1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, CRIMINAL NO. 15-cr-20126 

Plaintiff, HON. ARTHUR J. TARNOW 

v. 

D-1 FADI HAMMOUD,

Defendant.

__________________________________/

GOVERNMENT’S SENTENCING MEMORANDUM

The United States of America, by and through its attorneys, Daniel L. 

Lemisch, Acting United States Attorney, and Frances Lee Carlson, Assistant 

United States Attorney, submits that for the reasons provided below, a sentence of 

37 months’ imprisonment, is sufficient but not greater than necessary to achieve 

the purposes set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2).

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

A. Plea

On January 5, 2017, the defendant pled guilty pursuant to a plea agreement

to one count of bank fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1344. Hammoud’s guilty 

plea arises from his execution of both a fraudulent short sale scheme and a 

Case 2:15-cr-20126-AJT-APP ECF No. 25 filed 05/11/17 PageID.96 Page 1 of 9
2

fraudulent insurance fraud scheme involving his primary residence. The plea 

agreement recommended the guideline range to be 33 to 41 months, based on a 

total offense level of 20 and a criminal history category of I. 

B. Nature of the Offense

In early July 2011, Wells Fargo Bank notified defendant Hammoud that he 

was in default on the mortgage for his residence located at 7601 Miller Road, 

Dearborn, Michigan. This was Hammoud’s primary residence. The balance of the 

mortgage was $342,000. 1 Shortly after receiving the default letter, Hammoud

began negotiating a short sale of his home with Wells Fargo. Unbeknownst to 

Wells Fargo, the defendant recruited his friend, Billy Mukhal, to purchase 7601 

Miller Road. Over the next year, Hammoud, posing both as the listing agent

(George Ghanam) and broker (Mariam Bazzi), faxed various short sale packages to 

Wells Fargo, attempting to gain their approval for the short sale. The documents 

Hammoud sent in these short sale packages contained fraudulent proof of funds for

proposed buyer Billy Mukhal. The proof of funds (to show that Mukhal could 

afford to purchase the house) were in the form of fake Comerica Bank statements. 

Both Comerica Bank and Mukhal have confirmed that the statements were either 

invalid or did not belong to Mukhal. Indeed, in some of the statements, the account 

 1 In 2008, National City Bank issued HAMMOUD a home equity line of credit of 

$80,000. National City Bank obtained credit default insurance from United Guaranty Residential 

Insurance Company.

Case 2:15-cr-20126-AJT-APP ECF No. 25 filed 05/11/17 PageID.97 Page 2 of 9
3

number reflected on the first page differed from the account number reflected on 

the remaining pages. Also included in the final short sale package was a Short Sale 

Affidavit that Hammoud signed and submitted. 

On June 13, 2012, Wells Fargo finally approved the defendant’s short sale to 

Mukhal for $226,000. Wells Fargo’s approval, however was based on several 

material misrepresentations made by Hammoud in order to induce Wells Fargo to 

approve the short sale. Among other things, the defendant verified in the Short Sale 

Affidavit that: (1) the sale was an arm’s length transactions between parties who 

were unrelated by commercial enterprise; (2) there were no agreements, 

understandings or contracts between the parties that Hammoud would remain in 

the house; and (3) there were no agreements, understandings, or contracts relating 

to the current or subsequent sale of the house. In truth, Hammoud recruited Mukhal 

to put the house in Mukhal’s name for several months at which time Mukhal would 

deed the house back to him. They also had an agreement that Hammoud would 

continue to live in the house. Also, unbeknownst to Wells Fargo, Hammoud

provided all of the funds for Mukhal to purchase the house. The defendant had 

borrowed the majority of the funds for closing from Satori Corporation, a private 

money lender. The closing took place on August 2, 2012. During the closing, 

Hammoud executed another Short Sale Affidavit where he made the same material 

misrepresentations as he did in the June 6, 2012 Affidavit. The fraudulent short 

Case 2:15-cr-20126-AJT-APP ECF No. 25 filed 05/11/17 PageID.98 Page 3 of 9
4

sale resulted in a loss of approximately $153,269.71 to Wells Fargo. The 

defendant’s fraud also resulted in a loss of $76,432.27 to United Guaranty 

Residential Insurance Company.

Shortly after the sale to Mukhal, the defendant obtained homeowner’s 

insurance in Mukhal’s name for 7601 Miller, without Mukhal’s knowledge. In 

January 2013, a pipe burst and Hammoud, posing as Mukhal without Mukhal’s 

knowledge, initiated an insurance claim with Grange Insurance for the damage 

caused by the burst pipe. Hammoud, acting as Mukhal, filed several claims for 

repairs, replacement of objects, cleaning, and 4 months’ rent/security deposit for an 

alternative residence. The claim based on the alternative residence was fraudulent. 

Hammoud provided a fake lease to Grange in support of this claim. As a result, 

Grange Insurance paid approximately $337,748.46 in insurance claims. The checks 

were mailed to the Miller address and subsequently cashed by Hammoud who used 

a large portion of the money to make the large balloon payment (due in February 

2013) to the private money lender who funded the short sale to Mukhal.

Hammoud’s fraud resulted in a loss of $342,143.13 to Grange Insurance.

II. SENTENCING GUIDELINE CALCULATIONS

As reflected in the plea agreement, the parties anticipated a guideline range 

of 33 to 41 months based on a total offense level of 20 and a criminal history 

Case 2:15-cr-20126-AJT-APP ECF No. 25 filed 05/11/17 PageID.99 Page 4 of 9
5

category of I. The probation department calculated a guideline range of 37 to 46 

months. The difference in calculation is because the probation department 

discovered an additional criminal history point which increased Hammoud’s

criminal history category from I to II. (PSR ¶¶ 32, 60). The government agrees 

with probation’s calculation of the defendant’s criminal history category.

The plea agreement provides that if the Court finds that the defendant’s 

criminal history category is higher than what is reflected in the plea agreement and 

results in a higher guideline range, then “the higher guideline range becomes the 

agreed upon range.” (Plea Agreement, p. 4). Accordingly, Hammoud’s guideline 

range should be calculated using criminal history category II.

III. SECTION 3553(a) SENTENCING FACTORS

In determining the appropriate sentence, the Court should not simply rely on 

the Guideline calculations, but should consider all of the factors in the Sentencing 

Reform Act and, in particular, those set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). These factors 

include (i) the nature and circumstances of the offense, and the history and 

characteristics of the defendant; (ii) the need for the sentence imposed to reflect the 

seriousness of the offense, promote respect for the law, and provide just 

punishment for the offense, and (iii) the need for the sentence imposed to afford 

adequate deterrence to criminal conduct. 

Case 2:15-cr-20126-AJT-APP ECF No. 25 filed 05/11/17 PageID.100 Page 5 of 9
6

In this case, a guideline sentence is warranted and the government 

recommends a sentence of 37 months, which is at the bottom of the newly 

calculated guideline range.

A. History and Characteristics of Defendant Hammoud

The defendant owned a real estate company for 12 years. (PSR ¶ 54.) In 

addition, the defendant reported that he graduated from Fordson High School. Given 

the defendant’s knowledge of the real estate industry, he made a well-informed 

decision to commit bank fraud and insurance fraud for his financial benefit. 

B. Seriousness of the Offense, Promoting Respect for the Law, 

Providing Just Punishment, and Affording Adequate Deterrence

The defendant’s criminal activities occurred over the course of 17 months 

and resulted in more than half a million dollars in losses to his victims. This was 

not a crime resulting from a single decision or a momentary impulse. This was a 

calculated crime that was committed over a significant period of time in which the 

defendant used several fake identities and documents in order to fraudulently get 

what he wanted. In order to perpetuate his criminal activity, multiple discrete acts 

and decisions were required. And, based on his wealth of experience in the 

business of real estate as noted above, defendant Hammoud certainly knew the 

criminal nature of his conduct.

Case 2:15-cr-20126-AJT-APP ECF No. 25 filed 05/11/17 PageID.101 Page 6 of 9
7

This is why white-collar crime is so serious. It is the essence of an 

intentional crime. It is orchestrated. It is coordinated and planned. It is methodical. 

As is the case here, it is not a crime generally motivated by the need to feed a 

family, but rather driven by the greed to maintain his lifestyle. 

In prosecutions such as this, the sentence imposed is important to promote 

respect for the law and to deter the defendant and the general public from 

committing similar crimes in the future. Given the difficulties of uncovering and 

prosecuting this type of fraud, the deterrent impact of a prison sentence is 

important to the mission of law enforcement and the financial integrity of financial 

institution and the insurance industry. The Eleventh Circuit emphasized the 

important role that prison sentences have in deterring economic-based crimes in 

United States v. Martin when it recognized that “[b]ecause economic and fraudbased crimes are more rational, cool, and calculated than sudden crimes of passion 

or opportunity, these crimes are prime candidates for general deterrence.” 455 

F.3d 1227, 1240 (11th Cir. 2006) (internal citations omitted). 

With this in mind, a sentence of imprisonment of 37 months is necessary. 

Such a sentence would serve to adequately punish the defendant for his 

methodical, thoughtful, and sophisticated criminal conduct that spanned over 17 

months and caused over $500,000 in losses. In addition, this sentence would deter 

Case 2:15-cr-20126-AJT-APP ECF No. 25 filed 05/11/17 PageID.102 Page 7 of 9
8

the defendant and others from future criminal conduct and, in particular, economic 

crime.

CONCLUSION

For all of the above reasons, the government respectfully recommends that 

the Court impose a sentence of 37 months in prison—a sentence within the 

Guidelines range as calculated by the U.S. probation department.

Respectfully submitted,

DANIEL L. LEMISCH

Acting United States Attorney

s/Frances Lee Carlson 

FRANCES LEE CARLSON

Assistant United States Attorney

211 West Fort Street, Suite 2001

Detroit, Michigan 48226

313-226-9100

frances.carlson@usdoj.gov

Dated: May 11, 2017

Case 2:15-cr-20126-AJT-APP ECF No. 25 filed 05/11/17 PageID.103 Page 8 of 9
9

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on May 11, 2017, I electronically filed the foregoing 

document with the Clerk of the Court using the ECF system, which will send 

notification of such filing to the following:

James C. Thomas

Attorney for Fadi Hammoud

s/Frances Lee Carlson 

FRANCES LEE CARLSON

Assistant United States Attorney

211 West Fort Street, Suite 2001

Detroit, Michigan 48226

313-226-9100

frances.carlson@usdoj.gov

Dated: May 11, 2017

Case 2:15-cr-20126-AJT-APP ECF No. 25 filed 05/11/17 PageID.104 Page 9 of 9