Crime Requires 121-151 Months of Imprisonment
Post 5486
Posted on September 9, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Mr. Baiyewu Is Liable For The Loss Resulting From Acts Directly Attributable To Him And For The Loss Resulting From The Reasonably Foreseeable Acts Of Others Taken In Furtherance of the Criminal Activity
In United States Of America v. Oluwasegun Baiyewu, CRIMINAL No. 21-395 (RAM), United States District Court, D. Puerto Rico (August 26, 2026) the court dealt with a case after on October 20, 2021, a grand jury in the District of Puerto Rico returned a single-count Indictment charging Mr. Baiyewu with conspiracy to commit money laundering, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h). About a year and a half later, on March 31, 2023, a grand jury returned a single-count Superseding Indictment charging Mr. Baiyewu and four co-defendants with conspiracy to commit money laundering, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
CONVICTION
Baiyewu was convicted by a jury of conspiracy to commit money laundering under 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h). The charged conspiracy, operating from May 2020 through October 2021, involved proceeds from business-email-compromise schemes, romance scams, and unemployment-insurance fraud.
Funds were routed through vehicle-auction accounts.
LAW
At sentencing, a court may rely on a Pre Sentence Report (PSR) when its factual assertions bear sufficient indicia of reliability, but disputed allegations must have an adequate evidentiary basis. Under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32(i)(3)(B), the court need not resolve a dispute that will not affect sentencing. U.S.S.G. § 2S1.1(a)(2) applies when the defendant did not commit the underlying offense or its offense level cannot practicably be determined.
A four-level increase under § 2S1.1(b)(2)(C) applies when the defendant was in the business of laundering funds, assessed under the totality of the circumstances. Section 3B1.1(a) provides a four-level organizer-or-leader enhancement where the activity involved five or more participants or was otherwise extensive and the defendant organized or led at least one participant.
Loss is proved by a preponderance of the evidence and may be reasonably estimated, but the estimate must rest on reliable evidence; when criminal and legitimate funds are commingled and the criminal portion cannot practicably be determined, the total commingled amount may be used.
ANALYSIS
The court partially sustained factual objections where the PSR overstated or imprecisely described trial testimony. It rejected other factual objections as accurate or immaterial.
The evidence showed sustained laundering activity: Baiyewu sourced funds through intermediaries, directed deposits and auction payments, coordinated transfers of Nigerian naira, used multiple sources, and operated over an extended period. That record supported the “business of laundering funds” enhancement. On loss, however, the government’s proposed $4,053,739.95 figure included deposits outside the conspiracy period and was insufficiently tied to reliable proof. The court instead used $3,140,000, the total deposits during the conspiracy into the three relevant accounts, because the legitimate and criminal funds were commingled and the criminal portion could not practicably be isolated.
DISCUSSION
The court demanded transcript-level accuracy for disputed PSR statements and a dependable evidentiary basis for the amount calculation, while permitting use of the full commingled amount once a narrower criminal-funds figure could not be determined without undue complication. Restitution remained unresolved because the court left the record open for 90 days after sentencing.
A PSR generally bears sufficient indicia of reliability to permit the district court to rely on it at sentencing. Where an objection has been raised, the mere inclusion in the PSR of factual allegations does not convert facts lacking an adequate evidentiary basis with sufficient indicia of reliability into facts a district court may rely upon at sentencing.
Guideline § 2Sl.l(a)(2) applies where the defendant did not commit the underlying offense, or where the defendant did commit the underlying offense, but the offense level for the underlying offense is impossible or impracticable to determine.
CONCLUSION
In this case, Mr. Baiyewu is liable for the loss resulting from acts directly attributable to him and for the loss resulting from the reasonably foreseeable acts of others taken in furtherance of the jointly undertaken criminal activity, but the government bears the burden of proving a victim’s losses by a preponderance.
Baiyewu’s total offense level was 32, with criminal history category I, producing an advisory imprisonment range of 121 to 151 months and a fine range of $35,000 to $350,000. The scope of Mr. Baiyewu’s criminal activity and the fact that he led or organized one or more of the five or more individuals involved in his criminal activity, he qualifies as a leader or organizer.
Here, the evidence does not provide a sufficient basis for attributing the Government’s proposed amount of $4,053,739.95 to Defendant.
At trial, Government exhibits showed Mr. Baiyewu personally deposited multiple funds from the criminal activity. The Court found, based on the evidence before it, that the appropriate estimate of the value of laundered funds was $3,140,000. Defendant’s offense level will be increased by 16 levels instead of the 18 levels provided by the Second Amended PSR.
Mr. Baiyewu has a total offense level of 32 with a criminal history category I and an applicable guideline sentencing range of 121-151 months of imprisonment and a fine range of $35,000 to $350,000.
ZALMA OPINION
Federal courts are required to follow guideline set by statute. The court followed the guidelines as fairly and effective as possible. Baiyewu will serve more than 12 years, an appropriate sentence following the guidelines.
(c) 2026 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc.
Please tell your friends and colleagues about this blog and the videos and let them subscribe to the blog and the videos.
Subscribe to my substack at https://gbarryzalma.substack.com/subscribe
Go to X @bzalma; Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https://rumble.com/account/content?type=all; Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https://Cwww.youtube.com/channel/UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg; Go to the InsuranceClaims Library – https://lnkd.in/gwEYk.
Insurance Expert May Not Testify to Speculative and Contains Unsupported Conclusions.
Posted on September 18, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at and at https://rumble.com/v7fmifw-expert-may-only-testify-to-what-experience-supports.html
In Michele A. Over, and The Estate Of Paul R. Over v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, and State Farm Fire And Casualty Company, Civil Action No. 23-cv-02243-PAB-STV, United States District Court, D. Colorado (September 14, 2026) Michele and Paul Over sued State Farm Fire and State Farm Auto over hail-damage and stolen-vehicle claims.
The operative dispute concerned State Farm Auto’s motion to exclude or limit opinions from plaintiffs’ insurance-industry expert, Aaron Castillo. Castillo.
Law
The proponent of expert testimony must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that an expert is qualified and that the opinions are helpful, sufficiently grounded, and reliably derived and applied. Experience-based opinions must explain how the...
150 Months in Prison for Tax Fraud
Post 4846
Posted on September 17, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g8rh3JBX and https://lnkd.in/gmkdy-9C, In United States Of America v. Thomas Addaquay, Nos. 25-10609, 25-10611, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit (September 9, 2026) the Eleventh Circuit affirmed all challenged convictions, the 150-month aggregate sentence, and the challenged $4,123,474.55 restitution award.
FACTS
In United States Of America v. Thomas Addaquay, United States Of America v. Thomas Addaquay, Nos. 25-10609, 25-10611, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit (September 9, 2026) the Eleventh Circuit affirmed all challenged convictions, the 150-month aggregate sentence, and the challenged $4,123,474.55 restitution award.
FACTS
Thomas Addaquay controlled United Consolidated Accounting and Business Services (UC), nominally a check-cashing business.
The government proved a three-stage tax-refund scheme that converted the resulting refund checks into usable funds through ...
Major Fraud Perpetrator Asserts Fifth Amendment Privilege to Avoid Prosecution
Post 5489
Posted on September 14, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Fraudster Refuses to Answer Questions About His Alleged Fraud
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gvicAMDr and at https://lnkd.in/gvicAMDr
In Great American Insurance Co. v. Gemstone Property Management, LLC, et al., No. 23-cv-9100 (LJL), United States District Court, S.D. New York (September 8, 2026) Great American Insurance Company alleged that it was defrauded through a scheme in which Subin Associates, LLP recruited individuals to stage construction-site injuries, arranged unnecessary medical treatment and litigation funding, and pursued fraudulent personal-injury claims.
Luis Manuel Garcia Salcedo, resulted in a $6 million settlement. Non-party Jose Hernandez allegedly worked as an assistant manager at Subin, operated Hernandez Associates, and owned litigation-funding companies that shared office space with Subin and provided services to its clients.
After Great American ...
Theft of Confidential Information
Post 4581
Posted on November 12, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In People Center, Inc. v. Deel, Inc., et al., No. 25-cv-02576-CRB (LJC), United States District Court, N.D. California (November 7, 2026) People Center, doing business as Rippling, and Deel compete in payroll and human-resource management software. Rippling alleges that Deel and its executives recruited Rippling employee Keith O’Brien, based in Ireland, to disclose confidential information and trade secrets.
THE IRISH SUIT
Rippling sued O’Brien in Ireland and Deel in the United States. O’Brien subsequently retained separate counsel, supplied an affidavit describing the alleged espionage, and entered into a Cooperation Agreement with Rippling. In exchange for his cooperation, Rippling agreed to provide financial assistance, indemnification, and conditional dismissal of the Irish proceedings. The agreement also permitted renewed proceedings or a monetary judgment upon a material breach.
The Irish proceedings against O’Brien were dismissed...
A Proposed Amended Complaint That Includes New Factual Allegations to Remedy Pleading Deficiencies
Posted on November 11, 2026 by Barry Zalma
After Dismissal Fraud Victim May Amend Complaint After Dismissal
Post 4580
If A Proposed Amendment Is Not Clearly Futile, Then Denial Of Leave To Amend Is Improper
In John Hancock Life & Health Insurance Company v. Caring Connections LLC, Arthur Feldheim, and Blime a/k/a Vera Feldheim, Civ. No. 25-7574 (MAS)(JBD), United States District Court, D. New Jersey (November 6, 2026) John Hancock sued Caring Connections LLC, Arthur Feldheim, and Blime a/k/a Vera Feldheim on June 5, 2025, asserting thirteen claims, including fraud, breach of contract, and aiding and abetting fraud.
On March 26, 2026, this Court entered an order granting Caring Connections’ motion to dismiss and granting in part and denying in part the Feldheims’ motion to dismiss. The dismissed claims were dismissed without prejudice, and John Hancock timely sought leave to amend.
They also argued that the New ...
Is Exhaustion Required to Seek Declaratory Relief From an Excess Insurer?
Post 4578
Posted on November 9, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In Fox Paine & Company, LLC, et al. v. Twin City Fire Insurance Company et al., S287404, 593 P.3d 832, 593 P.3d 838, 346 Cal.Rptr.3d 541, Supreme Court of California, (July 27, 2026) the Supreme Court noted that Insurance is sometimes procured in a series of layers, with an insured acquiring a primary insurance policy that provides an initial layer of coverage for loss or liability and an excess insurance policy or policies that provide additional coverage in the event the underlying coverage is exhausted. Usually, the first layer of coverage must be exhausted before the excess layers are available to the insured.
Exhaustion
Fox and Paine’s investment-firm dispute generated extensive litigation and competing insurance claims. Their insurance tower consisted of a $10 million primary policy and four $10 million excess layers.
The Fox Parties alleged that insurers paid their rivals, withheld information,...