money
laundering);

(2) to waive certain appellate and collateral attack rights, as explained in
Case No. 1:25-cr-00162-CNS Document 29 _ filed 11/03/25 USDC Colorado pg2
of 21

detail below;

(3) to pay restitution to the victims of this offense in an amount of at least
$5,781,631.50, with the final 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) to plead guilty to counts 1-7 of a criminal information in the District of
Alaska charging wire fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343;

(5) 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) and (B). 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 wire fraud and money laundering conspiracies described
below and to dismiss counts 2-7 and 9-12 of the Indictment with prejudice at the time
of sentencing. In a separate plea agreement in the District of Alaska, the government
agrees to recommend that any sentence in that district run concurrent to the sentence
imposed in this case in the District of Colorado. 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.8.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
Case No. 1:25-cr-00162-CNS Document 29 _ filed 11/03/25 USDC Colorado pg3
of 21

for acceptance of responsibility pursuant to U.S.S.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
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 statutes
of conviction, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1349 and 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 26:
or

(8) the government appeals the sentence imposed. Va C c

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
3
Case No. 1:25-cr-00162-CNS Document 29 _ filed 11/03/25 USDC Colorado pg4
of 21

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 United States agrees not to argue a procedural bar to a prosecutorial
misconduct claim raised in a § 2255 petition based on the failure of the defendant to
raise that issue on direct appeal.

The defendant also waives the right to appeal any sentence imposed below or
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:
Case No. 1:25-cr-00162-CNS Document 29 _ filed 11/03/25 USDC Colorado pg5
of 21

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
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
Case No. 1:25-cr-00162-CNS Document 29 _ filed 11/03/25 USDC Colorado pg6
of 21

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
A. Count 1 (Wire Fraud Conspiracy)

The parties agree that the elements of Count 1, a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1349, Wire
Fraud Conspiracy, are as follows:

1. two or more persons agreed to commit mail and wire fraud, in violation
of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341 and 1343;

2. the defendant joined the agreement knowing its purpose and with
intent to further the illegal purpose; and

3. there was interdependence among the members of the conspiracy.

Tenth Circuit Crim. J.I. §, 2.73.1 (2021 ed); United States v. Fishman, 645 F.3d 1175,
1186-87 (10th Cir. 2011) (stating elements and finding no overt act requirement for a
1349 conspiracy).

The parties further agree that the elements of the underlying offense, wire fraud in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343, are:

(1) The defendant devised or intended to devise a scheme to defraud, as
alleged in the Indictment;

(2) The defendant acted with the specific intent to defraud;

(3) The defendant used, or caused another person to use, interstate or
foreign mailings or wires for the purpose of carrying out the scheme;
and

6
Case No. 1:25-cr-00162-CNS Document 29 _ filed 11/03/25 USDC Colorado pg/7
of 21

(4) The scheme employed false or fraudulent pretenses, representations,
or promises that were material.

Tenth Circuit Pattern Jury Instructions (Criminal), § 2.57 Wire Fraud (2021).

B. Count 8 (Money Laundering Conspiracy)

The parties agree that the elements of Count 8, 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)(i) (Promotion) and
18 U.S.C. §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 (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)(),
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.

7
Case No. 1:25-cr-00162-CNS Document 29 _ filed 11/03/25 USDC Colorado pg8
of 21

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 (Spending), a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1957, are as follows:

1. the defendant engaged in a monetary transaction;

2. the defendant knew that the transaction involved property or funds that
were the proceeds of some form of criminal activity;

3. the property had a value of more than $10,000;
4, the property was in fact the proceeds of wire fraud; and
5. the transaction took place in the United States.

See United States v. Huff, 641 F.3d 1228, 1231 (10th Cir. 2011).

Ill, STATUTORY MAXIMUM SENTENCE

The maximum sentence for a violation of Count 1 of the Indictment is: not more
than 20 years’ imprisonment; maximum fine of not more than $250,000 or twice the
gross pecuniary gain or loss resulting from the offense, or both fine and imprisonment;
not more than three years of supervised release; $100 mandatory victim’s fund
assessment fee; and restitution.

The maximum sentence for a violation of Count 8 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.

IV. COLLATERAL CONSEQUENCES

The conviction may cause the loss of civil rights, including, but not limited to,

8
Case No. 1:25-cr-00162-CNS Document 29 _ filed 11/03/25 USDC Colorado pgQ9
of 21

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
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 certain COVID-19 relief programs

In March 2020, Congress enacted the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic
Security (“CARES”) Act. It expanded state unemployment insurance (UI) benefits by
providing additional federal funding and provided emergency assistance to small
business owners suffering adverse economic effects caused by the COVID-19

pandemic. It also provided funding for small businesses affected by the COVID-19
9
filed 11/03/25 USDC Colorado pg10

Case No. 1:25-cr-00162-CNS Document ~
of 21

pandemic through the Paycheck Protection Program (“PPP”) and the Economic Injury
Disaster Loan (“EIDL”) program, each administered by the United States Small
Business Administration (“SBA”).

B. The Defendant and Conspirators

At all relevant times, Adepoju Salako was a resident of Philadelphia,

Pennsylvania and sole owner of Tudor Smart Phones & Accessories LLC, a
Pennsylvania-registered limited liability company. Conspirator 1 and other unnamed
coconspirators primarily resided in Nigeria.

C. Fraud Conspiracy Involving Salako and Conspirator 1

After the CARES Act authorized EIDL and PPP funding and expanded

federal funding for UI benefits, Salako and Conspirator 1 acted interdependently to

request CARES Act funding of over $700,000. They obtained approximately

$73,506.16, all of which was deposited to bank accounts controlled by Salako. They

used information of identity theft victims to fraudulently obtain PPP loans and

benefits from multiple state UI benefit programs (including Colorado). They also

submitted fraudulent applications for Economic Injury Disaster Loans (EIDL), for

which the intended loss was $681,855.50. The applications submitted include the following:

Program Dates Loss (Actual and | Victim
Intended)

EIDL Jan.-Oct. 2021 $681,855.50 SBA
Gntended)

PPP Feb. 2021 $30,625 (actual) SBA

UI (Colorado) 2020-2021 $16,080 (actual) CDLE

10
Case No. 1:25-cr-00162-CNS Document 29 _ filed 11/03/25 USDC Colorado pgil1

of 21
UI (Other States) 2020-2021 $26,801.16 (actual) | Maryland, New York
Total $755,361.66

Salako and Conspirator 1 used the WhatsApp messaging service to exchange
messages, documents, and information about the conspiracy, including to exchange
stolen or false identities and to share bank account details for use on fraudulent
applications. For example, on February 18, 2021, Conspirator 1 messaged Salako a
screenshot of a fraudulent UI application submitted to the CDLE that he had
directed to a bank account controlled by Salako but in the name of identity-theft
victim M.C. Salako then texted Conspirator 1 a screenshot showing the deposit into
the M.C. bank account, and letting Conspirator 1 know that the “money dropped,” to
which Conspirator 1 responded “Nice one bruh.”

12675936951 (Tudor)

Activity Qe

12675936951 (Tudor)
The money dropped

13039000187 (+1 (303) 900-0137)

Cate Ul Benefits Ui Payment
rs | Ul Paym Nice one brun

Invite Friends, Get $10"

Salako and Conspirator 1 used an email forwarding service known as 33mail
to create multiple usernames on custom email domains. Although the email
addresses appeared to be unique and refer to different individuals, 33mail allowed
all the usernames on the same domain to forward emails to the same email address.

As one example, Salako used multiple usernames on two different 33mail domains—
11
Case No. 1:25-cr-00162-CNS Document 29 _ filed 11/03/25 USDC Colorado pgi13
of 21

Between January 24, 2021 and May 19, 2021, Conspirator 1 submitted at least
54 additional fraudulent applications for UI benefits to the CDLE, using stolen or
false identities and directing that the CDLE deposit payments to accounts

controlled by Salako. The CDLE approved 7 of these fraudulent claims and paid
$15,431 in UI benefits to Salako-controlled bank accounts.

Between January 16, 2021 and April 26, 2021, Salako submitted 10 fraudulent
applications for EDLs to the SBA requesting approximately $287,422.50 and aided
and abetted Conspirator 1 in submitting three additional EIDL applications
requesting approximately $450,000.

On February 11, 2021, Salako aided and abetted Conspirator 1 in submitting a
fraudulent PPP loan application in the name of Turn-Turn-Turn Woodturning using
the stolen identity of D.P., a resident of Nevada. The application listed a bank account
and phone number belonging to Salako. The application provided false information
about the identity of the person submitting the application and the business’s
operations. On February 12, 2021, a lender approved the application based on the
false representations and disbursed $30,625 to a Discover Bank account in the name
of Salako.

Salako’s actions of submitting fraudulent applications for EIDL and UI funding
and in aiding and abetting Conspirator 1’s submission of fraudulent applications for
EIDL, PPP, and UI funding caused interstate wires, including payment wires from
the SBA’s finance center in Colorado to processing sites outside of Colorado. During

the course of the wire fraud conspiracy conducted by Salako and Conspirator 1, the

13
Case No. 1:25-cr-00162-CNS Document 29 filed 11/03/25 USDC Colorado pgi14
of 21

actual loss as well as restitution from all the fraudulent applications submitted was
$73,506.16 and actual and intended loss was $755,361.66.

D. Money Laundering Conspiracy Involving Salako and Unnamed
Conspirators

1. Overview of conspiracy and total value of laundered funds

Other unnamed co-conspirators located primarily in Nigeria also applied for
EIDL, PPP, and UI funding using stolen or fake identities and used Salako to
launder their fraud proceeds for a fee. As a result of fraudulent applications, Salako’s
coconspirators obtained approximately $4,711,200 in EIDL funding, $893,771.34 in
UI funding, and $17,708 in PPP funding. Of this UI funding, $85,446 came from
fraudulent applications submitted to the CDLE. To obtain this amount of funding,
co-conspirators submitted EIDL applications using over 1,000 stolen or fake
identities and submitted fraudulent UI benefit claims to approximately 30 different
states.

ae Involvement of romance scam victims

Two romance fraud victims, J.Y. and P.B. received over $800,000 in fraud
proceeds, most of which they sent to Salako. For example, J.Y¥. received
approximately $452,300 in EIDL proceeds and P.G. received approximately
$301,400, the majority of which was sent to Salako by wire transfer or mailed cash or
checks. To launder the money, Salako first deposited the money in a business

checking account at Wells Fargo in the name of his LLC, Tudor Smartphones:

14
Case No. 1:25-cr-00162-CNS Document 29 _ filed 11/03/25 USDC Colorado pgi15

of 21
4 EIDLs 3 Checks. 11 Wires
$452,300.00 $272,800.00 $488,155.95
Woon America
Bank
LY, account

Zelle Transfers

Cash Apy Tratsters

$135.858 48

$35,574.00,
; Misc. Deposit => j
(Loans & Grants) peel are pores

PayPal Transters

Pee x2529 $12,077.08

3 Wires Bank of A :
ank of America
Inland Valley CU $25,000.09 SALAKO +3033
P.B. account

3 ElDLs 3 MO, 6 Casmers Checks
$301.400.00 $272,400.00

Wells Fargo
SALAKO

12 Online Transfers x5340%x5390

$41,330.00

He then withdrew the majority of the laundered funds as cash before depositing
it in his personal account at Bank of America to add an additional step to conceal the

source and destination of funds, before transferring most of the money overseas:

$388,170.06 $341,220.00

ATM Deposits

$586,609.00

Bank of America
SALAKO x3033 —

$437,534.00

3 Wires
$25,000.00

Counter Nigeria

Deposits

United Arab

Emirates

3. Salako’s roles in money laundering conspiracy

Salako’s roles in the money laundering conspiracy included:

e Directly receiving fraud proceeds from government entities to bank

15
Case No. 1:25-cr-00162-CNS Document 29 _ filed 11/03/25 USDC Colorado pg16
of 21

accounts in his own name,

e Directly receiving fraud proceeds from government entities to bank
accounts in other names after he opened up fraudulent bank accounts
using PII of identity theft victims, and

e Receiving money from romance fraud victims by wire transfers and
mailed cash and checks.

After Salako received the money, he laundered fraud proceeds through
multiple accounts before eventually sending laundered proceeds overseas. Salako
received a fee, ranging from 25% to 60% of the funds he laundered, in exchange for
his money laundering services. In one example, Salako transmitted a screenshot of
wires he received from romance fraud victim J.Y., and stated that he would take a

fee of 25% for his laundering services, which was the “lowest I can do bro”:

12675936951 (Fudor) a

Wire transfer na
2Spercent lowest I can
do bro

2020-07-16 19:22:17
+0000

12675936951 (Tudor)

2020-07-16 19:23:06
+0000

Because many of the co-conspirators behind this large-scale fraud were located

overseas, Salako played an important role of creating a false appearance to

16
Case No. 1:25-cr-00162-CNS Document 29 _ filed 11/03/25 USDC Colorado pgi7
of 21

government entities or romance fraud victims that the money was for the benefit of
persons or businesses located in the United States, when it was always intended to
benefit fraudsters located overseas.
4, Knowledge of unlawful activity
At all relevant times while conducting financial transactions, including the
deposits, withdrawals, and transfers above, Salako knew that the money was derived
from unlawful activity, namely wire fraud. He also knowingly conducted transactions
that were designed to conceal the nature, location, source, ownership, and control of
wire fraud proceeds, and knowingly conducted multiple transactions with a value

exceeding $10,000.

5. Value of laundered funds and restitution related to money
laundering conspiracy

The parties agree that, for purposes of § 2S1.1, 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 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 Actual Loss
EIDL $ 4,651,200.00
EIDG $ 60,000.00
PPP $ 17,708.00
Ul $ 893,771.34
Total $ 5,708,125.34

17
Case No. 1:25-cr-00162-CNS Document 29 filed 11/03/25 USDC Colorado pgi18
of 21

During Salako’s involvement in the conspiracy, he agrees that he was in the
business of laundering funds; that is, he regularly engaged in laundering funds, over
an extended period of time, from multiple sources, and generated a substantial
amount of fees in return for laundering funds.

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.

Wire Fraud Conspiracy with Conspirator 1 (Count 1)

A. The base guideline is § 2Bl.1, with a base offense level of 7.
§ 2B1.1(a)(1).

B. A 14-level enhancement applies because the loss was more than

18
Case No. 1:25-cr-00162-CNS Document 29 _ filed 11/03/25 USDC Colorado pg19

of 21

$550,000 but less than $1,500,000. § 2B1.1(b)(1}(H).

A 2-level increase applies because offense involved 10 or more victims
pursuant to § 2B1.1(b)(2)(A).

A 2-level increase applies because a substantial part was committed
outside the United States. § 2B1.1(b)(10).

A 2-level increase applies because the offense involved possession and
use of an authentication feature. § 2B1.1(b)(11).

Money Laundering Conspiracy with Unnamed Conspirators (Count 8)

F.

G.

The base guideline is §2S1.1. Because the defendant would be
accountable for the underlying offense as someone who aided and
abetted the offense under § 1B1.3(a)(1)(A), the offense level is
determined by the underlying offense, here wire fraud, which results in
a base offense level of 30 (based on the underlying wire fraud offense).
§ 2S1.1(a)(1), based on the following:

i. From the base offense level of 6,1 an 18-level enhancement
applies because the loss was more than $3,500,000 but less
than $9,500,000. § 2B1.1(b)(1)G)).

il. A 2-level increase applies because offense involved 10 or
more victims pursuant to § 2B1.1(b)(2)(A).

ili. A 2-level increase applies because a substantial part was
committed outside the United States. § 2B1.1(b)(10).

iv, A 2-level increase applies because the offense involved
possession and use of an authentication feature.
§ 2B1.1(b)(11).

The defendant should receive a 4-level increase because he is pleading
guilty under 18 U.S.C. § 1956 and was in the business of laundering
funds. § 2S1.1(b){2)(C).

Combined Sentence

H.

The total adjusted offense level is 34, pursuant to § 3D1.2(d).

1 The base offense level is 6 rather than 7 because money laundering is not “an offense
referenced to” the § 2B1.1 guideline. See Untied States v. Osuji, 413 F. App'x 603, 613
(4th Cir. 2011).

19
Case No. 1:25-cr-00162-CNS Document 29 filed 11/03/25 USDC Colorado = pg 20

R.

of 21

There are no Chapter 3 victim-related, obstruction, and/or role
adjustments.

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

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

The adjusted offense level based on the government’s calculation is
29,

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.

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

The advisory guideline range resulting from these calculations is 87-
108 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 87 months
(bottom of Category I) to 188 months (top of Category VI). The guideline
range would not exceed, in any case, the statutory maximum applicable
to the count of conviction.

Pursuant to guideline § 5E1.2, assuming the estimated offense level
above, the fine range for this offense would be $30,000 to $300,000, plus
applicable interest and penalties.

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.

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 (in length or form), within the advisory

20
Case No. 1:25-cr-00162-CNS Document 29 _ filed 11/03/25 USDC Colorado pg 21
of 21

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 ADEPOJU SALAKO
Defendant
Date " MICHAEL BECKER
Attorney for Defendant
Date CRAIG KANSLER

Assistant U.S. Attorney

21


File and source

File

29-plea-agreement-as-to-adepoju-babatunde-salako.pdf

Size

516,407 bytes

SHA-256

b4e434b4c94a9c5f9adb8ae23ca2417b63150e08be7f1b0de887d0ce7c6dd42d

Our copy

29-plea-agreement-as-to-adepoju-babatunde-salako.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)