Source: https://de.scribd.com/document/399746696/Mueller-s-sentencing-memo-for-Manafort
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 15:38:24+00:00

Document:
Special counsel Robert Mueller's sentencing memo for Paul Manafort.
files this submission to address the sentencing of defendant Paul J. Manafort, Jr.
amount of $24,815,108.74, and forfeiture in the amount of $4,412,500.
Neither the Probation Department nor the government is aware of any mitigating factors.
spending exhausted his substantial cash resources when his overseas income dwindled.
Tr., May 4, 2018, at 4.
and to the issue of acceptance of responsibility, as discussed below.
others from engaging in such conduct.
series of crimes involving tax fraud, failure to file foreign bank account reports, and bank fraud.
Superseding Indictment, Feb. 2, 2019, Doc. 9.
which it did not reach a verdict. See Jury Verdict Form, Aug. 21, 2018, Doc. 280.
(Alan Couture Bank Records); Government Exhibit 99 (March 21, 2011 Email from Manafort to M.
of 1046 N. Edgewood Street, Arlington, Virginia).
his unreported income. See PSR, ¶ 36.
See Trial Tr. at 1617-20 (Testimony of Morgan Magionos).
paying taxes on the income).
See Trial Tr. at 1679-82 (Testimony of Michael Welch).
See Trial Tr. at 1620-24 (Testimony of Morgan Magionos).
Copies of Government Exhibits 73B, 73C, 73D and 73E are attached as Exhibit C.
The jury convicted Manafort of the two bank fraud schemes charged in Counts 25 and 27.
Manafort sought both loans at a time when he was no longer receiving income from Ukraine.
25 Citizens Bank fraud/conspiracy charges involving the Howard Street property).
testified that at the time of the Howard Street loan, there was a mortgage on the Union Street property.
(Stipulation regarding Genesis Capital mortgage on Union Street Property).
and 27 Banc of California commercial loan fraud/conspiracy).
Manafort’s false statements. See Trial Tr. at 1958-88.
Plea Agreement, United States v. Manafort, 1:17-cr-201 (ABJ) (D.D.C. Sept.14, 2018), Doc 422 (“D.C.
and (b) he falsely claimed the Peranova loan was forgiven and made false statements about his income.
Counts 29, 30, 31 and 32 bank fraud/conspiracies relating to two loans from The Federal Savings Bank).
Manafort. See Trial Tr. at 1352-54.
parties; and (3) explain its reasons for selecting a sentence.” United States v. Simmons, 269 Fed.
Appx. 272, 273 (4th Cir. 2008) (citing United States v. Pauley, 511 F.3d 468, 473 (4th Cir.
2007)). Although the Sentencing Guidelines are advisory, United States v. Booker, 543 U.S.
cognizant of them throughout the sentencing process.” Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 50 n.
of a sentence and ‘through the process of appellate review.’”) (citation omitted).
16 See Trial Tr. at 1911-1917.
Objections to the PSR (dated January 21, 2019).
Addendum, the defendant’s arguments lack merit. See PSR Addendum, 52-53.
See D.C. Plea Agreement; D.C. Statement of the Offense ¶ 36-37.
issue here differ from those of the Kim prosecution.
conspiracy, among other offenses. See D.C. Plea Agreement; D.C. Statement of the Offense ¶ 36-37.
Probation Office calculated the Guidelines range under U.S.S.G. § 2S1.3(a)(2)”).
over parity with similarly situated defendants prosecuted at the same time was at its height.
treatment because his conduct, and the circumstances at issue, were different than in Kim.
issue, he recruited others to facilitate these crimes, and he claimed a larger share of the proceeds.
Government Exhibit 63 (chart of foreign entities); Government Exhibit 73B (chart listing bank accounts).
paled in comparison to Manafort’s gain.
counts of conviction for bank fraud together with the relevant conduct. See PSR, at ¶ 87.
the defendant intended the loss to encompass the value of the collateral.”) (emphasis added).
that the falsified documents were “simple or ham-handed.” See Defense Objections to PSR, at 4.
financial accounts also ordinarily indicates sophisticated means.
Id. § 2B1.1 cmt. n. 9.
See Trial Tr. at 944-69 (Testimony of Cindy LaPorta).
See Trial Tr. at 601-30 (Testimony of Heather Washkuhn).
bank to hide the fact that there was currently a mortgage on the Union Street property).
appropriate for the Group 2 bank fraud offenses.
pursuant to § 3E1.1. PSR ¶ 96. Manafort proceeded to trial and vigorously denied his guilt.
Application Note 2. That was not the case here. See e.g., United States v. Redding, 422 F.
KWC: Cindy LaPorta and Philip Ayliff.
facts—negates the fact that he put the government to its proof in the Eastern District of Virginia.
2019), Doc 509 (attached as Exhibit G).
The government addresses the Section 3553(a) factors below.
loans from those banks, seeking more than $25 million.
including by engaging in transactions that promoted his FARA scheme.
Accounts,” listing total as $65,860,502.50).
‘federally created, controlled or insured’”) (quoting S. Rep. No. 98–225, at 377 (1983)).
more than $19 million. Those facts set him far afield from the ordinary bank fraud defendant.
planning and premeditation over many years, and a result of his direct and willful conduct.
always the principal, and almost always the exclusive beneficiary.
distinguish the case from the typical cases covered by the guidelines.” U.S.S.G. § 5H1.1.
know, politically brilliant strategists I've ever worked with.”).
million in false Schedule E losses, resulting in a federal tax loss of $3.8 million).
repeatedly and intentionally lied to the government during proffer sessions and the grand jury.
Manafort faces, was unforeseeable at the time that he chose to engage in the charged conduct.
have more to lose by conviction.”).
have serious consequences, particularly in a matter that received national attention.
annually) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also U.S.S.G Ch. 2, Part T, intro. cmt.
of the need to protect the integrity of the nation’s banking system.
this for no other reason than greed, evidencing his belief that the law does not apply to him.
Manafort and those who would commit a similar series of crimes.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 2
 § 2
 § 3
 v. 
 § 5