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.
Policy Limits Demand Accepted Settles Claim
Post 5434
Posted on August 26, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g-ZtsSgK and at https://lnkd.in/ghMBdYWR
A Contingent Offer Accepted Ends the Dispute
In Farmers Insurance Exchange, a California Reciprocal Insurance Exchange, The Superior Court For The County Of San Bernardino, Kathleen Ann Wood, E087128, California Court of Appeals, (July 9, 2026) Farmers Insurance Exchange insured Doyle Archer under an automobile policy with bodily injury limits of $15,000 per person and $30,000 per accident.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Archer rear-ended Kathleen Ann Wood at a red light, causing Wood to assert a bodily injury claim against him. Wood’s counsel sent Farmers a pre-litigation settlement demand offering to resolve Wood’s claim for the available policy limits, stating that if the $100,000 demand exceeded the policy, the offer was for the policy limits.
Farmers timely responded in writing, agreed to pay Wood the $15,000 per-person policy limit, and provided the requested ...
Policy Limits Demand Accepted Settles Claim
Post 5434
Posted on August 26, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g-ZtsSgK and at https://lnkd.in/ghMBdYWR
A Contingent Offer Accepted Ends the Dispute
In Farmers Insurance Exchange, a California Reciprocal Insurance Exchange, The Superior Court For The County Of San Bernardino, Kathleen Ann Wood, E087128, California Court of Appeals, (July 9, 2026) Farmers Insurance Exchange insured Doyle Archer under an automobile policy with bodily injury limits of $15,000 per person and $30,000 per accident.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Archer rear-ended Kathleen Ann Wood at a red light, causing Wood to assert a bodily injury claim against him. Wood’s counsel sent Farmers a pre-litigation settlement demand offering to resolve Wood’s claim for the available policy limits, stating that if the $100,000 demand exceeded the policy, the offer was for the policy limits.
Farmers timely responded in writing, agreed to pay Wood the $15,000 per-person policy limit, and provided the requested ...
The Largest Residential Burglary of All Time
Post 5407
Fraud & the Fear of Bad Faith Suits
Posted on July 22, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gWQQEySW and at https://lnkd.in/gyhdK6wv
This is a Fictionalized True Crime Story of Insurance Fraud explaining why Insurance Fraud is a “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose” situation for Insurers. The story is one of a collection designed to help to Understand How Insurance Fraud in America is Costing Everyone who Buys Insurance Thousands of Dollars Every year and Why Insurance Fraud is Safer and More Profitable for the Perpetrators than any Other Crime.
This is a Fictionalized True Crime Story of Insurance Fraud explaining why Insurance Fraud is a “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose” situation for Insurers. The story is one of a collection designed to help to Understand How Insurance Fraud in America is Costing Everyone who Buys Insurance Thousands of Dollars Every year and Why Insurance Fraud is Safer and More Profitable for the Perpetrators than any Other Crime.
After ...
Communications with Arson Investigation is Privileged
Post 5488
Posted on September 11, 2026 by Barry Zalma
ACE Was Not Required To Produce Any Disputed Document Because Each Was Protected By The Attorney-Client Privilege, or The Work-Product Doctrine.
See the full video at and at https://rumble.com/v7fbzvo-arson-for-profit-is-ground-to-deny-claim.html
In Rubesne Resources LLC, a Colorado Limited Liability Company v. ACE Property And Casualty Insurance Company, a Foreign Corporation, Civil Action No. 1:24-cv-02300-DDD-SBP, United States District Court, D. Colorado (August 30, 2026) Rubesne Resources LLC sought insurance coverage from ACE Property and Casualty Company after a January 5, 2024 fire destroyed its business.
South Metro Fire Rescue classified the ignition as intentional, and ACE’s retained expert concluded that gasoline had been poured in multiple areas and ignited. ACE retained coverage and subrogation counsel, National Subrogation Services, and a cause-and-origin expert ...
Arson for Profit is Ground to Deny Claim
Posted on September 11, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Communications with Arson Investigation is Privileged
Post 5488
ACE Was Not Required To Produce Any Disputed Document Because Each Was Protected By The Attorney-Client Privilege, or The Work-Product Doctrine.
See the full video at and at https://rumble.com/v7fbzvo-arson-for-profit-is-ground-to-deny-claim.html
In Rubesne Resources LLC, a Colorado Limited Liability Company v. ACE Property And Casualty Insurance Company, a Foreign Corporation, Civil Action No. 1:24-cv-02300-DDD-SBP, United States District Court, D. Colorado (August 30, 2026) Rubesne Resources LLC sought insurance coverage from ACE Property and Casualty Company after a January 5, 2024 fire destroyed its business.
South Metro Fire Rescue classified the ignition as intentional.
After reviewing the disputed documents in camera, the court found that each was protected.
LAW
Colorado Revised Statutes § 10-4-1003 requires ...
Referral of Claims to its SIU Is Not Bad Faith
Post 5487
Posted on September 10, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In WIZ Collision, LLC, on behalf of itself and as assignee of Jawara Small, Chester Street LLC, and Aziz Brooks v. GEICO Corporation, No. 25-cv-4201 (KAM)(JAM), United States District Court, E.D. New York (August 28, 2026) Wiz Collision, a New York City auto-body shop, regularly repaired vehicles and submitted insurance claims for customers. It alleged that GEICO repeatedly approved claims and repairs, then referred certain claims to its Special Investigations Unit, stopped issuing payments, and delayed resolution despite ultimately finding no fraud.
Wiz Collision sued on its own behalf and as purported assignee of three customers, asserting contract, good-faith, consumer-protection, and injunctive claims. GEICO removed the case and moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).
LAW
Under Rule 12(b)(6), a complaint must plead facts supporting a facially plausible claim. Article III standing requires a concrete injury, ...
