UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Case No. 15-CR-20351

v. Hon. Sean F. Cox

D-3 HATEM ATAYA,

Defendant.

/

UNITED STATES’ MEMORANDUM 

IN AID OF SENTENCING 

The United States submits this Memorandum in Aid of Sentencing for 

Hatem Ataya (“defendant”), who is scheduled to be sentenced on February 13, 

2019. On June 16, 2015, the grand jury returned an indictment charging the 

defendant with one count of conspiracy to commit health care fraud and wire 

fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1349, and one count of conspiracy to pay and 

receive kickbacks, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371. Docket Entry (“D.E.”) 1, 

Indictment. On October 12, 2018, the defendant pleaded guilty to the health care 

fraud and wire fraud conspiracy. D.E. 296, Plea Agreement. For the reasons 

discussed below, the United States requests that the Court: (1) find the Guidelines 

range to be 78-97 months’ imprisonment, and sentence the defendant to a term of 

imprisonment within that range; (2) impose a three-year term of supervised release; 

and (3) order defendant to pay restitution in the amount of $4,119,711.29.

Case 2:15-cr-20351-SFC-MKM ECF No. 305 filed 02/06/19 PageID.2433 Page 1 of 9
2

I. BACKGROUND

For more than nine years, the defendant engaged in a multi-million dollar 

fraud scheme designed to bilk the Medicare program. As a licensed physician, the 

defendant referred Medicare beneficiaries to home health care and hospice entities 

owned and controlled by co-defendant Shahid Tahir (“Tahir”), including At Home 

Network, At Home Hospice, and A Plus Hospice (“the Tahir entities”). The 

referrals allowed the Tahir entities to bill Medicare for millions of dollars of 

services that in many cases were unnecessary and not provided. In return for his 

referrals, the defendant received illegal kickbacks from Tahir and his cohorts.

The defendant’s conduct resulted in a loss of approximately $4,119,711.29, 

the amount that Medicare paid for claims that the defendant had caused to be 

submitted for home health and hospice services that were illegally induced by 

kickbacks, medically unnecessary, or not provided.

II. SENTENCING GUIDELINES 

A. Agreed Upon Guidelines

In the Rule 11 Plea Agreement, the parties agreed to the following: 

• Defendant’s conduct qualified for a base offense level of 7, U.S.S.G. § 

2B1.1(a)(1);

• 18 levels are added based on a loss figure of $4,119,711.29, U.S.S.G. § 

2B1.1(b)(1)(J); 

Case 2:15-cr-20351-SFC-MKM ECF No. 305 filed 02/06/19 PageID.2434 Page 2 of 9
3

• 2 levels are added as a result of a health care fraud offense that resulted in 

more than $1,000,000 in loss, U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(7); 

• 2 levels are added for abuse of trust as a licensed physician, U.S.S.G. § 

3B1.3; and 

• 3 levels are deducted for the defendant’s acceptance of responsibility, 

U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1.

The Probation Department agreed with the application of these Guidelines. See

Presentence Investigation Report (“PSR”) at §§ 24-33.

B. Sophisticated Means 

As set forth in the Rule 11 Plea Agreement, the parties disagree as to 

whether the sophisticated means enhancement applies. For the reasons discussed 

below, the United States agrees with the Probation Department that the 

sophisticated means enhancement applies to the defendant. PSR § 58.

Under U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(10)(C), a 2-level enhancement applies in cases 

in which “the offense otherwise involved sophisticated means and the defendant 

intentionally engaged in or caused the conduct constituting sophisticated means.” 

Application Note 9(B) explains that “‘sophisticated means’ means especially 

complex or especially intricate offense conduct pertaining to the execution or 

concealment of an offense.” Specifically, “[c]onduct such as hiding assets or 

transactions, or both, through the use of fictitious entities corporate shells, or 

Case 2:15-cr-20351-SFC-MKM ECF No. 305 filed 02/06/19 PageID.2435 Page 3 of 9
4

offshore financial accounts also ordinarily indicates sophisticated means.” 

U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1 cmt. n.9(B). 

Contrary to the assertions in his memorandum, the defendant’s conduct

involved sophisticated means. The defendant admits that he regularly received 

kickbacks in exchange for referrals (D.E. 304-1, Def.’s Mem. at 10), but he does

not acknowledge the elaborate measures he employed to disguise the source, 

recipient, and illicit nature of these bribes. 

For example, bank records show that the defendant routed his kickbacks

through a shell company called “Green Apple Management, LLC.”1

 Tahir paid

some of these bribes through Professional Services Management, another sham

entity incorporated by Tahir’s co-defendant brother, Manawar Javed. See D.E. 

156, Javed Plea & Bond Hr’g Tr. 59:14-60:23, Mar. 18, 2016. The defendant also 

deposited checks from Tahir that included false notations in the memo line, such as 

“Rent” or “M.D. Fee.” In sum, the defendant received kickbacks from a sham 

company, deposited kickbacks into the account of another sham company, and 

deposited fraudulent checks with phony notations. Based on these facts alone, the 

defendant’s conduct falls squarely within the definition of sophisticated means. 

 1 The financial records were obtained by grand jury subpoena. Therefore, the 

government has not attached examples of the checks to this memorandum, but will 

be prepared to provide copies to the Court at sentencing, if necessary. 

Case 2:15-cr-20351-SFC-MKM ECF No. 305 filed 02/06/19 PageID.2436 Page 4 of 9
5

But there is more. In addition to the direct payments, the defendant also

accepted bribes through less traditional methods, such as free labor—an 

“employee” provided by Tahir who had been in fact was a confidential source for 

the government—and a free car. The defendant tried to conceal both bribes: he 

and his co-conspirators generated fake invoices for the confidential source’s time,2

and arranged for Tahir to purchase his old Mercedes so that the defendant had the 

money to buy a new one.3

 

The defendant does not mention any of this evidence, and instead asserts that 

his conduct was not sophisticated because “he only referred patients to the Tahir

entities if they actually required home health care” and because he “did not create 

fictitious patients.” D.E. 304-1, Def.’s Mem. at 10. As a threshold matter, that

does not account for how the defendant concealed his bribes. And in any event, 

that is false—as part of his plea, the defendant has admitted, under oath, that his 

referrals were, “at times . . . neither medically necessary nor provided.” D.E. 296, 

Plea Agreement at 3. Accordingly, the sophisticated means enhancement applies. 

Therefore, the Court should overrule the defendant’s objection and find the 

Guidelines range to be 78-97 months. 

 2 See May 6, 2015 Recording; May 28, 2015 Recording. 3 See February 23, 2014 Recording. 

Case 2:15-cr-20351-SFC-MKM ECF No. 305 filed 02/06/19 PageID.2437 Page 5 of 9
6

III. SENTENCING FACTORS

Title 18, United States Code, Section 3553(a), provides numerous factors for 

the Court to consider in sentencing the defendant. Factors pertinent to the instant 

offense are discussed below, and support a Guidelines range sentence. 

A. Nature and Circumstances of the Offense 

In his memorandum, the defendant suggests that he had no “knowledge or 

gave direction to bill for services not medically necessary or not provided[,]” and 

that his “fault lay in allowing others to do billing in his name.” D.E. 304, Def.’s 

Mem. at 1. That is demonstrably false, and illustrates a continued failure by the 

defendant to truly accept responsibility for his offense. The government’s 

investigation revealed that the defendant’s entire practice was permeated by fraud. 

In fact, in conversations with the government’s confidential source, many of which 

were recorded, the defendant admitted that he engaged in the conduct in which he 

now disavows, including treating non-homebound patients for home care, adding

false diagnoses to justify unnecessary procedures, and upcoding patient visits. 

Indeed, the defendant admitted to the very conduct he now denies in connection 

with his plea. Thus, the defendant not only accepted kickbacks, but he participated

in a widespread fraud that routinely stole from the Medicare program. 

Accordingly, the nature and circumstances of the offense weigh in favor of a 

Guidelines range sentence.

Case 2:15-cr-20351-SFC-MKM ECF No. 305 filed 02/06/19 PageID.2438 Page 6 of 9
7

B. History and Characteristics of the Defendant 

 The defendant is a corrupt physician. Licensed medical doctors like him are 

intended to be the gatekeepers of Medicare, billing for only those services that are 

medically necessary and actually rendered, and for services that are not induced 

through illicit means. The active participation of physicians like the defendant

makes health care fraud schemes far more lucrative and difficult to detect, 

precisely because of the deference given to medical judgment and the trust placed 

in physicians. Rather than standing as a vigilant guard against the waste of 

government funds, the defendant knowingly opened the vault doors. His abuse of 

Medicare’s trust was real. 

C. The Need to Provide Adequate Deterrence

The need for deterrence of corrupt physicians is real and urgent. A 

Guidelines Range sentence would have a particularly significant deterrent effect 

for physicians who consider compromising their medical integrity for easy money. 

See United States v. Kuhlman, 711 F.3d 1321, 1329 (11th Cir. 2013) (noting, in a 

health care fraud case, that “[b]ecause economic and fraud-based crimes are more 

rational, cool and calculated than sudden crimes of passion or opportunity, these 

crimes are prime candidates for general deterrence”) (internal citations and 

quotations omitted). Such a sentence would send a needed message that physicians 

Case 2:15-cr-20351-SFC-MKM ECF No. 305 filed 02/06/19 PageID.2439 Page 7 of 9
8

engaged in fraudulent conduct would pay a substantial price for their criminal 

actions.

IV. CONCLUSION 

Based on the considerations set forth above, the United States respectfully 

requests that this Court sentence the defendant to a term of imprisonment within a 

range of of 78-97 months, impose a three-year term of supervised release, and 

order the defendant to pay restitution in the amount of $4,119,711.29.

Respectfully submitted,

MATTHEW SCHNEIDER 

United States Attorney

s/Thomas J. Tynan

Thomas J. Tynan

Thomas J. Tynan

Trial Attorney

U.S. Department of Justice

Criminal Division, Fraud Section

1400 New York Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20005

(202) 768-1136

Dated: February 6, 2019 Thomas.Tynan@usdoj.gov

Case 2:15-cr-20351-SFC-MKM ECF No. 305 filed 02/06/19 PageID.2440 Page 8 of 9
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that on February 6, 2019, I electronically filed the foregoing 

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

notification of such filing to counsel for the defendant.

s/Thomas J. Tynan

Thomas J. Tynan

Trial Attorney

U.S. Department of Justice

Criminal Division, Fraud Section

1400 New York Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20005

(202) 768-1136

Thomas.Tynan@usdoj.gov

 

Case 2:15-cr-20351-SFC-MKM ECF No. 305 filed 02/06/19 PageID.2441 Page 9 of 9