Government’s Sentencing Memorandum, United States v. Hormoz Mansouri (W.D.N.Y., May 30, 2025)

Summary

Government's Sentencing Memorandum in United States v. Hormoz Mansouri, 22-CR-34-LJV, in the United States District Court for the Western District of New York, filed May 30, 2025 as Document 124. It is signed s/ Paul E. Bonanno, Assistant United States Attorney. The government states that the defendant directed two employees to submit PPP and EIDL applications from April 2020 through February 2021, resulting in 16 PPP loans in an aggregate amount of $3,074,431.70, and that seven entities received EIDL funds in an aggregate amount of $450,600. It argues that the defendant paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to casinos and transferred $200,000 to an account in the name of a campaign for local political office, and it recommends a sentence that includes a lengthy term of imprisonment.

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Full text

    Case 1:22-cr-00034-LJV-MJR          Document 124       Filed 05/30/25     Page 1 of 5




IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

              v.                                                 22-CR-34-LJV

HORMOZ MANSOURI,

                             Defendant.



                   GOVERNMENT’S SENTENCING MEMORANDUM


       THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, by and through its attorney, Michael

DiGiacomo, United States Attorney for the Western District of New York, and Assistant

United States Attorney Paul E. Bonanno, files this memorandum with respect to the

defendant’s sentencing.



                                    APPLICABLE LAW

       Title 18, United States Code, Section 3553(a) requires the Court to impose a sentence

“sufficient, but not greater than necessary” to reflect the seriousness of the offense, promote

respect for the law, provide just punishment, afford adequate deterrence to criminal conduct,

protect the public from further crimes of the defendant, and provide the defendant with

correctional treatment in the most effective manner. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2).



       In determining an appropriate sentence, the Court must first correctly calculate the

applicable Guidelines range. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 49 (2007). “As a matter

of administration and to secure nationwide consistency, the Guidelines should be the starting
    Case 1:22-cr-00034-LJV-MJR            Document 124       Filed 05/30/25    Page 2 of 5




point and the initial benchmark.”       Id.   While the Guidelines are advisory, an error in

determining the applicable Guidelines range could render a sentence unreasonable on

appellate review. See United States v. Selioutsky, 409 F.3d 114, 118 (2d Cir. 2005).



          After providing the parties an opportunity to argue for a sentence they deem

appropriate, the Court must “consider all the § 3553(a) factors to determine whether they

support the sentence requested by a party.” Gall, 552 U.S. at 49-50. In determining whether

the ' 3553(a) factors support the requested sentence, the Court Amust make an individualized

assessment based on the facts presented.@ Id. at 50. To that end, A[n]o limitation shall be

placed on the information concerning the background, character and conduct of a person

convicted of an offense which a court . . . may receive and consider for the purpose of

imposing an appropriate sentence.@ 18 U.S.C. ' 3661.



          Finally, after determining the sentence, the Court must “adequately explain the chosen

sentence to allow for meaningful appellate review and to promote the perception of fair

sentencing.” Gall, 552 U.S. at 50. “The sentencing judge should set forth enough to satisfy

the appellate court that he has considered the parties= arguments and has a reasoned basis for

exercising his own legal decision making authority.” Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 356

(2007).



                                   STATEMENT OF FACTS

          The government concurs with and relies upon the detailed statement of facts set forth

in paragraphs 16 through 58 of the Presentence Investigation Report (“PSR”) (Dkt. 114).



                                                2
    Case 1:22-cr-00034-LJV-MJR         Document 124       Filed 05/30/25    Page 3 of 5




                                      ARGUMENT

       The defendant stole money that was intended to help businesses struggling to deal with

the COVID-19 pandemic. Because of the defendant’s actions, over $3 million in emergency

relief money was not disbursed to Americans who desperately needed it. This conduct

warrants a substantial sentence of imprisonment.



       In 2020, as the COVID-19 pandemic was causing unimaginable suffering and

hardship, the United States government passed the CARES Act, which consisted of the

Paycheck Protection Program (“PPP”) and Economic Injury Disaster Loan (“EIDL”)

Program, to provide emergency financial assistance to millions of Americans. PSR ¶ 17.

Under the PPP and EIDL programs, American businesses could obtain forgivable or low-

interest loans to help them maintain operations through the COVID pandemic. Id.



       The defendant treated the government’s emergency relief programs as an opportunity

to enrich himself. Beginning in April 2020 and continuing through February 2021, the

defendant directed two of his employees to submit numerous applications for PPP and EIDL

loans on behalf of his companies using false and fraudulent information. Id. ¶ 36. In total,

the defendant caused his employees to submit PPP loan applications for eight of the

defendant’s business entities, resulting in 16 PPP loans (two per entity) in an aggregate

amount of $3,074,431.70. Id. ¶ 40.    In addition, seven of the defendant’s entities received

EIDL funds in an aggregate amount of $450,600. Id. ¶ 43.




                                             3
    Case 1:22-cr-00034-LJV-MJR          Document 124        Filed 05/30/25     Page 4 of 5




       The defendant’s misrepresentations in the PPP and EIDL applications were not de

minimis. The defendant directed his employees to file applications utilizing profit, cost, and

payroll figures that were either entirely fabricated or highly inflated. He directed applications

be filed for loans on behalf of business entities that had no employees whatsoever. He even

went so far as to fabricate IRS payroll forms (Form 941s) to substantiate his fraudulent payroll

claims.     Id. ¶¶ 48, 55.   These fraudulent figures were relied upon by the SBA and

participating banks when making the PPP and EIDL loans. Id. ¶ 38.



       In short, through lies and deceit, the defendant obtained millions of dollars in

emergency relief funds to which he was not entitled.           It bears noting that Congress

appropriated a finite amount of money under the CARES Act. Because of this, every dollar

that the defendant obtained through fraud was a dollar that was not available to a struggling

business.



       Moreover, the defendant used the COVID relief money for his personal benefit. As

set forth in the PSR, the defendant paid hundreds of thousands of dollars of COVID relief

funds to casinos to cover the defendant’s gambling activity. PSR ¶¶ 50, 53. The defendant

transferred another $200,000 of COVID relief money to a newly opened bank account in the

name of the defendant’s campaign for local political office, “Mansouri for County

Comptroller.” PSR ¶ 50.



       The defendant plainly knew that the COVID relief funds were not intended to be used

for gambling at casinos or to run a political campaign. Indeed, he controlled the bank



                                               4
    Case 1:22-cr-00034-LJV-MJR        Document 124       Filed 05/30/25    Page 5 of 5




accounts into which the funds were deposited and made numerous transfers among the bank

accounts, indicating that he was trying to conceal the nature and source of the funds. Id.

¶¶ 45, 52. In other words, the defendant knew that what he was doing was wrong and he

tried to hide it.



                                     CONCLUSION

        The defendant exploited a national emergency to unlawfully enrich himself. Given

the egregious nature of the defendant’s conduct, the government recommends the Court

impose a sentence that includes a lengthy term of imprisonment. Such a sentence will reflect

the seriousness of the offense, provide just punishment, and afford specific and general

deterrence.


        DATED:       Buffalo, New York, May 30, 2025


                                                 MICHAEL DIGIACOMO
                                                 United States Attorney


                                          BY:    s/ PAUL E. BONANNO
                                                 Assistant United States Attorney
                                                 United States Attorney's Office
                                                 Western District of New York
                                                 138 Delaware Avenue
                                                 Buffalo, New York 14202
                                                 (716) 843-5873
                                                 Paul.Bonanno@usdoj.gov




                                             5


File and source

File

124.pdf

Size

95,850 bytes

SHA-256

bec870a2fee873129eed3569b50cca4cab8f8191bf8a5f67ea3bc5e6dc2c33bf

Our copy

124.pdf

Original

storage.courtlistener.com