Source: http://www.justice.gov/atr/cases/f275100/275178.htm
Timestamp: 2015-07-08 00:47:12
Document Index: 424579265

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 3742', '§ 2241', '§ 3742', '§ 1', '§ 1349', '§ 3142']

Plea Agreement : U.S. v. Jaime Wong
formats: this web page (for browsing content) and PDF (comparable to original document formatting). To view the PDF you will need Acrobat Reader, which may be downloaded from the Adobe site. For an official signed copy, please contact the Antitrust Documents Group. JEANE HAMILTON (CSBN 157834)
) No. CR11-00427 PJH
The United States of America and Jaime Wong ("defendant") hereby enter into the following Plea Agreement pursuant to Rule 11(c)(1)(B) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure ("Fed. R. Crim. P."): RIGHTS OF DEFENDANT
2.	The defendant knowingly and voluntarily waives the rights set out in Paragraph 1(b)-(g) above. The defendant also knowingly and voluntarily waives the right to file any appeal, any collateral attack, or any other writ or motion, including but not limited to an appeal under 18 U.S.C. § 3742 or a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 or 2255, that challenges the sentence imposed by the Court if that sentence is consistent with or below the Sentencing Guidelines range stipulated by the parties in Paragraph 9 of this Plea Agreement, regardless of how the sentence is determined by the Court. This agreement does not affect the rights or obligations of the United States as set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3742(b). Nothing in this paragraph, however, shall act as a bar to the defendant perfecting any legal remedies he may otherwise have on appeal or collateral attack respecting claims of ineffective assistance of counsel or prosecutorial misconduct. Pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 7(b), the defendant will waive indictment at arraignment and will plead guilty to a two-count Information to be filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Count One of the Information charges the defendant with participating in a conspiracy to suppress and restrain competition by rigging bids to obtain selected real estate offered at Alameda County, California public real estate foreclosure auctions in the Northern District of California, in unreasonable restraint of interstate trade and commerce, in violation of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1, beginning as early as January 2009 and continuing until in or about January 2011. Count Two of the Information charges the defendant with conspiracy to commit mail fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1349, in Alameda County, California from as early as January 2009 until in or about January 2011.
3.	The defendant, pursuant to the terms of this Plea Agreement, will plead guilty to the criminal charges described in Paragraph 2 above and will make a factual admission of guilt to the Court in accordance with Fed. R. Crim. P. 11, as set forth in Paragraph 4 below. The United States agrees that at the arraignment, it will stipulate to the release of the defendant on his personal recognizance, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3142, pending the sentencing hearing in this case.
FACTUAL BASIS FOR CHARGED OFFENSES
4.	Had this case gone to trial, the United States would have presented evidence sufficient to prove the following facts: As to Count One of the Information:
Beginning as early as January 2009 and continuing until in or about January 2011 ("relevant period"), the defendant participated in a conspiracy to rig bids to obtain selected real estate at public real estate foreclosure auctions held in Alameda County, California, located in the Northern District of California. The primary purpose of this conspiracy was to suppress and restrain competition and obtain selected real estate offered at Alameda County public real estate foreclosure auctions at non-competitive prices. During the relevant period, the defendant and his co-conspirators agreed not to bid against one another and to allocate selected real estate among themselves. To carry out their conspiracy, the defendant and his co-conspirators refrained from bidding on or refrained from bidding up the price for selected auctioned real estate. In many instances, the defendant and his co conspirators held private auctions, open only to members of the conspiracy, to rebid this real estate. The defendant and his co-conspirators awarded this real estate to the conspirator who submitted the highest bid at the private auctions. The defendant and his co-conspirators distributed the proceeds of the private auctions as payoffs to the other, unsuccessful bidders in the private auctions, based upon a predetermined formula agreed upon by the members of the conspiracy, for refraining from bidding on these properties at the public auction. During the relevant period, the business activities of the defendant and his co conspirators were within the flow of, and substantially affected, interstate trade and commerce. For example, mortgage holders located in states other than California received proceeds from the public real estate foreclosure auctions that were subject to the bid-rigging conspiracy.
During the relevant period, the conspiratorial activities described above took place in the Northern District of California, and the real estate that was the subject of this conspiracy was located in this District.
As to Count Two of the Information:
During the relevant period, the defendant and his co conspirators agreed to knowingly devise or participate in a scheme to defraud or to obtain money or property by means of materially false pretenses, representations, or promises from the mortgage holders a