2loles gregory govt supp sentencing memo
TRANSCRIPT
-
8/12/2019 2LOLES Gregory Govt Supp Sentencing Memo
1/402
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTDISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
GREGORY P. LOLES
CRIMINAL NO. 3:10 CR 237 (AWT)
December 31, 2013
FILED UNDER SEAL
GOVERNMENT S SUPPLEMENTAL SENTENCING MEMORANDUMSEEKING OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE AND DENIAL OF ACCEPTANCE
This memorandum is submitted in further aid of the sentencing of Defendant Gregory P.
Loles, who as is now apparent stole more that $27 million from friends, clients, the endowment
fund and building fund of a church in Orange, Connecticut, St. Barbara =s Greek Orthodox Church
(Athe Church @ or ASt. Barbara =s@), and as recently corroborated, from a Greek family overseas.
In particular, this memorandum is submitted in support of the Government =s adjusted
Case 3:10-cr-00237-AWT Document 163 Filed 02/20/14 Page 1 of 30
-
8/12/2019 2LOLES Gregory Govt Supp Sentencing Memo
2/402
Defendant =s Guidelines = range should also include a two-point enhancement for obstruction of
justice and he should be denied acceptance of responsibility.
I. Guideline Calculation
A. Burden of Proof
The parties agree that the Defendants base offense level pursuant to the United States
Sentencing Guidelines is a base of 7 as the offense charged has a statutory maximum of 20 years or
more. See U.S.S.G. ' 2B1.1(a)(1). The remaining factors, about which the parties do not agree,
need only be established by a preponderance of the evidence.
As the court explained in United States v. Salim , 287 F.Supp.2d 250, 305-06 (S.D.N.Y.
2003) [a]lthough the Sentencing Guidelines do not specify a burden of proof to govern the
resolution of disputed sentencing factors, the Second Circuit has held that the preponderance of the
evidence standard satisfies the requirements of due process in determining conduct relevant to
sentencing issues under the Guidelineseven for the determination of unconvicted conduct.
(citing United States v. Gigante , 94 F.3d 53, 55 (2d Cir. 1996) ( [U]nconvicted conduct may be
relied upon to adjust a defendant's sentence level as contemplated by the Guidelines based on
Case 3:10-cr-00237-AWT Document 163 Filed 02/20/14 Page 2 of 30
-
8/12/2019 2LOLES Gregory Govt Supp Sentencing Memo
3/402
Carmona , 873 F.2d 569, 574 (2d Cir. 1989)); see also United States v. Franklyn , 157 F.3d 90, 97
(2d Cir. 1998) (Disputed facts relevant to sentencing must be established by a preponderance of
the evidence, and the sentencing court may rely upon any information known to it).
A. The Amount of Loss is Over $20 million
The amount of loss suffered as a result of the fraud now is calculated above $20,000,000.
Therefore, the offense level is increased by 22 pursuant to U.S.S.G ' 2B1.1(b)(1)(L).
As established in the Government =s Sentencing Memorandum and as established by
witness testimony at the Defendant =s sentencing hearing, the Defendant stole over $12 million
from St. Barbaras Church, his friends and investor-clients in the United States, and individuals he
met through his Farnbacher-Loles car businesses and subsequently defrauded.
However, as established in more detail below, after the Defendant testified under oath that
$14 million from Milbury Holdings was his money purportedly from a combination of profitable
trades in the Greek stock exchange and twelve years of compounding from an initial investment
of a million Euro or a little bit more than a million Euro, originally made in the late 1980s, the
Government investigated and has established that the money was not the Defendants money.
Case 3:10-cr-00237-AWT Document 163 Filed 02/20/14 Page 3 of 30
-
8/12/2019 2LOLES Gregory Govt Supp Sentencing Memo
4/402
calculation. See Attachment A (Government Exhibit 1C). Loles theft and fraudulent taking
of the additional $14 million was part of the same fraud scheme and, as explained in detail by
counsel for the victim family, Loles used the same motis operandi and same manner and means in
defrauding the Family as he did with all the other victims. He pretended to befriend
them, gained their confidence even attending a family funeral in Greece, told them he had
millions of dollars under management, told them he had investments for them that would pay a
certain steady percentage, provided them corresponding account statements, impressed them with
his luxury car businesses, and eventually stole their money. ( See Attachments F, G, H, I, J, and
K).
Accordingly, the loss amount for the Guidelines calculation should be found to be well
above $20,000, 000. Thus, resulting in an increase of 22-levels for the amount of loss.
B. Determination of the Number of Victims
As set forth in the Government =s Sentencing Memorandum (Gov. Mem. (Dkt. No. 80) at
29-33) and the Reply Sentencing Memorandum (Dkt. No. 89) as well as the additional arguments
made before the Court, in determining the specific offense characteristic for the number of victims,
Case 3:10-cr-00237-AWT Document 163 Filed 02/20/14 Page 4 of 30
-
8/12/2019 2LOLES Gregory Govt Supp Sentencing Memo
5/402
the Churchs Building Fund prior to December 2009. These are 327 specific identified
individuals and families and 86 specific school children who gave their money to the St. Barbara
Building funds before the discovery of the fraud in December 2009 (a few were anonymous).
These specific identified donors, many of whom were families and couples, resulting in over 700
in total, should be included in the Courts calculation of the number of victims. This is not an
unidentified amorphous group of donors but, to the contrary, comprise a specific identified list of
donors who were victimized.
The inclusion of these individuals as victims for Guidelines purposes is clearly supported
by controlling case law. In United States v. Gonzalez , 641 F.3d 41 (2d Cir 2011) the Second
Circuit reached this conclusion regarding donors to a charity, a holding that is clearly on point here
and should be followed as controlling precedent. In Gonzalez , the Second Circuit found that the
individuals who made charitable contributions were properly considered victims pursuant to
U.S.S.G. 2B1.1(b)(2) and held as follows: [a] donor whose charitable contribution was included
in the district courts finding of actual loss under 2B1.1(b)(1) is thus, by definition, a victim
within the meaning of 2B1.1(b)(2). There is no suggestion in this definition or any other part of
Case 3:10-cr-00237-AWT Document 163 Filed 02/20/14 Page 5 of 30
-
8/12/2019 2LOLES Gregory Govt Supp Sentencing Memo
6/402
The Eleventh Circuit reached the same conclusion in United States v. Longo , 184 Fed.
Appx. 910, 2006 WL 1674267 (11th Cir. 2006) (unpublished per curiam). In Longo, the Eleventh
Circuit held that the district court did not err in counting as victims all 110 individual members of
an employee benefit plan from which the defendant embezzled. See Longo , 184 Fed. Appx. 910,
970 n.1 (noting that the record showed that Longos fraud and theft diminished the total plan
assets). As the Government has argued previously in this case, the Eleventh Circuit's analysis in
Longo applies here. In Longo, each participant in the employee benefit plan put money into the
plan and sought to draw on it in the future. When the plans funds were diminished by the fraud
each employee who had contributed was determined to be a victim. Here, as the money was
going to the St. Barbara Endowment fund and Building fund, each parishioner, including the 86
school children, relied on the fact that they believed the money would be there in the future to
support the Church and its programs. Similarly in United States v. Ellisor , 522 F.3d 1255, 1275
(11th Cir. 2008) the Court found that where money belonging to multiple individuals has been
aggregated by a school for the production of a Christmas pageant (not too different from pooling
funds for the construction of a building) and each individual maintained his or her interest in
Case 3:10-cr-00237-AWT Document 163 Filed 02/20/14 Page 6 of 30
-
8/12/2019 2LOLES Gregory Govt Supp Sentencing Memo
7/402
Finally, as previously argued, if the Court determines that a mere four-level increase is
appropriate based on the discrete victims, the Government will argue for an upward departure so
that the losses suffered by the parishioners B as members of the church who donated to the building
fund and the school children who collected coins and donated portions of their allowances B are
considered by the Court.
C. Obstruction of Justice
a. Legal Standards
The U.S. Sentencing Guidelines direct that:
If (A) the defendant willfully obstructed or impeded, or attempted toobstruct or impede, the administration of justice during the course ofthe investigation, prosecution, or sentencing of the instant offense ofconviction, and (B) the obstructive conduct related to (i) thedefendant's offense of conviction and any relevant conduct; or (ii) aclosely related offense, increase the offense level by 2 levels.
U.S.S.G. 3C1.1 (emphasis added). The Guidelines provide that the conduct to which this
adjustment applies is not subject to precise definition, U.S.S.G. 3C1.1, Application Note 3, and provide a non-exhaustive list of conduct to which the adjustment is intended to apply, U.S.S.G.
Case 3:10-cr-00237-AWT Document 163 Filed 02/20/14 Page 7 of 30
-
8/12/2019 2LOLES Gregory Govt Supp Sentencing Memo
8/402
4(H). For the false statements to be material, they must be information that, if believed, would
tend to influence or affect the issue under determination. U.S.S.G. 3C1.1, Application Note 6;
see also United States v. McKay , 183 F.3d 89, 93 (2d Cir.1999) (defendant's statement in
pre-sentence interview that he was a peripheral participantwhen in fact he was the leader of a
narcotics ring, which resulted in an erroneous Probation reportwas material because it could
have impeded imposition of an appropriate sentence); United States v. Johns , 27 F.3d 31, 34 (2d
Cir.1994) (Under the law of this Circuit ... we look to the defendant's representations in deciding
the issue of materiality. If those representations could affect the sentence (if believed), then it is
irrelevant that the government has possession of other information that rebuts the defendant's
representations.); United States v. Rodriguez , 943 F.2d 215, 218 (2d Cir.1991) (The definition of
a material statement embraces all false statements that would tend to affect a defendant's
sentence, whether or not discovery of the falsity of the statement is inevitable.).
As the Salim court discussed, in Second Circuit cases upholding application of U.S.S.G.
3C1.1 wherein a defendant made false statements, it is apparent that the defendant's false
statements would have improved the defendant's position with respect to the proceedingeither
Case 3:10-cr-00237-AWT Document 163 Filed 02/20/14 Page 8 of 30
-
8/12/2019 2LOLES Gregory Govt Supp Sentencing Memo
9/402
finding him guilty concerning the charges in the indictment); United States v. Ventura , 146 F.3d
91, 98 (2d Cir.1998) (Defendant's false statements about his age, accompanied by fraudulent or
forged documents, were made in order to secure a more favorable sentence, caused
considerable delay in sentencing, and required investigation by a number of officials of the
United States and Honduran governments.); United States v. Rodriguez , 943 F.2d 215, 218 (2d
Cir. 1991) (Defendant stated falsely to probation officer that he had no prior record, when in fact
he had been arrested and convicted six times previously)).
b. Defendant Provided False Testimony Regarding $14 million in Losses
It is clear based on the entirety of the evidence, including his own statements, documents
previously collected by the Government, and the information discovered through the
Governments additional investigation, that Loles provided material false testimony to the Court
during his re-direct and re-cross examination on November 25, 2013, ( see Attachment E ) and also
provided materially false information to the Federal Bureau of Investigation during the course of
numerous interviews. ( See Attachments L-P). These false statements if believed would have
influenced the Courts determination of the estimated loss amount, and ultimately the seriousness
Case 3:10-cr-00237-AWT Document 163 Filed 02/20/14 Page 9 of 30
-
8/12/2019 2LOLES Gregory Govt Supp Sentencing Memo
10/402
Q. Who did it belong to?A. The money that came is money that I earned with John over the years
primarily in trading over the Greek stock.
Q. Essentially, it was you're money?A. Well, yeah. That's why it came in the fashion it came. It was just sortof on demand.
THE COURT: Can you explain that a little more?
BY MR. DONOVAN:Q. Why don't you explain that a little bit more. Tell us how that money wasearned?
THE COURT: How it's his money if it's Milbury Holdings money?
BY MR. DONOVAN:
Q. Why was Milbury Holdings money really yours?A. Milbury Holdings was the investor for most of the investing that he and Idid in the Greek -- Greece was an emerging market in the early '90s and soforth. So there was huge interest and appreciation in the market.
Q. Remind us who "he" was?A. He was Mr. who passed away, who was a friend and lawyer thatrepresented -- because we lived in Greece, as you know, for a number of yearsand that's where I met him. So when the Greek markets started doing well andthere was a lot of investing, I was sort of already in the investment business andhere we had a emerging market at our feet. A lot of new capitalization and so
Case 3:10-cr-00237-AWT Document 163 Filed 02/20/14 Page 10 of 30
-
8/12/2019 2LOLES Gregory Govt Supp Sentencing Memo
11/402
Q. You don't have to go through all the details.
THE COURT: I guess I'm getting the impression from what your client is sayingis that he's saying he put money into Milbury Holdings, Mr. putmoney in, and that money was invested and he subsequently got a return of hisinvestment with earnings. I guess what I'm interested in is when did he putmoney in and how much? Does that come out? Is that somewhere in therecord?
BY MR. DONOVAN:
Q. Could you tell us that?A. Let's see. My contributions would have been now we're talking in thelate '80s . I can go to the bank records and probably try to -- well, not bankrecords here.Q. Just roughly?A. I would say a total of a million euro , a little more than a million euro.
Q. And that was an investment made in the late '80s ?A. Yeah. That's way, way early. My dad had some property. We had soldsome things. And everybody in Greece was investing in the market. And wehad done -- and that was sort my contribution. And then he kept his ledgerabout sort of what was mine, what was his. I was, if you will, the more marketknowledgeable person. But again, it was a roaring bull market. So it wasmore just being in the right place at the right time.
Q. And what period of time did the trading take place, the initial public offeringsand the investment in companies?
Case 3:10-cr-00237-AWT Document 163 Filed 02/20/14 Page 11 of 30
-
8/12/2019 2LOLES Gregory Govt Supp Sentencing Memo
12/402
(Attachment E Re-direct Testimony of Loles at 6-10.)
Then, on cross examination, and in response to questions from the Court, itself, Defendant
Loles gave the further following materially false testimony also on November 25, 2013.
(Attachment E at 26-33).
Q. Do you remember telling the FBI that the intent was that Loles was growingthe Farnbacher Loles business and he would reconcile with George later? Doyou remember telling the FBI that, that you would pay George his money backlater?A. Well, I think reconcile with George -- it wasn't George's money. It wassitting in Milbury Holdings.
Q. It was the family's money, correct?A. No, it was not. Not what came here. If there was more money inMilbury Holdings, that could be theirs, but that's not accurate whatyou're saying.
Q. I'm just quoting you back to you. So if it's not accurate, which time wereyou not accurate? When you talked to the FBI for four hours in 2010, or whenyou talked to this judge for two hours today? Which time was it not accurate?A. Mr. McGarry, George was afraid that the $14 million would be seized.Medtronic --
Q. Let me put it this way: George would have no reason to worry about the $14million if it was your money, would he? But he was worried about it beingseized because it was not your money, correct?
Case 3:10-cr-00237-AWT Document 163 Filed 02/20/14 Page 12 of 30
-
8/12/2019 2LOLES Gregory Govt Supp Sentencing Memo
13/402
* * *
THE COURT: I guess I'd like to understand something.THE WITNESS: Yes.
THE COURT: We're talking about $14 million. You say you put in, I think, amillion euros originally back in 19 THE WITNESS: In the '80s .
THE COURT: So just explain to me --THE WITNESS: The growth --
THE COURT: -- what happened to that money and how much was in atthe time we're talking about when we're talking about the $14 million?How much was in Milbury Holdings and who did it come from?THE WITNESS: I only knew what I had an interest in. So I don't knowthe total balance of Milbury Holdings .
THE COURT: Okay.THE WITNESS: Because again --
THE COURT: So just give me a rough approximation over the years, so far asyou can, from the 1980s to the point in time we're talking about, about howmuch money you had in Milbury Holdings?THE WITNESS: Well, eventually it grew to that full amount.
THE COURT: What full amount?THE WITNESS: The 14.
Case 3:10-cr-00237-AWT Document 163 Filed 02/20/14 Page 13 of 30
-
8/12/2019 2LOLES Gregory Govt Supp Sentencing Memo
14/402
obviously, with the big capitalizations, just like when the market was growinghere, these things were coming public at 120 percent. Big increases as new
companies were being capitalized. And we, like everyone
THE COURT: I guess what I'm trying to get a sense for is at what rate did thevalue of your investment in Milbury Holdings grow?THE WITNESS: I guess it was compounding we can sit and calculate. Ithink it was about 12 years of active trading. So it was compounding at 25
percent.
THE COURT: 25 percent a year on average?THE WITNESS: Maybe a bit more. Obviously, by leaving the money in andtaking bigger and bigger allocations, I mean, some of these --
THE COURT: I'm only interested in numbers.THE WITNESS: Yes.
THE COURT: I think you're supposed to be financially astute. 25 percent ayear or more compounding?THE WITNESS: Right.
THE COURT: That answers my question. And then at the end of thistime period your total -- the total value of your investment was $14million?THE WITNESS: Thereabouts.
THE COURT: That was everything?THE WITNESS: That was everything. And obviously, when it was all
brought
Case 3:10-cr-00237-AWT Document 163 Filed 02/20/14 Page 14 of 30
-
8/12/2019 2LOLES Gregory Govt Supp Sentencing Memo
15/402
c. Defendants Testimony Regarding $14 Million is Demonstrably False
The testimony Loles provided the Court is demonstrably false for a number of reasons,
most importantly it is directly contradicted by information and documentary evidence provided by
an attorney for the victim-family.
After Loles provided the new and wholly incredible testimony to the Court, the
government reinitiated the investigation into the source of the $14 million, about which the
Government had been aware but had not previously focused on. As background, on May 21,
2010, Loles had been specifically asked about Milbury Holdings and the approximately $14
million wire transfers into his accounts. (Attachment M). Loles gave a detailed answer to
questions about Milbury Holdings and never mentioned or alluded to the funds being his money
or his share of the trading profits. He never mentioned his being entitled to trading profits, or a
million Euros invested in the late 1980s, or any portion of the Milbury money being his money.
Loles told the government that Milbury Holdings was personal company comprised
of his personal money. (Attachment M at 2). Loles provided a lengthy and complex
explanation that included statements regarding: how was only getting 1%
Case 3:10-cr-00237-AWT Document 163 Filed 02/20/14 Page 15 of 30
-
8/12/2019 2LOLES Gregory Govt Supp Sentencing Memo
16/402
FBI that the approximate $14 million received from Milbury Holdings went into Farnbacher Loles
and for other general purposes. Milbury Holdings was not going to give Loles money to build his
business or to make investments like the church or other individuals. Milbury Holdings was
giving the money to Loles to park it . (Attachment N at 7). As discussed more below, the
family did in fact believe that they had invested with Apeiron and produced account
statements, and an account questionnaire, as well as photographs taken at Loles home, in New
York City and at his garage, to support their belief that he was their investment advisor and they
had invested with Apeiron and Somerset Partners. (Attachments I, J, at K).
Also during the May 21, 2010 interview, Loles told the FBI that George [and the
family] was not a who invested his money with Loles.
(Attachment M at 4). This was not true. ( See Attachments F, G, I, J and K). Loles stated that
there was no formal agreement from George to invest in Farnbacher Loles but to simply take the
money off his hands, but it was the family's money. Loles also stated that George
was afraid the $14 million would be seized by the authorities in the United Kingdom.
(Attachment M at 4). When confronted on re-cross examination with the direct contradiction
Case 3:10-cr-00237-AWT Document 163 Filed 02/20/14 Page 16 of 30
-
8/12/2019 2LOLES Gregory Govt Supp Sentencing Memo
17/402
London, referencing Mr. Cook and their client (the family) and the significant sums
that had been sent to Loles for investment purposes . (Attachment R).
After Loles provided the Court sworn testimony that directly and materially contradicted
his earlier statements regarding the ownership of the $14 million and the documents provided by
his own counsel, the prosecution team, in coordination with the Department of Justices Office of
International Affairs and the Federal Bureau of Investigations London LEGAT, reached out to the
London Solicitors and spoke to Mr. Cook. After a brief conversation with Mr. Cook and a
subsequent phone call, the Government was contacted by Attorney Frederick Kessler on behalf of
the family.
Attorney Kessler provided a detailed history of the family relationship with
Loles and also provided documents that established that the family, like the scores of
other individuals and families that dealt with Defendant Loles, were victims of his fraud.
Attorney Kessler provided an Apeiron account statement that is precisely the same type of
fraudulent account statement provided to the other victims. (Attachment I). Attorney Kessler
also provided, from the family, what appeared to be at least to the family
Case 3:10-cr-00237-AWT Document 163 Filed 02/20/14 Page 17 of 30
-
8/12/2019 2LOLES Gregory Govt Supp Sentencing Memo
18/402
Attorney Kessler told the FBI that Loles abused the trust placed in him by the
family. Kessler stated the family was the biggest victim of his Loles scheme.
(Attachment F at 1). Attorney Kessler explained to the FBI that Milbury Holdings was an entity
of the family. The money sent from Milbury holdings was not Loles money. The
money belonged to the family. Milbury Holdings is the familys
investment vehicle and it included three victims. Kessler primarily dealt with George .
( Id . at 1).
Attorney Kessler explained how Loles had nurtured the trust of the family just as he had
done with so many parishioners at St. Barbaras. Attorney Kessler explained that George had
been hosted by Loles at his home when his kids went to the Hopkins School, back in 2002. ( Id . at
1) and Attachment S). This apparently was the nurturing of the relationship of trust that Loles
later used to steal the millions of dollars. After the death of Georges father, the family sent
millions of dollars to Loles. Approximately three months or so after Georges father passed
away, Loles contacted George and told him that he had a $300 million fund which was how he was
able to get 7 to 7.5% returns on investments. (Attachment F at 1).
Case 3:10-cr-00237-AWT Document 163 Filed 02/20/14 Page 18 of 30
-
8/12/2019 2LOLES Gregory Govt Supp Sentencing Memo
19/402
George and the Loles family was sporadic. In June of 2007, Georges father passed away. The
next day Loles flew to Greece to attend the funeral. This gesture was much appreciated by the
family at that time. Loles stayed for several days and said he would return to Greece
at some point. (Attachment G at 2).
Later in the summer of 2007, Loles did return to Greece and told George, Georges mother,
and Georges sister that he, Loles, had a $300 million fund that got modest returns of about 7 to
7.5%. Loles explained his fee for managing this money was 1.5% of the assets under
management, but since the family was like family to him, Loles would not charge a fee.
Later in 2007, more wire transfers came from the family account in London to Loles.
In the later part of 2007, when the wires continued George explained that Loles played the role of
second father to George. Loles and George spoke on the phone and discussed Georges education
and his girlfriends and Loles bragged about his Porsche dealership and investments. ( Id .). This
discussion of the courting of the family is remarkably (and predictably) similar to the
experiences provided to the Court by the and other parishioners who were told by
Loles that they were like family or like a father to him. This is even more despicable when
Case 3:10-cr-00237-AWT Document 163 Filed 02/20/14 Page 19 of 30
-
8/12/2019 2LOLES Gregory Govt Supp Sentencing Memo
20/402
since Georges original 2002 visit. ( Id . at 2; Attachment K). George observed fancy cars
including a Porsche, Mercedes, BMW and a Range Rover. Many of the rooms inside the Loles
house had plasma televisions which was rare at this time. ( Id . at 3). On New Years Eve George
observed Loles book their dinner reservations using an American Express Black card which was
an exclusive credit card. They enjoyed fancy dinners at this time. During this visit the
family also visited Loles race car business. (A photograph is attached at Attachment
K depicting the visit to the car racing facility). Clearly Loles was using the racing car business to
establish his bona fides as a wealthy successful money manager. As has been stated by other
victim-witnesses, George observed a Bloomberg terminal in Loles office in the car racing facility
which gave Georges family the impression that he was an Investment Advisor. (Attachment G at
3). At this time the family did not live a wealthy lifestyle like the Loles family. It
was during this Christmas visit that Loles gave the family the investment statements
from Apeiron Capital Management. (Attachment G at 3; Attachment I).
In the spring of 2009, Loles asked George to send money to Knightsbridge which served as
Loles investment vehicle. (Attachment G at 4). At that time wire transfers were sent to
Case 3:10-cr-00237-AWT Document 163 Filed 02/20/14 Page 20 of 30
-
8/12/2019 2LOLES Gregory Govt Supp Sentencing Memo
21/402
G at 4). Accordingly, statements to the Court that Loles took his share of the Milbury money
and there is other money there, while wholly incredible on its face, is further belied by his greed in
which he took all of the money in the Milbury Holdings London account.
In January of 2010 after Loles was arrested, George reached out to the Bermudan law firm
to inquire about his investment. It was then that he learned the Bermuda entity (Attachment J)
had never heard of Loles and the forms Loles had filled out on their behalf could have been
obtained by simply going to their website. (Attachment G at 4). Loles was supposed to have
established Somerset as an investment funds or account for the family which George
now knows never existed. (Attachment G at 4).
In a follow-up discussion, Attorney Kessler explained to the FBI that the family
had no knowledge of any partnership agreement between Ioannis (the father) and Loles for
investment purposes. (Attachment H). The family had no knowledge of any
involvement with investments in Smith and Nephew or Medtronic. Loles never told the
family that he, Loles, and their father Ioannis had a partnership of any kind. ( Id. ).
Their father also never mentioned that he had a partnership with Loles when he was alive. ( Id. ).
Case 3:10-cr-00237-AWT Document 163 Filed 02/20/14 Page 21 of 30
-
8/12/2019 2LOLES Gregory Govt Supp Sentencing Memo
22/402
Government counsel during re-cross examination. However, as the Court is presumably aware,
the Euro as a currency was not in existence in the late 1980s nor was the European Union. The
Euro itself was introduced January 1, 2002. ( See Attachment T). Thus, typical of a con-mans
effort to deflect and distract, Loles was clearly just using the Euro to sound international and
making up figures and numbers out of thin air.
Second, Loles also told the Court that he turned one million Euro into $14 million by
investing in the bull market, and being in the right place at the right time. However, upon inquiry,
Loles could not give a single concrete example of a company he invested in or an investment he
made, an IPO he participated in, or a trade that he engaged in on behalf of Milbury Holdings. As
the Court observed, he is supposed to be financially astute, having held a brokers license and
having passed the Series 7, Series 63, and Series 65 exams. (Attachment U at 6). In fact, Loles
scored a 96 on the series 7 exam and an 88 on the series 63 exam. ( Id .) Yet, while under oath he
could not explain to the Court what he invested in, what IPOs he had purchased, or how the money
grew.
Typical of a con-man, Loles was long on generalities, spoke about the market, even
Case 3:10-cr-00237-AWT Document 163 Filed 02/20/14 Page 22 of 30
-
8/12/2019 2LOLES Gregory Govt Supp Sentencing Memo
23/402
confirmed the trades, which firm he used as a settlement agent, why the money was in a London
account, or why a 19 year-old in Greece and his mother had control of the funds as compared to
Loles himself. As he said in his own words, Because it was in their family entity. I didnt
have direct link. He knew his father and I had dealings, but I didn't have -- I couldn't go
and physically take the money out. (Attachment E at 27). It simply makes no sense, that a
sophisticated licensed investment professional would have $14 million and have no direct link and
couldnt go and take the money out. That is not a credible story because it is false. What rings
true is that he had no direct link and could not go and directly take the money out because it was
not his money and thus he had to fool the family into giving him the money as he did with
everyone else.
Third, Loles did not and simply could not explain on re-cross examination why he had
entirely failed to mention in the hours and hours of interviews that the $14 million was his own
money, including when he was asked by the FBI specifically about Milbury Holdings.
Additionally, on direct examination that had occurred a few weeks prior (Attachment D), Loles did
not mention that he had made $14 million in trading, yet he painstakingly took the Court and the
Case 3:10-cr-00237-AWT Document 163 Filed 02/20/14 Page 23 of 30
-
8/12/2019 2LOLES Gregory Govt Supp Sentencing Memo
24/402
and never mentioned that he had done significant trading in the Greek market. As pointed out in
Court and addressed above, Loles spoke to the FBI for hours including specific questions about
Milbury Holdings and never mentioned that it was his money. (Attachments M, N, O, P).
The interview Loles gave to Probation, as set forth in the PSR, does not mention anywhere
his purported prolific trading and the millions of dollars of profit he made with Milbury Holdings
in the Greek markets. Paragraphs 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, and 118 describe his work history and
he plainly did not tell the U.S. Probation Officer about Milbury Holdings or his business dealings
overseas. In fact, paragraph 115 describes him taking a job as a stockbroker trainee at Investors
Associates, Inc. in New York City, in 1992. The Court may wonder why Loles would need to be
a mere trainee in New York City if he were in the midst of a 12 year run, begun in the late
1980s, of generating returns through compounding of 25% per year every year. As reflected in
paragraph 117 of the PSR, Loles told Probation he earned approximately $350,000 per year as an
investment advisor from 1995-2002. This clearly does not include any of the $14 million made
from Milbury Holdings, presumably because he made no such money. His work history reflects
that of a failed broker who turned to a Ponzi scheme to support his lifestyle, not that of a
Case 3:10-cr-00237-AWT Document 163 Filed 02/20/14 Page 24 of 30
-
8/12/2019 2LOLES Gregory Govt Supp Sentencing Memo
25/402
Similarly, with regards to New Haven Savings Bank, Loles described for the Court at great
detail how he was able to secure money from a man named Gus Boosalis but at incredibly high
rates for the parishioners to participate in the mutual bank conversion. Had Loles actually been
entitled to the $14 million in the spring of 2004, before the death of Mr. would not this
money have been used to help the church and parishioners rather than pay the extortionist rates
Boosalis was charging the St Barbaras parishioners? Obviously Loles had no rights to the
Milbury Holdings money until he took it from the family by fraud after the fathers
passing.
Additionally, in connection with the New Haven Savings Bank transactions, Loles
provided sworn testimony to the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) on
March 23, 2006. This sworn SEC testimony has been previously provided to the Court. In that
testimony, sworn and under oath, Loles was asked what he had been doing in terms of employment
for the last 10 years, which would cover back to at least March 1996. Loles gave various answers,
memorialized on pages 7 through 10, and at no point did Loles mention trading in the Greek
markets and making millions of dollars through Milbury Holdings. Such information, if true
Case 3:10-cr-00237-AWT Document 163 Filed 02/20/14 Page 25 of 30
-
8/12/2019 2LOLES Gregory Govt Supp Sentencing Memo
26/402
he told Probation and what he originally told the FBI, but is not consistent with his sworn
testimony to the Court that he was trading in the Greek markets from the late 1980s again
trading a million Euros which did not yet exist and earning approximately 25 %.
In summary, prior to taking the stand and seeking to mislead the Court, Loles had spoken
with the FBI on numerous occasions and never mentioned trading in the Greek markets and
making $14 million in the Greek stock market. He gave a Pre-Sentence Interview to U.S.
Probation and never mentioned making $14 million in the Greek stock market. He gave sworn
testimony to the SEC, who asked about his investment and investment advisor history and work
history, and he never mentioned trading in and making $14 million in the Greek stock market. He
applied for and received a Series 7, a Series 63, and a Series 65 license and never mentioned to
FINRA that he had engaged in trading in the Greek stock market, and in fact, to the contrary
indicated that his work was not investment related . In fact, he even testified on direct
examination on November 7, 2013 and even addressed Milbury Holdings specifically (Attachment
D at 68-70) and mentioned that he wanted whistle blower protection related to Milbury Holdings
and Smith and Nephew, but never mentioned that it was a trading vehicle that he had an ownership
Case 3:10-cr-00237-AWT Document 163 Filed 02/20/14 Page 26 of 30
-
8/12/2019 2LOLES Gregory Govt Supp Sentencing Memo
27/402
D. Loles Alternative Version of the FactsIt is commonly said that one is entitled to ones own opinion but not entitled to ones own
version of the facts. Loles seems to want multiple versions of the facts depending on his
predicament. In that regard, the Government contends that the facts are as presented by the
Government both in Court and set forth above and in the cited attachments. That is, that Loles
made materially false statements to the Court.
However, it bears mention that if Loles version of the facts were to be true which they
are not and if he did in fact have $14 million in Milbury Holdings upon which he could draw but
which he did not call upon until approximately 2007, then he stands before the Court as an
individual who was a millionaire 14 times over but still chose to run a Ponzi scheme and defraud
his friends and fellow Parishioners. He stands before the Court a multi-millionaire 14 times over
who still chose to steal the money from the St. Barbara Church Endowment fund and Building
fund, including stealing scholarship money and money donated by hundreds of families
(Attachment B) and collected by school children. (Attchment C). He would stand before the
Case 3:10-cr-00237-AWT Document 163 Filed 02/20/14 Page 27 of 30
-
8/12/2019 2LOLES Gregory Govt Supp Sentencing Memo
28/402
himself, the Endowment Fund, the Building Fund, all while having a $14 million nest
egg in London at Milbury Holdings. Frankly, this newest version is simply not believable.
What is believable and what is the true version of the facts is that even after four years of
incarceration Loles has still not yet learned any lessons, that he still seeks to deceive, mislead and
outright lie if he perceives it will benefit him in some way. Now Loles has succeeded in adding
the Court itself to the list of those to whom he has lied and should be found to have obstructed
justice.
Thus, no matter which version of the facts the Defendant choses to advance, and as a
con-man he has advanced many versions, he must still be sentenced to a remarkably long term of
imprisonment.
Accordingly, the Government now calculates the Guidelines range as follows:
Base Offense Level 7Loss Greater than $20,000,000 +22More than 250 Victims + 6Charitable Misrepresentation + 2Sophisticated Means + 2Violation of Securities Law while acting as Investment Advisor + 4Money Laundering in Violation of 1956 + 2
Case 3:10-cr-00237-AWT Document 163 Filed 02/20/14 Page 28 of 30
-
8/12/2019 2LOLES Gregory Govt Supp Sentencing Memo
29/402
II. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, those set forth in the prior Government =s Sentencing
Memoranda, and those advanced in open Court, the Government respectfully submits that, under
the circumstances of this case the Defendants Offense level is a level 49. Moreover, under either
calculation, the Court should not hesitate to give Defendant Loles a remarkably long period of
incarceration and an order of restitution of over $26 million to the victims of his crimes.
Respectfully submitted,
DEIRDRE M. DALYUNITED STATES ATTORNEY
/S/MICHAEL S. MCGARRYASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEYFederal Bar No. CT25713157 Church Street, 23rd Floor
New Haven, CT 06510Tel.: (203) 821-3751Fax: (203) [email protected]
Case 3:10-cr-00237-AWT Document 163 Filed 02/20/14 Page 29 of 30
-
8/12/2019 2LOLES Gregory Govt Supp Sentencing Memo
30/402
CERTIFICATION
I hereby certify that on December 31, 2013 a copy of foregoing Government =s Sentencing
Memorandum was filed electronically and served by hand on anyone unable to accept electronic
filing. Notice of this filing will be sent by e-mail to all parties by operation of the Court =s
electronic filing system or by mail to anyone unable to accept electronic filing as indicated on the
Notice of Electronic Filing. Parties may access this filing through the Court =s CM/ECF System.
/S/
MICHAEL S. McGARRYASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY
Case 3:10-cr-00237-AWT Document 163 Filed 02/20/14 Page 30 of 30
-
8/12/2019 2LOLES Gregory Govt Supp Sentencing Memo
31/402
ATTACHMENT A
Case 3:10-cr-00237-AWT Document 163-1 Filed 02/20/14 Page 1 of 3
Case 3:10-cr-00237-AWT Document 163-1 Filed 02/20/14 Page 2 of 3
-
8/12/2019 2LOLES Gregory Govt Supp Sentencing Memo
32/402
Case 3:10-cr-00237-AWT Document 163-1 Filed 02/20/14 Page 2 of 3
Case 3:10-cr-00237-AWT Document 163-1 Filed 02/20/14 Page 3 of 3
-
8/12/2019 2LOLES Gregory Govt Supp Sentencing Memo
33/402
Case 3:10 cr 00237 AWT Document 163 1 Filed 02/20/14 Page 3 of 3
C 3 10 00237 AWT D 163 2 Fil d 02/20/14 P 1 f 9
-
8/12/2019 2LOLES Gregory Govt Supp Sentencing Memo
34/402
ATTACHMENT B
Case 3:10-cr-00237-AWT Document 163-2 Filed 02/20/14 Page 1 of 9
C 3 10 00237 AWT D 163 2 Fil d 02/20/14 P 2 f 9
-
8/12/2019 2LOLES Gregory Govt Supp Sentencing Memo
35/402
Individuals, Families and Parish Organizations who made donationsto the Building Fund Prior to December 2009
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
Case 3:10-cr-00237-AWT Document 163-2 Filed 02/20/14 Page 2 of 9
C 3 10 00237 AWT D t 163 2 Fil d 02/20/14 P 3 f 9
-
8/12/2019 2LOLES Gregory Govt Supp Sentencing Memo
36/402
43.
44.
45.46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.
53.54.
55.
56.
57.
58.
59.
60.
61.
62.
63.
64.
65.
66.
67.
68.69.
70.
Case 3:10-cr-00237-AWT Document 163-2 Filed 02/20/14 Page 3 of 9
-
8/12/2019 2LOLES Gregory Govt Supp Sentencing Memo
37/402
Case 3:10 cr 00237 AWT Document 163 2 Filed 02/20/14 Page 5 of 9
-
8/12/2019 2LOLES Gregory Govt Supp Sentencing Memo
38/402
133.
134.
135.
136.
137.
138.
139.
140.
141.
142.
143.144.
145.
146.
147.
148.
149.
150.
151.
152.
153.
154.
155.
156.
157.
158.159.
160.
Case 3:10-cr-00237-AWT Document 163-2 Filed 02/20/14 Page 5 of 9
Case 3:10 cr 00237 AWT Document 163 2 Filed 02/20/14 Page 6 of 9
-
8/12/2019 2LOLES Gregory Govt Supp Sentencing Memo
39/402
178.
179.
180.
181.
182.
183.
184.
185.
186.
187.
188.189.
190.
191.
192.
193.
194.
195.
196.
197.
198.
199.
200.
201.
202.
203.204.
205.
Case 3:10-cr-00237-AWT Document 163-2 Filed 02/20/14 Page 6 of 9
Case 3:10 cr 00237 AWT Document 163 2 Filed 02/20/14 Page 7 of 9
-
8/12/2019 2LOLES Gregory Govt Supp Sentencing Memo
40/402
223.
224.
225.
226.
227.
228.
229.
230.
231.
232.
233.234.
235.
236.
237.
238.
239.
240.
241.
242.
243.
244.
245.
246.
247.
248.249.
250.
Case 3:10-cr-00237-AWT Document 163-2 Filed 02/20/14 Page 7 of 9
Case 3:10-cr-00237-AWT Document 163-2 Filed 02/20/14 Page 8 of 9
-
8/12/2019 2LOLES Gregory Govt Supp Sentencing Memo
41/402
268.
269.
270.
271.
272.
273.
274.
275.
276.
277.
278.279.
280.
281.
282.
283.
284.
285.
286.
287.
288.
289.
290.
291.
292.
293.294.
295.
Case 3:10-cr-00237-AWT Document 163-2 Filed 02/20/14 Page 8 of 9
Case 3:10-cr-00237-AWT Document 163-2 Filed 02/20/14 Page 9 of 9
-
8/12/2019 2LOLES Gregory Govt Supp Sentencing Memo
42/402
313.
314.
315.
316.
317.
318.
319.
320.
321.
322.
323.324.
325.
326.
327.
328.
329.
330.
Number of Pledges: 330
Case 3:10-cr-00237-AWT Document 163-2 Filed 02/20/14 Page 9 of 9
Case 3:10-cr-00237-AWT Document 163-3 Filed 02/20/14 Page 1 of 4
-
8/12/2019 2LOLES Gregory Govt Supp Sentencing Memo
43/402
ATTACHMENT C
Case 3:10 cr 00237 AWT Document 163 3 Filed 02/20/14 Page 1 of 4
Case 3:10-cr-00237-AWT Document 163-3 Filed 02/20/14 Page 2 of 4
-
8/12/2019 2LOLES Gregory Govt Supp Sentencing Memo
44/402
Sunday School and Greek School Children Who Collected Coins andDonated Portions of Their Allowance and Donated to the Church's
Bui lding Fund Prior to December 20091.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.20.
21.
Case 3:10 cr 00237 AWT Document 163 3 Filed 02/20/14 Page 2 of 4
Case 3:10-cr-00237-AWT Document 163-3 Filed 02/20/14 Page 3 of 4
-
8/12/2019 2LOLES Gregory Govt Supp Sentencing Memo
45/402
36.
37.
38.39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.52.
53.
54.
55.
56.
57.
58.
59.
60
Case 3:10 cr 00237 AWT Document 163 3 Filed 02/20/14 Page 3 of 4
Case 3:10-cr-00237-AWT Document 163-3 Filed 02/20/14 Page 4 of 4
-
8/12/2019 2LOLES Gregory Govt Supp Sentencing Memo
46/402
75.
76.
77.78.
79.
80.
81.
82.
83.
84.
85.
86.
Number of Pledges: 86
Case 3: 0 c 00 3 W ocu e t 63 3 ed 0 / 0/ age o
Case 3:10-cr-00237-AWT Document 163-4 Filed 02/20/14 Page 1 of 74
-
8/12/2019 2LOLES Gregory Govt Supp Sentencing Memo
47/402
ATTACHMENT D
g
Case 3:10-cr-00237-AWT Document 163-4 Filed 02/20/14 Page 2 of 74
-
8/12/2019 2LOLES Gregory Govt Supp Sentencing Memo
48/402
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 3:10CR00237(AWT)
vs.
GREGORY P. LOLESHARTFORD, CONNECTICUT
Defendant NOVEMBER 7 , 2013
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
EXCERPT OF SENTENCING HEARING - VOLUME II
DIRECT EXAMINATION OF GREGORY LOLES
BEFORE:
HON. ALVIN W. THOMPSON, U.S.D.J.
APPEARANCES:
g
Case 3:10-cr-00237-AWT Document 163-4 Filed 02/20/14 Page 3 of 74
-
8/12/2019 2LOLES Gregory Govt Supp Sentencing Memo
49/402
2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
WITNESS DIRECT CROSS REDIRECT RECROSS
GREGORY LOLES
BY MR. DONOVAN: 3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
g
Case 3:10-cr-00237-AWT Document 163-4 Filed 02/20/14 Page 4 of 74
-
8/12/2019 2LOLES Gregory Govt Supp Sentencing Memo
50/402
3
(Transcript excerpt follows.)
MR. DONOVAN: May I call Mr. Loles, please.
THE COURT: Yes.
GREGORY LOLES,
called as a witness, having been first duly
sworn or affirmed, was examined and testified
as follows:
THE CLERK: Please state your name and spell
your last name for the record.
THE WITNESS: My name is Gregory Peter Loles.
Last name is L-O-L-E-S.
THE CLERK: Thank you, sir.
DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR DONOVAN:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Case 3:10-cr-00237-AWT Document 163-4 Filed 02/20/14 Page 5 of 74
-
8/12/2019 2LOLES Gregory Govt Supp Sentencing Memo
51/402
4
that, don't you?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. And today we're only concerned about kind of
technical and specific aspects of the amount of loss?
A. I understand.
Q. Although I know there are a lot of things you want
to explain and talk about, I'm going to be asking you
some specific questions about the events and how they
led to loss. You understand?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you know St. Barbara's Church?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. Where is it located?
A. In Orange, Connecticut.
Q. What was your relationship to St. Barbara's?
A I believe in about 1994 '95 my wife and I were
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Case 3:10-cr-00237-AWT Document 163-4 Filed 02/20/14 Page 6 of 74
-
8/12/2019 2LOLES Gregory Govt Supp Sentencing Memo
52/402
5
Q. Do you remember when you began on the Endowment
Fund?
A. I believe it was around or about 1995.
Q. How many members sit on the Endowment Fund?
A. The charter, it had to be between I think nine and
13.
Q. Did it vary during the course of your time there?
A. Sometimes.
Q. Did you sit on the Endowment Fund until the time of
your arrest?
A. Yes.
Q. When you began at the Endowment Fund, where were
the endowment fund's assets kept?
A. They were kept at a local branch of a brokerage
firm named Tucker Anthony.
Q Did there come a time when those Endowment Fund
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
6Case 3:10-cr-00237-AWT Document 163-4 Filed 02/20/14 Page 7 of 74
-
8/12/2019 2LOLES Gregory Govt Supp Sentencing Memo
53/402
6
A. Yes, it was.
Q. Was it taken after some discussion?
A. Yes.
Q. Can you tell the Court why it was decided to move
the assets of the Endowment Fund to I'll call it
Pershing?
A. After seeing some of the transaction statements
from Tucker Anthony, I noticed that the Endowment Fund
was paying full retail commission for every transaction.
Q. Would they have to do that if they moved to
Pershing?
A. At Pershing, because I was an institutional client,
the transaction cost was almost nothing. Very small.
Q. All right. Now, are you familiar with -- have you
ever heard the term "day trade"?
A Yes
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
7Case 3:10-cr-00237-AWT Document 163-4 Filed 02/20/14 Page 8 of 74
-
8/12/2019 2LOLES Gregory Govt Supp Sentencing Memo
54/402
7
Q. Now, you said that you have worked as a day trader;
is that right?
A. I day traded for myself. I never was employed as a
day trader.
Q. Did there come a time when you began assigning
certain day trades to the church?
A. Yes.
Q. And about when was that?
A. I believe, from the church statements, the first
appearance of day trade entries were in 1995. '96 for
sure.
Q. I want to explain mechanically to the Court how
this would work.
First of all, just give me an example of a day
trade, a fictitious day trade.
A Well on a given day through the day let's as an
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
8Case 3:10-cr-00237-AWT Document 163-4 Filed 02/20/14 Page 9 of 74
-
8/12/2019 2LOLES Gregory Govt Supp Sentencing Memo
55/402
8
100,000 shares of IBM, average price $100. And then
they would say to me, your 100,000 shares you have also
sold today at an average price of, let's say, $101, for
example.
Q. Did your day trading suggest to you a way to make
contributions to the church without actually giving
money from your own account to the church?
A. Yes.
Q. And tell us about that?
A. Well, because now we're in the bull market of late
'96 and I'm getting more and more active in day trading,
there were many days that I had, let's say, a good day.
Q. If you had a good day, was there something that you
wanted to do?
A. When I had a good day, I decided that I would like
to put some of these completed trades into the Endowment
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
9Case 3:10-cr-00237-AWT Document 163-4 Filed 02/20/14 Page 10 of 74
-
8/12/2019 2LOLES Gregory Govt Supp Sentencing Memo
56/402
9
Q. What would you do at the end of the day in order to
assign certain of the sales to the church?
A. Well, at the end of the day, I had to complete what
was called a blotter. And the blotter --
Q. Really briefly.
A. I would basically, if during the day there was
100,000 shares bought and 100,000 shares sold, I would
then tell DLJ, 2,000 shares, put them in the St. Barbara
account and put the 98 in my account.
Q. And was St. Barbara's endowment account ever on the
line for those trades?
A. No. The whole concept was that it was after the
trades were opened and closed that the assignment would
be made. And this is something that obviously I asked
permission from the Endowment Fund to do. I couldn't
just do it
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
10Case 3:10-cr-00237-AWT Document 163-4 Filed 02/20/14 Page 11 of 74
-
8/12/2019 2LOLES Gregory Govt Supp Sentencing Memo
57/402
10
Q. I want to talk about how that was accounted for.
The Endowment Fund you said was a separate fund at DLJ;
is that right?
A. Well, the Endowment Fund initially had one account
at DLJ and then at some point it became two. But that
one account would get statements every month.
Q. That's the next question. Who would those
statements be sent to?
A. I would get a statement.
Q. Would anybody else?
A. And the second one would go to the then treasurer,
Peter Anastasion.
Q. Is he in court today, Peter Anastasion?
A. I believe he was here yesterday.
Q. Did St. Barbara's Endowment Fund have any kind of
financial well yearly financial reporting?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
11Case 3:10-cr-00237-AWT Document 163-4 Filed 02/20/14 Page 12 of 74
-
8/12/2019 2LOLES Gregory Govt Supp Sentencing Memo
58/402
11
Q. Did the day trades -- did the statements have an
income and expenditure section?
A. Yes.
Q. And were the day trades listed there?
A. They were listed under the income section.
Q. Now, while we were preparing for this sentencing
proceeding, did we request of the Court its annual
statements -- not the Court -- the church?
A. Yes.
Q. Was the church good enough to provide those for us?
A. We did get them about three months ago, I believe.
Q. And did you yourself go through the statements to
see that each year -- or most years, some years not --
most years there was listed income to the church from
your day trading?
A Yes
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
12Case 3:10-cr-00237-AWT Document 163-4 Filed 02/20/14 Page 13 of 74
-
8/12/2019 2LOLES Gregory Govt Supp Sentencing Memo
59/402
12
A. Yes.
Q. All right. Were you in court yesterday when we
agreed with the church that we wouldn't introduce their
financial documents because they are kind of
confidential?
A. As they wish, yes.
Q. And you're also aware that we've gone through the
financial reports that just summarized each year that
indicates that the day trades were made; is that right?
A. Yes, I think we've tallied.
Q. I'm going to direct your attention to
Defendant's Exhibit 1 and 2. Is a portion of those
documents a listing of the day trades year by year?
A. Yes, it is.
Q. Does it appear to be accurate to you?
A It appears to be accurate
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
13Case 3:10-cr-00237-AWT Document 163-4 Filed 02/20/14 Page 14 of 74
-
8/12/2019 2LOLES Gregory Govt Supp Sentencing Memo
60/402
13
just so the Court knows, this is really a summary of our
contentions.
THE COURT: I figured.
MR. DONOVAN: And at the end, after I've tried
to establish it.
BY MR. DONOVAN:
Q. I just want to make sure concerning the information
that was contained in the church reports and whether it
was accurate.
Each year, once the church began investing in
Apeiron's bond activities, would you provide a number to
the church concerning its Apeiron account?
A. Yes.
Q. And that would appear in the church financial
statements?
A In the consolidated statement that Mr Anastasion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
14Case 3:10-cr-00237-AWT Document 163-4 Filed 02/20/14 Page 15 of 74
-
8/12/2019 2LOLES Gregory Govt Supp Sentencing Memo
61/402
14
A. The confirmations for the day trades came directly
to him from DLJ.
Q. So that was based on the account statements of DLJ?
A. Yes.
Q. Not on anything you told him?
A. Nothing I told him.
Q. So that's with respect to the day trades.
I want to ask you a little bit later about
Mr. Nicholson's $700,000 and its relation to the day
trades, but I'll come back to that in a minute.
What I want to move on to now is, do you know
someone named Gus Boosalis?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. Do you remember when you first spoke with Gus
Boosalis, what year was it, roughly?
A I know very well It was in 2004
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
15Case 3:10-cr-00237-AWT Document 163-4 Filed 02/20/14 Page 16 of 74
-
8/12/2019 2LOLES Gregory Govt Supp Sentencing Memo
62/402
15
Q. Tell the Judge what Father Peter told you?
A. Father Peter told me that he received a call from
him and that this man started explaining some financial
opportunity that he wanted to offer to people in the
community based on the fact that New Haven Savings Bank
was going public. And Father Peter said, and somewhere
in there he offered me that I could make money. And
then Father Peter sort of giggled because he says, I
don't know what he's talking about, but I gave him your
name.
Q. So Father Peter told you he had spoken with him and
he would be calling you?
A. Yes.
Q. And it's fair to say, is it not, that Father
Peter's virtues are spiritual and inspirational rather
than financial?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
16Case 3:10-cr-00237-AWT Document 163-4 Filed 02/20/14 Page 17 of 74
-
8/12/2019 2LOLES Gregory Govt Supp Sentencing Memo
63/402
16
A. Yes.
Q. Can you, in a few words, describe what that
transformation was?
A. New Haven Savings Bank decided to go public.
Q. Okay. Was it going to go public by means of one of
these initial public offerings, IPO?
A. An initial public offering.
Q. Just to jump back a second. Sorry to be
disjointed. In addition to the day trades, would you
also trade in initial public offerings?
A. Because of my trading activity, one form of
compensation a trader gets from brokerage firms that he
trades with is IPOs.
Q. What does IPO stand for?
A. Initial public offerings.
Q What is offered in an initial public offerings?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17Case 3:10-cr-00237-AWT Document 163-4 Filed 02/20/14 Page 18 of 74
-
8/12/2019 2LOLES Gregory Govt Supp Sentencing Memo
64/402
17
Q. Ironically, I think today Twitter went public and
its stock is up 77 percent, but that has nothing to do
with this.
THE COURT: I thought you were going to tell
me you were well invested and you were leaving us.
BY MR. DONOVAN:
Q. Did you do IPO trades on behalf of the church as
well?
A. I was given IPOs by my brokers as, if you will,
compensation, and a number of those IPOs I assigned to
our church account.
Q. And were those also listed on the financial firm's
statements?
A. Peter actually broke those out, I think, in most
years as sort of day trades and then IPO trades.
Q And again the information concerning the IPO
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
18Case 3:10-cr-00237-AWT Document 163-4 Filed 02/20/14 Page 19 of 74
-
8/12/2019 2LOLES Gregory Govt Supp Sentencing Memo
65/402
shares of the bank?
A. The board of the bank, once it makes a decision to
go public, sets a date and shareholders as of that
date -- or I should say account holders, who are the
shareholders, as of that date are then offered the
opportunity to invest in the public offering of the
bank.
Q. What is the hope of a depositor who invests in the
IPO?
A. Well, the hope of any investor would be to have a
profit on his investment.
Q. And with respect to the New Haven Savings Bank IPO,
was it widely believed that the shares on the open
market would be considerably more expensive than the
price that a depositor could buy them?
A There was very good reason to believe that yes
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
19Case 3:10-cr-00237-AWT Document 163-4 Filed 02/20/14 Page 20 of 74
-
8/12/2019 2LOLES Gregory Govt Supp Sentencing Memo
66/402
qualified would be 70,000 shares at $10 a share.
Q. So if they wanted to stay to the maximum, they
would have to come up with how much?
A. $700,000.
Q. Were you yourself a depositor?
A. Unfortunately not.
Q. Was Father Peter a depositor?
A. Yes, he was.
Q. To your knowledge, did he participate in this IPO?
A. He did.
Q. Was the church a depositor?
A. Yes, it was.
Q. Did the church have many accounts at New Haven
Savings Bank?
A. Although we had many accounts, unfortunately they
were all under the same tax ID so we only had one
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
20Case 3:10-cr-00237-AWT Document 163-4 Filed 02/20/14 Page 21 of 74
-
8/12/2019 2LOLES Gregory Govt Supp Sentencing Memo
67/402
A. Yes.
Q. What was it?
A. Old Financial.
Q. Where was Old Financial located?
A. It was based in Fargo.
Q. And Fargo is in South Dakota?
A. I think it 's south. South or north.
Q. One of the?
MR.McGARRY: Want to take judicial notice that
it's North Dakota, Your Honor.
BY MR. DONOVAN:
Q. And during the course of your dealings with
Mr. Boosalis and with Old Financial, did it turn out
there was a reason for it to be in that particular
state?
A Yes there was
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
21Case 3:10-cr-00237-AWT Document 163-4 Filed 02/20/14 Page 22 of 74
-
8/12/2019 2LOLES Gregory Govt Supp Sentencing Memo
68/402
but did not have the money to buy those shares.
Q. Let's give an example. I had $15,000 in New Haven
Savings Bank on the day that was the cut-off date and I
want to participate in the IPO as much as I can, but I
don't have any ready cash. What was the deal that would
be offered to me?
A. What Old Financial in that situation would then be
willing to lend you up to the $700,000, assuming you
qualified for $700,000 of the stock.
Q. And what would Old Financial's -- how would it make
money?
A. They're initial documents that were presented to me
were that their compensation for this loan would be
75 percent of the profit generated by -- at the sale of
the securities.
Q Would a person who purchased the IPO be required to
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
22Case 3:10-cr-00237-AWT Document 163-4 Filed 02/20/14 Page 23 of 74
-
8/12/2019 2LOLES Gregory Govt Supp Sentencing Memo
69/402
whatever they want.
Q. And was the stock also to be a security for the
loan, the stock itself?
A. And the two documents that were sent to us that a
borrower had to execute, one was, I believe it was
called a securitization document that basically said if
they default in their loan obligation, the shares can
be, I guess, the collateral. And then there was the
loan document. There were two documents that they in
ordered.
Q. All right. So in the hypothetical of impoverished
Jeremiah buying as much as he can, I would sign those
two documents and then what would happen?
A. You would sign those two documents. You would then
give them a bank account and they would send the
$700 000
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
23Case 3:10-cr-00237-AWT Document 163-4 Filed 02/20/14 Page 24 of 74
-
8/12/2019 2LOLES Gregory Govt Supp Sentencing Memo
70/402
A. Most people didn't sell at the first moment, but in
the first week or 10 days eventually people sold their
stock.
Q. What would happen with the money that was made on
the sale of the stock?
A. Once the stock was sold, then one can do the
calculation as per the loan document, and most people
then returned in two transactions or two, let's say,
checks. First they returned the principal, i.e.,
$700,000, or some lesser amount if that's what they
borrowed. And then another check would be, if you will,
this negotiated interest.
Q. Now you said that originally the amount was 75/25
with Old Financial getting 75 percent?
A. Yes.
Q Did you negotiate with them in order to try to get
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
24Case 3:10-cr-00237-AWT Document 163-4 Filed 02/20/14 Page 25 of 74
-
8/12/2019 2LOLES Gregory Govt Supp Sentencing Memo
71/402
A. His interest was to find people that had these
accounts.
Q. All right. And eventually what -- tell me the
activities that you engaged on behalf of Old Financial?
A. The main activity was to identify these people.
Q. After you had identified those people, how was the
proposition presented to them?
A. Well, what they were told is that -- what I would
tell them is, Number 1, if you have money, go do this
for yourself. That was my advice to everybody.
Q. Let me stop you right there. You said that the
bank was a depositor; is that right?
A. You mean the church?
Q. I'm sorry. The church was a depositor, right?
A. Yes.
Q And the church had the money to do it itself
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
25Case 3:10-cr-00237-AWT Document 163-4 Filed 02/20/14 Page 26 of 74
-
8/12/2019 2LOLES Gregory Govt Supp Sentencing Memo
72/402
Q. Let me take that away. Did you talk only to church
parishioners?
A. No.
Q. Who did you talk to?
A. Well, it started with church parishioners because
that's where we would have the information that they
have an account at New Haven Savings, and then word of
mouth, other people got involved.
Q. Now, eventually do you know the total number of
people who participated?
A. Twenty-one.
Q. Twenty-one.
A. I would say 21 entities. One or two were entities
versus physical people.
Q. Now, you said that when you found out that somebody
had a New Haven Savings Bank account you would go and
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
26Case 3:10-cr-00237-AWT Document 163-4 Filed 02/20/14 Page 27 of 74
-
8/12/2019 2LOLES Gregory Govt Supp Sentencing Memo
73/402
IPO once this loan was consummated. I would submit the
name of the person and his banking information to Lawyer
Frisk in Fargo.
Q. Let's stop there for one second before we move on.
Your initial conversation was Mr. Boosalis; is that
right?
A. Yes.
Q. And during the course of the month -- was it a
couple of months before the --
A. Not even. About a month and change.
Q. Did Boosalis continue to be your point person with
Old Financial?
A. There was communication with Gus Boosalis, but the
point person was clearly Attorney Frisk.
Q. About how often would you speak with him during
this period?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
27Case 3:10-cr-00237-AWT Document 163-4 Filed 02/20/14 Page 28 of 74
-
8/12/2019 2LOLES Gregory Govt Supp Sentencing Memo
74/402
Q. Did they do anything in order to check you out to
make sure that you were legitimate?
A. Yes.
Q. What did they do?
A. They came to my home.
Q. And who came?
A. I believe it was the father-in-law of Mr. Boosalis
who also, I believe, was affiliated with Old Financial.
And another gentleman.
Q. And the reason -- would it be fair to say that the
reason that they are contacting the Greek church here in
Milford is because they themselves were Greeks and
members of a Greek church in California?
A. I think that was one of the links, absolutely.
Q. There was some security in dealing with a
close knit community that tended to be trustworthy?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
-
8/12/2019 2LOLES Gregory Govt Supp Sentencing Memo
75/402
29Case 3:10-cr-00237-AWT Document 163-4 Filed 02/20/14 Page 30 of 74
-
8/12/2019 2LOLES Gregory Govt Supp Sentencing Memo
76/402
Q. I mean, did the people who participated in end up
making money?
A. Yes.
Q. About how much did they make on the average?
A. A person that had to borrow the full amount,
meaning they didn't have any of their own money to
participate, after all taxes paid made approximately 40
to $42,000.
Q. And this was money that they wouldn't have made if
they hadn't gotten a loan to buy the full amount?
A. Yes.
Q. What was in this for you?
A. From that first phone call, Boosalis made it clear
that, Number 1, he's done this in multiple conversions
as these are called across the country.
Q And did he say that when he did this in various
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
30Case 3:10-cr-00237-AWT Document 163-4 Filed 02/20/14 Page 31 of 74
-
8/12/2019 2LOLES Gregory Govt Supp Sentencing Memo
77/402
A. What he called the flat rate would be 15 percent.
Q. 15 percent of what?
A. Of the 75 percent, if you will.
Q. Of the transaction?
A. Which became 72 percent.
Q. Now, eventually was this 15-percent commission
calculated?
A. Yes.
Q. And how much did it come to? Well, the amount that
went to the church is not actually the amount that it
came to, right?
A. Yes. There was a couple of adjustments that had to
be made.
Q. We'll talk about those adjustments in just one
second.
How much was the amount that eventually went to the
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
31Case 3:10-cr-00237-AWT Document 163-4 Filed 02/20/14 Page 32 of 74
-
8/12/2019 2LOLES Gregory Govt Supp Sentencing Memo
78/402
the church. It was no secret to him or to anyone that I
wasn't interested in this money. I was running around
because we obviously needed money for our projects.
Q. When you were explaining the deal to various New
Haven Savings Bank depositors who might participate, did
you tell them that you were entitled to a commission or
what you were planning to do with it?
A. Absolutely.
Q. That was actually a selling point?
A. It was, because I said that money will come of
this. Because they would scratch their heads, 70-some
percent. And I said, Well, but here's the good news. A
certain amount is coming from that and I will forward
that to the church.
Q. So the people who participated thought not only
would they make a certain amount of money but their
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
32Case 3:10-cr-00237-AWT Document 163-4 Filed 02/20/14 Page 33 of 74
-
8/12/2019 2LOLES Gregory Govt Supp Sentencing Memo
79/402
Q. As a result, did you advise Father Peter that he
should participate in this program?
A. Absolutely.
Q. And did he?
A. Yes, he did.
Q. And do you know the total amount of gain -- we see
a $100,000 deposit with Apeiron. Was that the gain that
he enjoyed on the sale of the stock?
A. It resulted from the gain of the stock. I don't
know if there was a bit more gain. It would be odd for
it to be exactly a $100,000.
Q. Father Peter was required, was he not, to pay the
73 percent -- 72 percent?
A. All people had to pay that. Father Peter doesn't
get involved in these things, as from the beginning he
didn't
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
33Case 3:10-cr-00237-AWT Document 163-4 Filed 02/20/14 Page 34 of 74
-
8/12/2019 2LOLES Gregory Govt Supp Sentencing Memo
80/402
A. By that and one other small transaction.
Q. And do you remember what the number was, that is
the amount of Father Peter's interest that you -- that
you took care of by reducing the amount of your
commission and the amount that would then go to the
church, roughly?
A. I don't know the exact amount, but by definition it
would be 72 percent of whatever profit was made.
Q. Can you make just a rough estimate?
A. If the profit was $100,000 then it would be
$72,000.
Q. And Father Peter then didn't have to pay that?
A. Father Peter didn't pay that.
Q. You said there was another small adjustment. What
was that?
A There was the daughter of another parishioner who
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
34Case 3:10-cr-00237-AWT Document 163-4 Filed 02/20/14 Page 35 of 74
-
8/12/2019 2LOLES Gregory Govt Supp Sentencing Memo
81/402
and bigger, "bigger" meaning bigger size transactions, I
brought to the attention of the board that I am being
limited by the fact that I can't put a trade of a bigger
size based on what the Endowment Fund was worth, that
they had to understand that that will limit on how much
I can do.
After that meeting, Nelson said, Hum, we've got
money sitting in Pershing. Why don't you just have me
transfer money into the church's name and then you will
have what I call the band width or the capacity to put
more trades.
Q. Now, as an accounting matter, was that Nelson
Nicholson's -- was the amount $700,000?
A. It wasn't exactly 700. I don't recall. But it was
very close to $700,000.
Q And as a matter of accounting was that $700 000
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
35Case 3:10-cr-00237-AWT Document 163-4 Filed 02/20/14 Page 36 of 74
-
8/12/2019 2LOLES Gregory Govt Supp Sentencing Memo
82/402
always complete before they were logged. But the way --
Q. Fair enough. And that money was also not being
used for the initial public offering trading that you
did, some of which resulted to the benefit of the
church?
A. The money simply allowed bigger transactions to
fit.
Q. So the answer is? The answer to the question is
that money wasn't being used to actually trade with?
A. No, no, no. No trades initiated in that account.
Q. Did there come a time when you had some
conversation with Boosalis -- I'm sorry -- with Frisk,
the attorney for Old Financial, concerning the number of
people that you had found who wanted to participate in
the Old Financial loan?
A When the loan amount reached $6 million which
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
36Case 3:10-cr-00237-AWT Document 163-4 Filed 02/20/14 Page 37 of 74
-
8/12/2019 2LOLES Gregory Govt Supp Sentencing Memo
83/402
who were interested in participating in that loan
program?
A. As you can imagine, once the word got out, yes,
there were more people.
Q. Did you do something in order to persuade him to
increase the number and the amount of loans?
A. When he cited security as his issue, I came up with
the idea of just sort off the top of my head, I said,
Well, suppose I send you some money to hold?
Q. As security for the other people?
A. As if people run off with your loan money because I
gave it to the wrong people, I would suffer.
Q. Did you have some talk with Nelson Nicholson about
it?
A. Well, I told Nelson that I need to put up money.
And since we weren't trading it was now '04 and that
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
-
8/12/2019 2LOLES Gregory Govt Supp Sentencing Memo
84/402
38Case 3:10-cr-00237-AWT Document 163-4 Filed 02/20/14 Page 39 of 74
-
8/12/2019 2LOLES Gregory Govt Supp Sentencing Memo
85/402
Q. How much money did Apeiron wire?
A. I had told Frisk that I will send you a million
four, which is obviously two people's worth of money.
And he was sort of surprised and he says, So you're
confident? I said, Yeah, obviously I'm confident. No
one is going to run away with your money.
Q. So you used Apeiron sent $700,000?
A. Yes.
Q. And Nicholson's $700,000 was also sent or wired?
A. Yes, the one that was in the trading account.
Q. And as a result of that, were additional persons
allowed to get loans from Old Financial?
A. We got another $7 million for a total of 13.
Q. Even more than the $1.4 million that you had
secured?
A The 1 4 he treated as a security deposit They had
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
39Case 3:10-cr-00237-AWT Document 163-4 Filed 02/20/14 Page 40 of 74
-
8/12/2019 2LOLES Gregory Govt Supp Sentencing Memo
86/402
obviously. And he wired the million four to Apeiron's,
I believe either Citibank -- to an Apeiron account.
Q. And how about Nelson Nicholson's $700,000?
A. It was all sent together.
Q. So following some time after the closing of the New
Haven Savings Bank IPO, Nelson Nicholson's $700,000 is
now sitting in the Apeiron account?
A. Obviously, with his knowledge, it is now sitting in
the Apeiron account.
Q. All right. So I want to get on to the toy company
in just a second, but let's just make sure that I've
established the numbers that I need to.
The St. Barbara's Building Fund financial statement
indicates an increase of $975,000 which it attributes to
New Haven Savings Bank stock. That's the statement
January through December of 2004
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
40Case 3:10-cr-00237-AWT Document 163-4 Filed 02/20/14 Page 41 of 74
-
8/12/2019 2LOLES Gregory Govt Supp Sentencing Memo
87/402
roughly $70,000?
A. If the profit was $100,000, it was 70. And the
other person was the numbers were even smaller. So
roughly about a $100,000 I would say.
Q. Okay. Now let's talk a little bit about the toy
company.
When Nelson Nicholson first began discussing with
you the toy company, where was his $700,000 at that
point?
A. When he first introduced me to Dwyer, the owner of
the toy company, I think it was '02, '03, so it was
sitting in that trading account. We were trading at St.
Barbara.
Q. Okay. Eventually Mr. Nicholson discussed with you
making an investment with respect to the toy company?
A Yes
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
41Case 3:10-cr-00237-AWT Document 163-4 Filed 02/20/14 Page 42 of 74
-
8/12/2019 2LOLES Gregory Govt Supp Sentencing Memo
88/402
moment, that's where Nelson would come in.
Q. So that $100,000 was a loan from Nelson to the
person who started the toy company?
A. It started as a loan. I think Dwyer offered I
think it was 10 percent just to make things easy. And
Nelson said okay.
Q. And you could see from their dealings that Nelson
and he had been friends from childhood?
A. Yes, yes.
Q. Was there an event that had a sort of traumatic
business experience upon the toy company?
A. Eventually the toy company needed more money,
substantially more money, Nelson, thinking he was doing
me a favor, said, Why don't do you come in, too?
Q. Did the toy company need substantially more money
because of something that had happened to one of its
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
42Case 3:10-cr-00237-AWT Document 163-4 Filed 02/20/14 Page 43 of 74
-
8/12/2019 2LOLES Gregory Govt Supp Sentencing Memo
89/402
Q. Let's talk about how it was that you came about to
invest in the toy company. Was it a conversation you
had with Nelson?
A. It was just Nelson saying 10 percent. We've got
these orders. I know this guy. And it was clear that I
think he wanted me to get involved and I said okay.
Q. How much was Nelson going to invest?
A. Well, it was sort of like a demand from Dwyer.
It's what he needed. So it wasn't an investment. It
was almost -- we were lending against, in essence,
orders that Dwyer would get from the marketplace. So he
would call and say, I need 150, I need 100, I need 200.
I forget. I want to say we put initially -- and again,
the first couple of transactions was all Nelson and
eventually, because of our relationship and he wanted me
sort of around because he liked Dwyer but he also sort
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
43Case 3:10-cr-00237-AWT Document 163-4 Filed 02/20/1