Case 1:18-cr-10225-GAO Document 42 Filed 03/18/19 Page 1 of 15

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)
v. ) Criminal No. 18-10225-GAO
)
)
RAYMOND K. MONTOYA, )
)
Defendant. )

UNITED STATES’ SENTENCING MEMORANDUM

The Government respectfully submits that this Court should sentence defendant

RAYMOND K. MONTOYA (“MONTOYA”) to a term of incarceration commensurate with the

offense, the harm he caused and his conduct to mitigate the harm after the completion of the

offense. While the Defendant asserts that the applicable Sentencing Guideline Range is 135-168

months, the Government maintains that a correct application of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines,

as found by U.S. Probation in the final Pre-Sentence Report (“PSR”), results in an advisory

sentencing range of 210-262 months.

APPLICATION OF THE U.S. SENTENCING GUIDELINES

While the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines (“USSG”) are advisory and not mandatory, United

States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), the First Circuit has made clear that “the guidelines still

play an important role in the sentencing procedure, so that [ ] a court should ordinarily begin by

calculating the applicable guideline range.” United States v. Gilman, 478 F.3d 440, 445 (1st Cir.

2007).

Two tissues need resolution: the total amount of loss and the sophisticated means

enhancement. The Government submits that the amount of loss is approximately $38 million

(between $25 and $65 million). The Defendant argues that it is less than $25 million. In any event,

1
 Case 1:18-cr-10225-GAO Document 42 Filed 03/18/19 Page 2 of 15

the Government submits that the Court can find a range of loss for the applicable advisory

sentencing guideline range and defer a precise order of restitution until after sentencing. The

amount of loss, under the Defendant’s own factual analysis, is above $25 million. Otherwise, the

parties agree, and the PSR has found a 4-level enhancement for substantial hardship to five or more

victims; a 4-level enhancement for acting as an investment advisor; and a 1-level enhancement for

his conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 1957(a).

A. Amount of Loss – USSG § 2B1.1

The amount of loss is contested in this case. The Government contends the total amount of

loss is more than $38 million; the Defendant avers that it is around $21 million. To be sure, “[w]hen

a criminal defendant is convicted of a fraud offense, the Sentencing Commission has established

amount of loss—generally the higher of actual or intended loss—as a rough proxy for determining

the seriousness of the offense and the relative culpability of the offender.” United States v. Alphas,

785 F.3d 775, 777 (1st Cir. 2015); United States v. Appolon, 695 F.3d 44, 69 (1st Cir. 2012) (‘[t]he

district court's intended loss formula was a reasonable proxy for culpability in the circumstances of

this case”).

A victim of a fraud offense includes any person who sustained “actual loss” in the form of

“reasonably foreseeable pecuniary harm.” See §2B1.1, comment. (n.1) (defining “victim” to mean

“any person who sustained any part of the actual loss”). Likewise, “reasonably foreseeable

pecuniary harm” is “pecuniary harm that the defendant knew or, under the circumstances,

reasonably should have known, was a potential result of the offense.” §2B1.1, comment.

(n.3(A)(iii)); see also United States v. Stepanian, 570 F.3d 51, 54–55 (1st Cir. 2009). “Pecuniary

harm” is simply “harm that is monetary or that otherwise is readily measurable in money.” §2B1.1,

comment. (n.3(A)(iii)).

2
 Case 1:18-cr-10225-GAO Document 42 Filed 03/18/19 Page 3 of 15

Here, the amount of pecuniary harm is measurable based on a victim-by-victim analysis:

the total amount of money each victim invested with MONTOYA and the RMA Fund minus any

money they received back from MONTOYA either through redemptions or withdrawals. See e.g.,

United States v. Qazah, 810 F.3d 879, 889 (4th Cir. 2015) (“for the purpose of determining the

loss that was intended to result from the offense, see U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1 cmt. n.3(A)(ii), the court

must identify and focus on the intended victim or victims of the offense”).

The amount of loss is contested both factually and legally, but as a factual matter, even

under the Defendant’s own analysis, the amount of loss is greater than $25 million and results in a

base offense level of 29. In any event, the Government can demonstrate by preponderance of the

evidence that the total of amount of loss is more than $38 million.1 See United States v. Sharapka,

526 F.3d 58, 61 (1st Cir. 2008) (“[D]eference is owed” to the loss determination of the district

court, which “need only make a reasonable estimate of the loss,” because the district court “is in a

unique position to assess the evidence and estimate the loss based on that evidence”) (quoting

USSG § 2B1.1, cmt. n.3).

The Money the Investor-Victims Gave to MONTOYA and the RMA Fund

The Government determined the amount of loss by first adding up the total amount of

money each individual victim gave to MONTOYA and invested with the RMA Fund. To

determine this number, the Government looked at several reliable sources of information.

First, there were the bank records at Citizens Bank of the RMA Fund (the accounts ending

in 3241 and 3582). From these records, going back approximately 7 years from June 2017, the

1
The amount of loss is furthermore based not only on the conduct for which a defendant is convicted, but
also “relevant conduct” for which he is found responsible by a preponderance of the evidence. United
States v. Cox, 851 F.3d 113, 120–21 (1st Cir. 2017); citing United States v. Pennue, 770 F.3d 985, 992-93
(1st Cir. 2014). Under USSG § 1B1.3, relevant conduct includes “all acts and omissions committed . . . or
willfully caused by the defendant . . . that occurred during the commission of the offense of conviction, in
preparation for that offense, or in the course of attempting to avoid detection or responsibility for that
offense.” USSG §1B.3.

3
 Case 1:18-cr-10225-GAO Document 42 Filed 03/18/19 Page 4 of 15

Government could see and verify the deposits from investors. Second, the FBI and IRS dealt

directly with the victims and collected records documenting their investments with the RMA

Fund, especially in the case of earlier investments where records of the transactions were no

longer available. Third, the victims submitted answers to detailed questionnaires and engaged in

interviews with the FBI and IRS, thus further documenting the money they gave, and any funds

they got back.

In comparison, the Defendant’s analysis is limited to two bank accounts at Citizens Bank

and does not account for the earlier transfers of funds to the RMA Fund and the direct

information that the victims provided to the Government. In some instances, the Defendant’s

analysis indicates that a particular victim invested no money, but nonetheless received a return.

For example, while the Government maintains that Victim No. 5440536 (the “P.M.” Revocable

Trust) sustained a total loss of $881,268.00, the Defendant’s analysis indicates that Victim “P.M.”

gave $0 to the RMA Fund but yet received a return of $14,732.00.

The Money MONTOYA and the RMA Fund Returned to the Victims

After determining the amount of money an individual investor gave MONTOYA and the

RMA Fund, the Government then subtracted any money that the investor withdrew from the

RMA Fund and/or received from MONTOYA and the RMA Fund as either a redemption,

withdrawal or purported return on their investment. To be sure, under the applicable commentary

to USSG § 2B1.1 (“Credit Against Losses”), “[l]oss shall be reduced by . . . [t]he money returned,

and the fair market value of the property returned and the services rendered, by the defendant or

other persons acting jointly with the defendant, to the victim before the offense was detected.”

USSG §2B1.1, comment. (n.3(E)(i)).

The result of this analysis left three categories of investors: (1) individuals who gave

money to MONTOYA and the RMA Fund and received nothing in return; (2) individuals who

4
 Case 1:18-cr-10225-GAO Document 42 Filed 03/18/19 Page 5 of 15

gave money to MONTOYA and the RMA Fund and got back less than they put in; and (3)

individuals who gave money to MONTOYA and the RMA Fund but actually got back more

money than they invested; that is, they made a profit.

In this case, as matter of loss determination, the handful of individuals who received more

money back from the RMA FUND than they put in, did not sustain an actual pecuniary loss. In

other words, their loss is $0 and does not add to (or subtract from) the total amount of loss. As

depicted in Exhibit A,2 the aggregate of each of the true victims’ individual losses is the total

amount of loss, totaling more than $38 million.

The Defendant’s analysis turns the proper Guideline analysis on its head. When an

individual investor actually made money – that is, got back more from the RMA Fund than they

put in – the Defendant argues that the investor’s profit should be credited against the total amount

of loss that the victims sustained. Specifically, the Defendant alleges that $9,707,821 –the total

amount of money that investors actually got in excess of their investment - should be deducted

from the total amount of loss he caused the victims in this case.

The Defendant’s analysis if fundamentally flawed. While it is true that “[l]oss shall be

reduced by . . . [t]he money returned . . . by the defendant . . . to the victim[,]” the individuals

who made more money did not suffer a pecuniary loss and thus are not victims for the purposes

of § 2B1.1 loss calculations. Otherwise, under the Defendant’s logic, a single investor’s net

earnings, if greater than the sum total of the victims’ losses, could result in zero loss to all the

victims. Compare United States v. Stepanian, 570 F.3d 51, 56–57 (1st Cir. 2009) (a victim’s who

sustains a loss, but whose losses are “reimbursed” is still a victim for the number of victim’s

enhancement). More fundamentally, instead of focusing on the actual loss to a victim of the

2
Exhibit A and B are redacted. Un-redacted versions are being filed with the Court under seal.

5
 Case 1:18-cr-10225-GAO Document 42 Filed 03/18/19 Page 6 of 15

crime, the Defendant analysis is more of a fund-wide analysis that looks at the aggregate gains

and losses.

Moreover, the Defendant’s position directly contradicts the commentary to the U.S.

Sentencing Guidelines. As the commentary to Section 2B1.1 makes plainly clear:

In a case involving a fraudulent investment scheme, such as a Ponzi scheme,

loss shall not be reduced by the money or the value of the property transferred
to any individual investor in the scheme in excess of that investor's principal
investment (i.e., the gain to an individual investor in the scheme shall not be
used to offset the loss to another individual investor in the scheme)

USSG 2B1.1 comment n. (3(F)(iv)).

The Defendant’s reading of this straightforward comment misses the point, especially when the

Sentencing Commission's commentary is to be “read in a straightforward, commonsense manner.”

United States v. Carrasco-Mateo, 389 F.3d 239, 244 (1st Cir.2004). To repeat the above, “the

gain to an individual investor in the scheme shall not be used to offset the loss to another

individual investor in the scheme.” USSG 2B1.1 comment n. (3(F)(iv)) (emphasis added). That is

exactly what the Defendant is seeking to do - adding up the gain from 24 individual investors who

made money (including one who profited more than $4.6 million) and seeking to subtract that

amount from the total loss among the victims.

Finally, the Defendant’s argument that the Note 3(F)(iv) does not apply because the RMA

Fund was not a true Ponzi scheme also misses the mark because this case clearly involves a

“fraudulent investment scheme.” The language “such as” a Ponzi merely provides an example of

a type of fraudulent investment scheme. Furthermore, while not every payout to investors was

funded by new investor money, as typical in a Ponzi scheme, at times the RMA Fund could be

fairly characterized as a Ponzi scheme.3

1.
For example, as detailed in paragraph 17 of the PSR, between December 28, 2016 and February
28, 2017, while MONTOYA received over $3 million of investor funds into the RMA Fund Citizens
Account, only approximately $1.8 million was transferred to any of the RMA FUND’s E*Trade brokerage

6
 Case 1:18-cr-10225-GAO Document 42 Filed 03/18/19 Page 7 of 15

Even under the Defendant’s Numbers, the Total Amount of Loss is More than $25 Million

As further summarized in Exhibit A, while the Government steadfastly contends that the

total amount of loss is precisely $38,745,148.37, the Defendant’s total numbers (without applying

a $9.1 million deduction for the net winners) is still above $25 million ($26,485,582.60). See

Exhibit B (Defendant’s Loss Calculation).

Furthermore, while the Government will seek an order of restitution consistent with

Exhibit A, the Court has discretion to make a latter determination of restitution. The Mandatory

Victims Restitution Act (“MVRA”) requires defendants convicted of fraud and other crimes

against property to pay restitution to those “directly and proximately harmed” by the offense. 18

U.S.C. § 3663A(c)(1)(A)(ii). The amount of restitution must equal “the full amount of each

victim’s losses . . . without consideration of the economic circumstances of the defendant.” 18

U.S.C. § 3664(f)(1)(A). In any event, “[i]f the victims losses are not ascertainable by the date that

is 10 days prior to sentencing, the attorney for the Government or the probation officer shall so

inform the court, and the court shall set a date for the final determination of the victim’s losses,

not to exceed 90 days after sentencing.” 18 U.S.C. § 3664(d)(5).

Accordingly, the Government maintains that the Court should find that the total amount of

loss is at least $25 million, resulting in base offense level 29.

B. Sophisticated Means Sophisticated Means Enhancement

The Defendant contests the sophisticated means enhancement. Section 2B1.1(b)(10)(C)

of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines provides for a 2-level increase of the offense level when “the

offense otherwise involved sophisticated means and the defendant intentionally engaged in or

accounts and invested. During the same period, MONTOYA used more than $1 million of this new
investor money (1) to pay over $600,000 in redemptions to earlier investors, (2) to fund approximately
$420,000 in checks to MONTOYA’s sons and MONTOYA’s spouse, and (3) to pay approximately $8,900
to his home equity line of credit.

7
 Case 1:18-cr-10225-GAO Document 42 Filed 03/18/19 Page 8 of 15

caused the conduct constituting sophisticated means[.]” USSG § 2B1.1(b)(10)(C). Application

notes 9(B) further provides that “‘sophisticated means’ means especially complex or especially

intricate offense conduct pertaining to the execution or concealment of an offense” and cites as an

example the use shell corporations in a telemarketing scheme. USSG § 2B1.1, n. 9(B). However,

“[t]he list in the commentary of conduct that warrants the enhancement is not exhaustive.” United

States v. Pacheco-Martinez, 791 F.3d 171, 179 (1st Cir. 2015). “The defendant need not have

done any of the things listed in order to qualify for the enhancement, so long as the offense as a

whole shows “‘a greater level of planning or concealment’ than a typical fraud of its kind.” Id.

citing United States v. Knox, 624 F.3d 865, 870–72 (7th Cir.2010) (quoting United States v.

Wayland, 549 F.3d 526, 528–29 (7th Cir.2008)).

Contrary to Defendant’s assertions, MONTOYA’s execution of the offense went well

beyond “very basic means.” See Defendant’s Sentencing Memorandum at pg. 15. The entire

operation was cloaked with sophisticated means. Even though the Defendant failed to admit it

during his consensual interview (leading to the execution of a search warrant at his residence after

his consensual interview), the real work of the RMA Fund was done by MONTOYA at his

residence in Allston, Massachusetts. In fact, MONTOYA only went to the office a couple times a

year when potential investors paid a visit. See PSR ¶ 39.

The brochures and written materials that touted the RMA Fund’s success – from the

sophisticated, propitiatory software it used; the outside auditor (Thomas Zazzarra)4 it employed to

verify its’ financial condition; and the respective role and expertise of its employees (like George

Bedarf) – was truly an intricate façade. Most significantly, the Defendant manufactured realistic

looking account statements that he carefully and meticulously created by dictating the numbers to

4
See PSR ¶ 14.

8
 Case 1:18-cr-10225-GAO Document 42 Filed 03/18/19 Page 9 of 15

George Bedarf, an administrative assistant who spent more time running personal errands for

MONTOYA than investment research.

With these facts, it is clear that the execution of the Defendant’s scheme involved a

greater degree of planning and sophistication than a normal investment fraud scheme.

C. Advisory Sentencing Guideline Range

The resulting offense level is thus 29 (base offense level for loss greater than $25

million, but less than $65 million) + 4 (for substantial hardship to 5 more victim) +2

(sophisticated means) + 4 (acting as financial advisor) + 1 (Section 1957 conviction) = 40. After

a 3-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility, the total offense level is 37, with an advisory

sentencing guideline range of between 210-262 months. Since the statutory maximum is 20

years, the high end of the applicable GSR is lowered to 240 months.

THE GOVERNMENT’S SENTENCING RECOMMENDATION

Section 3553(a) of Title 18 specifies the factors courts are to consider in imposing a

sentence and instructs courts to “impose a sentence sufficient, but not greater than necessary, to

comply with” the four identified purposes of sentencing: just punishment, deterrence, protection

of the public, and rehabilitation. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Section 3553(a) then directs a sentencing

court to take into account “the nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and

characteristics of the defendant,” as well as “the need for the sentence imposed” to serve the four

overarching aims of sentencing. §§ 3553(a)(1), (2)(A)–(D); see Gall v. United States, 552 U.S.

38, 50, n. 6 (2007). The court must also consider the pertinent guidelines and policies adopted by

the Sentencing Commission. §§ 3553(a)(4), (5); see id., at 50, n. 6.

A. The Nature and Circumstances of the Offense

The instant offense was a particularly pernicious investment fraud scheme that will have

lasting effects for dozens of families spread across Massachusetts, Ohio and California. For

9
 Case 1:18-cr-10225-GAO Document 42 Filed 03/18/19 Page 10 of 15

many of the victims, MONTOYA literally stole their entire lifesavings they worked a career and

lifetime to build for their children’s education and their own retirement. The scheme was

particularly pernicious because of the very personal way MONTOYA deceived his victims. He

came into their homes, became part of their families and even employed one of the victim’s

children as an employee at the RMA Fund in Boston, Massachusetts.

As detailed in the victim impact statements, some of which are quoted below, in addition

to devastating financial consequences, each of the victims have expressed a feeling of shame and

depilating depression because of MONTOYA’s offense:

VIN 5420317:
I am a single woman in my mid-40’s. I was recently laid off and was forced to go on
disability after my entire savings were stolen by this man, which totaled 740,597.73. I
have worked hard for the last 22 years as a pharmacist and he took every penny to my
name. . . My retirement is wiped out as well as my entire personal savings.

VIN: 5440514; 5440517:

 

VIN: 5440522 and 5440521

Both my wife and I went into a severe depression. I could hardly work thinking
our futures would be significantly different from what we had planned. Our life
savings were gone. Our financial security was gone. Any plans of normal
retirement had been taken away because of the fraud perpetrated by Raymond
Montoya. We had invested our life savings and never took a single withdrawal
from the RMA fund.

VIN: 5440572

I am now 60 years old and we have been forced to completely rethink what will
be our final chapter . . . There are no words to describe the devastation this time
around. Mentally, physically and financially I/we will never be the same.

VIN: 5440585

10
 Case 1:18-cr-10225-GAO Document 42 Filed 03/18/19 Page 11 of 15

To say I’ve been depressed is an understatement, and I am unable to trust anyone.

I am ashamed that I was tricked and that I put so much faith in a “friend,” and that
I am foolish to have fallen for this con man.

VIN: 5440588

My husband is 71 and I am 64 years old. He is retired and he is working part time

and he will continue to do so as long as it is possible. I am not planning to retire
since I am the only one who supports the household now. As long as I am healthy
I will continue to work until the end. Eventually we might have to relocate since
our house is costing us $8,000 in taxes per year, and that is not our only expense.
Now, about the emotional turmoil, I cannot find the words to describe our
condition.

VIN: 5440594 and 5440590

Upon learning that we were victims of a con man and crook we immediately put
our plans on hold. Without any savings or retirement we realized there was
absolutely no way we could afford retirement.

VIN: 5440607

Not only will I not retire for many years to come, at least a decade, I had to beg,
borrow and literally plead to my daughter’s paternal grandparents to pay for her
college tuition in 2017.

VIN: 5440599

Raymond did this after insinuating himself in my family's lives and building trust
over several years.

For the most part, the facts are not dispute. MONTOYA told the victims that he was

investing their money and was advertising huge rates of return that were just not true. See PSR ¶

12. MONTOYA did not have sophisticated, proprietary software (PSR ¶ 13); he did not have an

outside auditor/fund administrator (PSR ¶ 14); he did not use JP Morgan Chase as his “prime

broker” (PSR ¶ 15); and that the money he claimed was in their retirement/investment accounts

was only a fraction of what they actually had. To this day, some of the victims have a difficult

time comprehending that the monetary amounts they saw their monthly account statements were

never really there.

11
 Case 1:18-cr-10225-GAO Document 42 Filed 03/18/19 Page 12 of 15

Most importantly, in addition to his fraudulent inducements, at times MONTOYA just

stole money from the victims. In 2011, even before he started losing their money, MONTOYA

used approximately $200,000 in investor money to pay for his children’s home loan and another

$100,000 for a down payment on a 2010 Rolls Royce. By 2012 the RMA Fund was losing

money and by 2015 the losses were substantial, but yet the stealing continued. As detailed in

paragraph 43 of the PSR and the assets identified in the plea agreement and criminal information,

MONTOYA used investor money to purchase high-end vehicles (including a Lamborghini, Rolls

Royce, three Ferraris and three Porsches) and to pay for his children’s student loans and personal

home mortgages. Contrary to the Defendant’s assertions that he was hoping to “trade his away”

out of the deficit (see Defendant’s Sentencing Memorandum at pg. 6), none of these expenditures

had anything to do with a plan to recoup his victims’ funds. It was just selfish greed.

On the other hand, as the Defendant correctly points out, MONTOYA took substantial

steps to mitigate the harm he caused. After being sued by the Massachusetts Securities Division

(“MSD”) in June 2017, upon advice of counsel, MONTOYA agreed to admit to the offense and

participated in a consensual interview without the standard protections of a profit letter.

MONTOYA provided the FBI and IRS with detailed records and took steps to surrender the

assets that had been purchased with investor funds. In fact, as depicted in Exhibit C, the

Defendant has already surrender more than $9.4 million in cars, banks accounts, and other

property, approximately 25 percent of the $38 million loss that he caused.

Under the terms of the plea agreement, the Defendant also has the obligation to forfeit

eight additional vehicles worth approximately $373,000. Furthermore, as the Defendant correctly

points out, in addition to the instant case, the Defendant has cooperated with a bankruptcy trustee

appointed in Boston and together with one of his son’s and his daughter has surrendered (or

agreed to surrender) another $900,000 in funds to the trustee. The Defendant’s substantial efforts

12
 Case 1:18-cr-10225-GAO Document 42 Filed 03/18/19 Page 13 of 15

to quickly accept responsibility and mitigate the damage of his offense should be considered. The

Court’s sentence should reflect these efforts.

Nevertheless, while the Defendant has taken significant steps to mitigate his offense, the

breadth of his remediation is overstated. First, while it is true that the Defendant (through his

counsel) reached out to the U.S. Attorney’s Office to admit his offense, he only did so after

untruthful sworn testimony to the MSD and a subsequent lawsuit that exposed the crime. Second,

while the Defendant participated in a consensual interview in June 2017, during the interview he

gave the FBI and IRS the incorrect impression about the primary locale for his work at the RMA

Fund. During the interview, MONTOYA neglected to mention that most of the work he did was

done - and a large number of the records were actually located at - his residence and not at the

RMA Office’s in Boston. In fact, MONTOYA rarely if ever even went to the RMA Fund’s

Offices. As a result, the FBI conducted a search warrant of the Defendant’s residence in August

2017, and seized cash, computers, records, and some valuable jewelry.

B. The History and Characteristics of the Defendant

The Defendant is a 71-year old college graduate with a wife and professionally successful

adult children. He was born in the Philippines and came to the United States in 1968. At the age

of 40 in about 1988, MONTOYA was prosecuted for embezzlement in Los Angeles and was

sentenced to more than 5 years of state incarceration. Because of its age, the conviction does not

count toward any enhanced criminal history score, but similar to the instant offense, involved

stealing funds that did not belong to him.

C. The Need for Sentence Imposed – to Reflect the Seriousness of the Offense, Promote
Respect for the Law, and Provide Just Punishment

In considering the appropriate sentence, the Court should strike a balance between first, the

utterly devastating effect of his crime; and second, the efforts MONTOYA has made to admit the

13
 Case 1:18-cr-10225-GAO Document 42 Filed 03/18/19 Page 14 of 15

offense and mitigate the financial damage.5 While the Court can and should consider the

Defendant’s substantial efforts to admit to the offense and mitigate its’ damage, the efforts cannot

totally wipeout the damage and the seriousness of the offense.

Admittedly, a just punishment should also take into the account the fact that the Defendant

is 71 years old. Any sentence of more than 10 years would leave the Defendant on supervised

release well into his mid-80’s.

D. The Need of the Sentence – to Afford Adequate Deterrence and Protect the Public

Lastly, the sentence should promote deterrence. While the chances that MONTOYA

would re-offend are slight, based on his advanced age, deterrence also includes general

deterrence. See eg., United States v. Crespo-Rios, 787 F.3d 34, 38 (1st Cir. 2015) (“Critically,

there is no explanation of how this sentence reflects the seriousness of the crimes committed,

avoids sentencing disparities, promotes general deterrence, or promotes respect for the law”).

The commission of an offense that generates a loss of $38 million dollars and wipes out the

lifelong retirement savings of a large number of families deserves a significant punishment.

5
While far from a perfect measure, voluntarily surrendering 25 percent of the loss amount, if applied to a
25 percent reduction in the sentence, would reduce a sentence of 210 months to approximately 157 months
(about 13 years).

14
 Case 1:18-cr-10225-GAO Document 42 Filed 03/18/19 Page 15 of 15

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Government submits that the Court should sentence the

defendant, RAYMOND K. MONTOYA, to a term of incarceration consistent with the U.S.

Sentencing Guidelines.

Respectfully submitted,

ANDREW E. LELLING
United States Attorney

By: /s/ Neil Gallagher

Neil J. Gallagher, Jr.
Assistant U.S. Attorney

Date Submitted: March 18, 2019

Certificate of Service

I hereby certify that this document filed through the ECF system will be sent
electronically to the registered participants as identified on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF).

/s/ Neil J. Gallagher, Jr.

Neil J. Gallagher, Jr.

15
 Case 1:18-cr-10225-GAO Document 42-1 Filed 03/18/19 Page 1 of 4

Contact ID State Loss Amount Defense Amount Difference

5440545; 5440549 Ohio $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $0.00
5440546; 5440547 Ohio $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $0.00
5440548; 5440549 Ohio $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $0.00
5440499 Massachusetts $3,354.28 $5,121.72 $8,476.00
5440550 Connecticut $24,448.67 $19,170.67 $5,278.00
5440500; 5440501 California $416,901.20 $406,940.00 $9,961.20
5440502; 5440504 Ohio $625,000.00 $625,000.00 $0.00
5440503 Ohio $700,000.00 $700,000.00 $0.00
5440505; 5440506 Ohio $294,000.57 $294,000.57 $0.00
5440507 California $6,579.14 $6,579.14 $0.00
5440508 California $284,072.03 $238,072.03 $46,000.00
5440509 Massachusetts $3,102.00 $0.00 $3,102.00
5440510 Massachusetts $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
5440511 Washington $6,200.00 $0.00 $6,200.00
5440512 Massachusetts $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
5440513 Massachusetts $105,000.00 105000 $0.00
5460172 North Carolina $79,978.61 $770.52 $79,208.09
5420317 California $740,597.73 $736,841.73 $3,756.00
5440514; 5440517 California $110,050.78 $372,481.77 $262,430.99
5440516; 5440515 California $1,000.00 $0.00 $1,000.00
5440514 California $200,547.58 $0.00 $200,547.58
5440517 California $63,402.41 $0.00 $63,402.41
5440518 California $70,600.00 $70,100.00 $500.00
5440519 New York $420,559.59 $420,559.59 $0.00
5440520 New York $272,779.11 $271,961.91 $817.20
5829663 California $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $0.00
5440522; 5440521 Alabama $242,696.80 1,275,243.71 $1,032,546.91
5440521 Alabama $725,400.74 $0.00 $725,400.74
5440522 Alabama $316,878.17 $0.00 $316,878.17
$0.00 $0.00
5440531 Florida $55,000.00 $30,000.00 $25,000.00
5440523 California $104,491.00 $0.00 $104,491.00
5440524 New Hampshire $220,000.00 $220,000.00 $0.00
 Case 1:18-cr-10225-GAO Document 42-1 Filed 03/18/19 Page 2 of 4

5440525 California $696,119.83 $636,119.83 $60,000.00

5440526 South Carolina $97,094.92 $97,094.92 $0.00
5440527 South Carolina $16,128.07 $16,128.07 $0.00
5440477; 5440478 $148,128.53 $207,483.32 $59,354.79
5440477 Ohio $2,404.00 $0.00 $2,404.00
5440478 Ohio $169,485.39 $0.00 $169,485.39
$0.00 $0.00
5440479 Massachusetts $16,255.89 $16,255.89 $0.00
5440480 Massachusetts $16,255.89 $16,255.89 $0.00
5440481 California $108,646.41 $110,546.74 $1,900.33
5440482 California $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
5440483 California $25,000.00 $25,000.00 $0.00
Massachusetts $20,000.00 $20,000.00 $0.00
5440484 Massachusetts $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
5440485 Massachusetts $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
5440486 Nebraska $345,607.70 $345,607.70 $0.00
5440488 Washington $66.44 $0.00 $66.44
5440490 Ohio $413,314.59 $839,603.28 $426,288.69
5440491 Ohio $426,288.37 $0.00 $426,288.37
Subtotal $0.00
5440492 Texas $100,000.00 $100,000.00 $0.00
5440493 Ohio $101,254.51 $101,254.51 $0.00
5440494 Ohio $104,982.89 $83,500.58 $21,482.31
5440495 California $165,292.72 $0.00 $165,292.72
5440497; 5440496 Ohio $15,000.00 $0.00 $15,000.00
5440551 California $373,802.42 $373,802.42 $0.00
5440553; 5440556 California $4,800.00 $0.00 $4,800.00
5440554 California $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
5440555 California $226,660.79 $227,610.79 $950.00
5745050 California $1,634,494.72 $967,413.99 $2,601,908.71
5824770 California $186,863.91 $4,287.34 $182,576.57
5440557 Massachusetts $5,633.00 $8,800.00 $14,433.00
5440558 New York $1,523,304.83 $352,772.25 $1,170,532.58
5440559 New York $186,927.39 $497,129.39 $310,202.00
 Case 1:18-cr-10225-GAO Document 42-1 Filed 03/18/19 Page 3 of 4

5869820 New York $194,891.00 $0.00 $194,891.00

$0.00 $0.00
5440560 North Carolina $100,000.00 $99,500.00 $500.00
5440561; 5440562 Illinois $300,000.00 $300,000.00 $0.00
5440563 Ohio $101,000.00 $101,000.00 $0.00
5440566; 5440564 Ohio $398,669.97 $0.00 $398,669.97
5440565 Illinois $194,612.81 $343,962.81 $149,350.00
5440566 Ohio $723,776.13 $429,253.59 $294,522.54
5440536 California $881,268.00 $14,732.00 $896,000.00
5440567 Georgia $2,400.00 $67,077.36 $69,477.36
5440537 Ohio $125,000.00 $125,000.00 $0.00
5440568 Ohio $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
5440569 Ohio $85,417.37 $0.00 $85,417.37
5440570 Missouri $35,163.11 $0.00 $35,163.11
5440571 Missouri $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
5440572 Missouri $339,126.61 $1,772,370.98 $1,433,244.37
5440573 Missouri $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
5440538 Missouri $1,398,495.14 $0.00 $1,398,495.14
$0.00 $0.00
5440574; 5440575 $100,000.00 $0.00 $100,000.00
5440539 Ohio $4,270,093.84 $0.00 $4,270,093.84
5440576 Ohio $200,842.81 $200,851.40 $8.59
5440577 Ohio $137,032.00 $137,032.02 $0.02
5440578 Texas $19,321.80 $19,321.80 $0.00
5440580 California $123,035.57 $32,456.57 $90,579.00
5440581 California $33,135.59 $24,637.35 $8,498.24
5440583 California $7,580.22 $0.00 $7,580.22
5440584 California $81,405.94 $0.00 $81,405.94
5440585 California $409,952.00 $0.00 $409,952.00
$0.00 $0.00
5440586 Massachusetts $94,643.90 $94,643.90 $0.00
5440587 Ohio $347,034.84 $347,034.84 $0.00
5440589; 5440588 Massachusetts $182,444.08 $265,203.99 $82,759.91
5440588 Massachusetts $82,759.91 $0.00 $82,759.91
 Case 1:18-cr-10225-GAO Document 42-1 Filed 03/18/19 Page 4 of 4

$0.00 $0.00
5440540 California $184,129.62 $0.00 $184,129.62
5440590 Ohio $324,319.96 $2,565,129.73 $2,240,809.77
5440591 Ohio $45,977.62 $38,477.62 $7,500.00
5440592 Ohio $28,213.05 $20,713.05 $7,500.00
5440593 Ohio $43,320.83 $121,394.20 $164,715.03
5440594 Ohio $545,091.33 $0.00 $545,091.33
5440541 Ohio $5,319,230.91 $501,925.97 $4,817,304.94
$120,000.00 $120,000.00

$4,662,383.13 $4,662,383.13
$0.00 $0.00
5440595 Ohio $52,971.18 $0.00 $52,971.18
5440596 Ohio $646,617.20 $0.00 $646,617.20
5440597 Ohio $100,810.27 $0.00 $100,810.27
5440598 Ohio $170,639.64 $1,294,558.35 $1,123,918.71
$0.00 $0.00
5440599 California $4,809,873.88 $4,166,262.40 $643,611.48
5440600 Puerto Rico $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
5440601 California $0.00 $1,360,311.64 $1,360,311.64
5440602 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

5440603 California $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

5440604 California $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
5440542 California $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
5440543 Ohio $543,904.12 $0.00 $543,904.12
5440605 Ohio $780,000.00 $771,891.55 $8,108.45
5440606 Massachusetts $800.00 $10,740.00 $11,540.00
5440607 Ohio $813,563.70 $810,124.01 $3,439.69
5440544 Massachusetts $119,128.80 $149,263.89 $30,135.09
Totals $38,745,148.37 $26,485,582.60
 Case 1:18-cr-10225-GAO Document 42-2 Filed 03/18/19 Page 1 of 2 ([KLELW

5D\PRQG.0RQWR\D

5HVRXUFH0DQDJHG$VVHWV//&50$*URXS,QF
6XPPDU\RI%DQN$FFRXQW$FWLYLW\&DWJRUL]HGDQG6RUWHG+LJKHVWWR/RZHVWE\1HW$FWLYLW\
)RUWKH3HULRG)URP0D\WR-XQH

PRELIMINARY DRAFT as of April 23, 2018

This is a preliminary draft. It has been prepared based on preliminary information and assumptions. No one may rely on this draft. It is
subject to change as additional information becomes available or is clarified.

6RXUFH %DQNVWDWHPHQWVIRU&LWL]HQ%DQN 

'HSRVLWV &KHFNV
3D\HH5HFHLYHG)URP 1HW
&UHGLWV 'HELWV
%HJLQQLQJ%DODQFH)RUZDUG   

,QYHVWRU
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  

Page 1 of 9.......
 Case 1:18-cr-10225-GAO Document 42-2 Filed 03/18/19 Page 2 of 2 ([KLELW

5D\PRQG.0RQWR\D

5HVRXUFH0DQDJHG$VVHWV//&50$*URXS,QF
6XPPDU\RI%DQN$FFRXQW$FWLYLW\&DWJRUL]HGDQG6RUWHG+LJKHVWWR/RZHVWE\1HW$FWLYLW\
)RUWKH3HULRG)URP0D\WR-XQH

PRELIMINARY DRAFT as of April 23, 2018

This is a preliminary draft. It has been prepared based on preliminary information and assumptions. No one may rely on this draft. It is
subject to change as additional information becomes available or is clarified.

6RXUFH %DQNVWDWHPHQWVIRU&LWL]HQ%DQN 

'HSRVLWV &KHFNV
3D\HH5HFHLYHG)URP 1HW
&UHGLWV 'HELWV
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
Investor
In estor Subtotal
S btot
Subtota   

Page 2 of 9.......
 Case 1:18-cr-10225-GAO Document 42-3 Filed 03/18/19 Page 1 of 2

Asset Description Value
$17,850 US Currency $17,850.00
$8,500 US Currency $8,500.00
Various Coin Collection $0.00
$8,000 US Currency $8,000.00
Miscellaneous Handbags $0.00
Miscellaneous Pieces of Jewelry $0.00
Men's 14 Kt. Yellow Gold Nugget Finish Ring $0.00
Seven (7) Watches $0.00
2006 Mercedes‐Benz $5,375.00
2006 Ferrari Spider $135,800.00
2016 Lamborghini Aventador $239,495.00
2010 Rolls Royce $134,800.00
2002 BMW M3 Coupe $1,875.00
All funds on deposit in E*Trade acct 64230185 $5,794,338.89
All funds on deposit in E*Trade acct 35886451 $2,230,266.37
All funds on deposit in E*Trade acct 36211523 $131,958.18
All funds on deposit in E*Trade acct 36211522 $102,479.87
All funds on deposit in E*Trade acct 36211753 $42,955.28
$400 from Citizens Bank Account No. 1330545858 $400.00
$100 from Citizens Bank Account No. 1330545866 $100.00
$100 from Citizens Bank Account No. 1330545831 $100.00
$372 from Citizens Bank Account No. 1330545823 $372.72
$100 from Citizens Bank Account No. 1330545874 $100.00
$100 from Citizens Bank Account No. 1330852076 $100.00
$707.60 from Citizens Bank Account No. 1330545882 $707.60
$375 from Citizens Bank Account No. 1330545939 $375.75
$576 from Citizens Bank Account No. 1310460075 $576.76
$10,494.61 from Citizens Bank Account No. 1313823292
$10,494.61
$466 from Citizens Bank Account No. 1310460040 $466.66
$9,700.63 from Citizens Bank Account No. 1313823241 $9,700.63
$331.20 from Citizens Bank Account No. 1320860343 $331.20
$133,642.36 from Citizens Bank Account No. 1302333582
$133,642.36
 Case 1:18-cr-10225-GAO Document 42-3 Filed 03/18/19 Page 2 of 2

Various Pieces of Office Funiture $0.00
Miscellaneous Furniture $0.00
Two Mirrors $0.00
Various Lamps $0.00
Flat Screen Televisions $0.00
$400,000 personal check from Raymond Montoya $400,000.00
Total $9,411,161.88