Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

United States v. Dargey

United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle

July 10, 2018

United States of America,
v.
Lobsang Dargey, Defendant.

          Robert S. Mahler, WSBA #23913 FOSTER PEPPER PLLC Attorneys for Defendant

          [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT LOBSANG DARGEY'S UNOPPOSED MOTION TO AMEND THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF RESTITUTION

          ROBERT S. LASNIK, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         THIS CAUSE came before the Court on Defendant, Lobsang Dargey's, Unopposed Motion to Amend the Judgment and Order of Restitution. The Court having considered the Motion, finds as follows:

         1. Pursuant to a plea agreement, on January 4, 2017 Defendant pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud and one count of engaging in a scheme to conceal information from the United States, in violation of Title 18 U.S.C. §§ 371 and 1001(a)(1), respectively.

         2. The plea agreement provided, among other things:

Restitution. Defendant shall make restitution to the victims of his offense in the amount of $24, 242, 220. This amount, which reflects the loss to the victims of Defendant's conduct, includes $111, 552-220 -in unauthorized commission payments and syndication costs and $12, 690, 000 in administrative fees paid by the immigrant investors. Thirty-five (35) of the Tower investors were previously refunded the full amount of their capital contribution, and therefore, are entitled to $45, 000 each. representing their administrative fees. The remaining 247 investors shall each be entitled to receive total restitution of $91, 770, which consists of (a) $46, 770 for commissions and syndication costs, and (b) $45, 000 for administrative fees. This amount shall be due and payable immediately and shall be paid in accordance with a schedule of payments as proposed by the United States Probation Office and ordered by the Court.
In the event that any investor is repaid an amount greater than $453, 230 of the principal amount of Ms or her capital contribution through returns on the investment or money distributed by the Receiver, the $46, 770 portion of the restitution obligation to that investor will be reduced by the amount he or she received in excess of $453, 230, such that an investor who is repaid his or her full $500, 000 capital contribution shall not be entitled to any restitution for commissions and syndication costs. In addition, to the extent any portion of the $45, 00.0 administrative fee is returned to any investor, the $45, 000 portion of the restitution obligation for that investor will be reduced accordingly.

Plea Agreement at 11-12 (emphasis added).

         3. The Court's Order of Restitution incorporated this provision of the Plea Agreement and specifically provided that "[t]o the extent any portion of the $45, 000 administrative fee Is returned to any investor, the $45, 000 portion of the restitution obligation for that investor, and the overall Administrative Fee obligation, is reduced accordingly." Order of Restitution at 2 (Dkt. 25). Ten investors were known at the time to have received refunds of their administrative fees and were, therefore., not entitled to receive additional restitution for those fees. Id. The resulting total of restitution owed for repayment of administrative fees came to $12, 195, 000. Id.

         4. In addition, Defendant was ordered to repay $46, 770 to each of 247 investors in relation to the use of portions of their capital contributions for payments of commissions and syndication costs. This resulted in an additional amount of restitution owing of $11, 552, 190. Id. at 6. These repayments too, however, are subject to offsets in the event any investor receives a return of their capital in excess of the amount he or she is owed in restitution. Id. at 2. Because "[i]t is anticipated that it will take a significant period of time for investors to receive investment returns," id. at 2, the Court ordered that "any payments the Defendant makes pursuant to this Order [of Restitution] shall be used first to make payments to investors to satisfy the Administrative Fee Obligation” Id. at 3.

         5. The total amount of restitution due came to $23, 747, 190. Id. at 1.

         6. The Court entered judgment accordingly and ordered Defendant to pay restitution in the total amount of $23, 747, 190. Judgment at 5, 6 (Dkt 26), 7. Subsequent to the entry of Judgment and the Court's Order of Restitution, counsel confirmed that six additional investors received full refunds of their $45, 000 administrative fees. The refunds to these investors results in an additional restitution offset of $270, 000.[1] This offset reduces the amount of restitution owed for repayment of administrative fees from $12 195, 000 to $11, 925, 000[2] and the total amount of restitution from $23, 747, 190 to $23, 477, 190.[3]

         8. In addition, subsequent to the entry of Judgment and the Court's Order of Restitution, counsel discovered an error in the amounts owed to two investors, LM and YY. The amounts owed these investors were ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.