united states district court eastern …fcpa.stanford.edu/fcpac/documents/4000/002501.pdf · ·...
TRANSCRIPT
Case 1:12-cr-00224-JBW Document 19 Filed 08/13/12 Page 1 of 40 PageID #: 214
Redacted
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Criminal Docket No. 12-224 (JBW)
-against-
GARTH RONALD PETERSON,
Defendant.
DEFENDANT GARTH PETERSON'S SENTENCING MEMORANDUM
LANKIER SIFFERT & WOHL LLP 500 Fifth Avenue, 33rd Floor
New York, NY 10110 Tel: (212) 921-8399
Abigail E. Rosen (AR-8748) Frank H. Wohi (FW-1737)
Attorneys for Defendant Garth Peterson
Case 1:12-cr-00224-JBW Document 19 Filed 08/13/12 Page 2 of 40 PageID #: 215
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PreliminaryStatement ...................................................................................................... 1
Statementof Facts ............................................................................................................. 1
1. Offense Conduct .........................................................................................1
2. Cooperation with the Government.............................................................. 5
3. Personal History..........................................................................................7
a. Childhood and Relationship with His Parents................................7
b. Education ........................................................................................ 8
C. Marriage and Family......................................................................8
d. WorkHistoiy ........................................................... ...................... 10
e. Alcoholism and Depression ..........................................................11
Discussion ......................................................................................................................... 12
4. The Section 3553(a) Factors Militate in Favor of a Below Guideline Sentence ...................................................................................13
a. The Nature and Circumstances of the Offense and the Characteristics of the Defendant.......................................................................... 14
i. Peterson's Need to Be in Singapore to Raise His Children.................................................................................................14
ii. Peterson's Need to Provide Support to His Family ...............17
iii. Cooperation.................... ... ....... 18
iv. Alcoholism............................................................................19
v. Cultural Context.....................................................................20
b. Section 3553(a) (2) Factors ........... ............. ............ .......... ........... .. 23
i. Punishment Peterson Has Suffered.........................................23
ii. Low Probability of Recidivism..............................................26
C. The Kinds of Sentences Available................................................. 28
Case 1:12-cr-00224-JBW Document 19 Filed 08/13/12 Page 3 of 40 PageID #: 216
d. The Sentencing Range in Guidelines ............................................30
e. The Need to Avoid Unwarranted Disparities................................32
fRestitution .....................................................................................32
Conclusion ....................................................................................................................... 34
11
Case 1:12-cr-00224-JBW Document 19 Filed 08/13/12 Page 4 of 40 PageID #: 217
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Page(s) CASES
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) .....................................................................................13
Koon v. United States, 518 U.S. 81 (1996) ...................................................................................16
Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338 (2007) (Stevens, J., concurring)............................................13
Simon v. United States, 361 F. Supp. 2d 35, 40 (E.D.N.Y. 2005) ............................................... 27
Smirlock v. United States, No. 04 CV 9670, 2005 WL 975875 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 25, 2005).......... 31
United States v. Aguirre-Gonzalez, 597 F.3d 46 (1st Cir. 2010)...................................................32
United States v. Aitoro, 446 F.3d 246 (1st Cir. 2006)...................................................................16
United States v. Anderson, 267 F. App'x 847 (11th Cir. 2008) (per curiam) ...............................17
United States v. Aristizabal, No. 07-CR-101-01, 2007 WL4555900 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 20, 2007) ........................................................................................................18
United States v. Carmona-Rodriguez, No. 04 CR 667, 2005 WL 840464 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 11, 2005) ........................................................................................................27
United States v. Cull, 446 F. Supp. 2d 961 (E.D. Wis. 2006) .................................................14, 28
United States v. Delgado, 994 F. Supp. 143 (E.D.N.Y. 1998) ......................................................30
United States v. Fernandez, 443 F.3d 19 (2d Cir. 2006) ...............................................................18
United States v. Garcia, 497 F.3d 964 (9th Cir. 2007) ..................................................................19
United States v. Gardellini, 545 F.3d 1089 (D.C. Cir. 2008) .................................................26, 28
United States v, Hernandez, No. 03 CR. 1257, 2005 \VL 1242344 (S.D.N.Y. May 24, 2005).........................................................................................................27
United States v. Huseir, 478 F.3d 318 (6th Cir. 2007)..................................................................16
United States v. Lazeny, 439 F,3d 928 (8th Cir. 2006) ...............................................................19
United States v. Lehner, No. 09-CR-72, 2010 WL 2521438 (E.D,N,Y. June 7, 2010).................20
United States v, Lipman, 133 F.3d 726 (9th Cir. 1998).................................................................22
111
Case 1:12-cr-00224-JBW Document 19 Filed 08/13/12 Page 5 of 40 PageID #: 218
United States v. Mack, No. 08-CR-806, 2010 WL 3282648 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 18, 2010) ..............24
United States v. Marsh, 820 F. Supp. 2d 320 (E.D.N.Y. 2011).....................................................17
United States v. Matheny, 450 F.3d 633 (6th Cir. 2006)...............................................................20
United States v. Menyweather, 447 F.3d 625 (9th Cir. 2005)................................................. 14, 16
United States v. Munoz-Nava, 524 F.3d 1137 (10th Cir. 2008)....................................................16
United States v. Nellum, No. 2:04-CR-30, 2005 WL 300073 (N.D. Ind. Feb. 3, 2005) ...............27
United States v. Ochoa-Ramos, No. 07-CR-102, 2008 WL 2062341 (E.D. Wis. 2008)...............19
United States v. Peralta-Espinoza, 383 F. Supp. 2d 1107 (E.D. Wis. 2005) .................................23
United States v. Placensio, No. 10-CR-20699, 2011 WL 7807880 (S.D. Fla. June 28, 2011) .........................................................................................................33
United States v. Pugliese, 960 F.2d 913 (10th Cir. 1992) .............................................................30
United States v. Qualls, 373 F. Supp. 2d 873 (E.D. Wis. 2005)....................................................28
United States v. Ranum, 353 F. Supp. 2d 984 (E.D. Wis. 2005).......................................18, 23, 26
United States v. Redemann, 295 F. Supp. 2d 887 (E.D. Wis. 2003) .............................................26
United States v. Roen, 279 F. Supp. 2d 986 (E.D. Wis. 2003)......................................................31
United States v. Rowe, No. 10-CR-607, 2011 WL 6019010 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 29, 2011) ........27-28
United States. v. Samaras, 390 F.Supp. 2d 805 (E.D. Wis. 2005).................................................26
United States v. Todd, 618 F. Supp. 2d 1349 (M.D. Ala. 2009) ...................................................22
STATUTES
18 U.S.C. § 3553..................................
18 U.S.C. § 3559..................................
18 U.S.C. § 3583............
U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1 ...........
U.S.S.G. § 2171.1 ............
U.S.S.G. § 5D1.1 ...........
passim
29
29
31
31
29
iv
Case 1:12-cr-00224-JBW Document 19 Filed 08/13/12 Page 6 of 40 PageID #: 219
U.S.S.G. § 5E1.2......................... 33
U.S.S.G. § 5111.4 ........................ 19
U.S.S.G. § 51-11.6 ........................ 16
U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1 ........................ 19
U.S.S.G. § 5K2.0 ........................ 19
OTHER AUTHORITIES
Children of Incarcerated Parents Project, Report to the Oregon Legislature on Senate Bill 133(2002)................................................................................................................................15
Doug McVay, Vincent Schiraldi, & Jason Ziedenberg, Justice Policy Institute, Treatment or Incarceration: National and State Findings on the Efficacy of Cost Savings of Drug Treatment Versus Imprisonment (2004)..................................................................................25
Gary Stein, Sentencing of Individuals in FCPA Cases, Business Crimes Bulletin, Vol. 18, No. 5, Jan. 2011 .......................................................................................................................32
Gregory M. Lipper, Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and the Elusive Question of Intent, 47 Am. Crim. L. Rev. 1463 (2010)...............................................................................................21
Kathleen Z. Russell, et al., Children of Incarcerated Parents (2006).............................................15
Nicole Y. Hines, Cultural Due Diligence: The Lost Diligence that Must be Found by U.S. Corporations Conducting M&A Deals in China to Prevent Foreign Corrupt Practices Act Violations, 9 Duq. Bus. L.J. 19 (2007) .............................................................................21
Ross D. Parke & K. Alison Clarke-Stewart, Effects of Parental Incarceration on Young Children(2001)........................................................................................................................15
Sentencing Project, Incarceration and Crime: A Complex Relationship (2005).....................15-16
United States Sentencing Commission, Federal Offenders Sentenced to Supervised Release(2010) .........................................................................................................................29
United States Sentencing Commission, Measuring Recidivism: The Criminal History Computation of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines (2004).....................................................27
v
Case 1:12-cr-00224-JBW Document 19 Filed 08/13/12 Page 7 of 40 PageID #: 220
Preliminary Statement
We respectfully submit this memorandum on behalf of Defendant Garth Peterson seeking
a mitigated sentence pursuant to Section 3553(a) of Title 18 of the United States Code. For the
following reasons, we urge the Court to impose a sentence with no or minimal incarceration and
with any probation or non-incarceration portion of Peterson's sentence to be served in Singapore.
We submit that a sentence well below that recommended by the United States Sentencing
Guidelines is appropriate here for a variety of reasons: (1) because Peterson has shown his
commitment to rehabilitate himself by cooperating with the Government's investigation into his
conduct, by pleading guilty, and by living a law-abiding life for the nearly four years since the
investigation into his conduct began; (2) because any sentence of incarceration, or other sentence
requiring him to be away from Singapore for a significant period of time would be unusually
hard on him and his wife and two young children in Singapore who would be unable to see him
if he were incarcerated in the United States and who rely on him for financial and emotional
support; and (3) because he has already suffered enormously by reason of his offense and the
resulting loss of his career and financial stability, and his painful settlement with the Securities
and Exchange Commission ("SEC"), which included a permanent bar on associating with
financial organizations regulated by the SEC.
Statement of Facts L Offense Conduct
On April 25, 2012, Peterson pled guilty to a conspiracy to evade the internal accounting
controls of a public company before Your Honor. He conspired to mislead his employer,
Morgan Stanley, about the identities of the investors in an investment that Morgan Stanley sold.
Morgan Stanley believed that it was selling a portion of its investment to a Chinese company.
Case 1:12-cr-00224-JBW Document 19 Filed 08/13/12 Page 8 of 40 PageID #: 221
Instead, it sold shares to an entity controlled by Peterson, Peterson's co-conspirator, and a
Chinese official.
Prior to 2002, Peterson was close friends with a man who was the head of Yongye, a
Chinese company. Yongye is a state-owned real estate investment corporation in the Luwan
district of Shanghai. Peterson understood that his friend's position made him a "foreign official"
("the Chinese Official") under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act of 1977 ("FCPA"). Peterson
and the Chinese Official became close before Peterson started working at Morgan Stanley. They
met through ajob that Peterson had in 1993 and they forged a mentor-mentee relationship. They
often met for dinner after work. From 1995, when Peterson left Shanghai to go to business
school, until 2002, when Peterson started at Morgan Stanley, Peterson occasionally traveled to
Shanghai to visit the Chinese Official without any business purpose. They were so close that
Peterson considered him to be like the father that he never had. After Peterson started working at
Morgan Stanley, they renewed their business relationship.
Also prior to 2002, Peterson's mother asked him to help her invest her retirement funds.
Peterson approached the Chinese Official about ideas for an investment for his mother and the
Chinese Official told Peterson about a real estate investment in Shanghai that was called the
"Site #9" development project. Site #9 was a city block in the Luwan district of Shanghai and
was slated to be developed into a number of different buildings, including a full service
apartment building, similar to the American model of a long stay hotel. Through the Chinese
Official, Peterson invested his mother's retirement money in the Site #9 development project.
In 2002, Peterson took ajob with Morgan Stanley in China. When Peterson joined
Morgan Stanley, he informed them about the investment in Site #9 and Morgan Stanley allowed
Case 1:12-cr-00224-JBW Document 19 Filed 08/13/12 Page 9 of 40 PageID #: 222
him to retain it. From 2002 to 2008, Peterson worked for Morgan Stanley in a group that made
real estate investments in China.
After he joined Morgan Stanley, and was encouraged by his boss to identify investment
opportunities in China, Peterson proposed to Morgan Stanley that it should invest in the Site #9
development project as well. Morgan Stanley decided to do so, and invested $3.4 million for
10% of the Site #9 development project. When Morgan Stanley made that investment, it called
the investment "Project Wally." Morgan Stanley completed its investment in Project Wally in
2003, a year after Peterson had joined the firm. 1
After Morgan Stanley invested in Project Wally, the group of owners, including Peterson
and Morgan Stanley, began selling off assets developed on Site #9 and returning capital to the
investors. Ultimately, only one building was left - the full service apartment building. The
owners decided to sell it. An Australian bank, Macquarie, entered into negotiations to buy the
building but those negotiations failed. Morgan Stanley then decided to purchase the serviced
apartment building from the consortium of owners, becoming a 100% owner of the building
instead of a 10% owner. They called that investment - buying the full service apartment
building from Project Wally "Project Cavity."
Morgan Stanley's desire to become the 100% owner of Project Cavity would force
Peterson to sell his mother's holding in the real estate investment, since the investment in Site #9
was an owner of the serviced apartment building. Peterson did not want to do so and asked his
boss at Morgan Stanley, Zain Fancy, if he could remain an investor in the building. Fancy told
him that he should not even raise the idea to others at Morgan Stanley because it would not be
Morgan Stanley purchased the investment for the same per share price as the initial investors, even though it invested a year later.
Case 1:12-cr-00224-JBW Document 19 Filed 08/13/12 Page 10 of 40 PageID #: 223
well received, and Peterson dropped it. Morgan Stanley bought Project Cavity in 2004. The
Chinese Official helped ensure that Morgan Stanley was able to buy the building.
Peterson was frustrated that he had been forced to liquidate the investment he had made
for his mother, so he decided to seek a self-help remedy: to secretly buy back into Project Cavity
at the same price at which he was forced to sell. To do this, two years later, in early 2006,
Peterson encouraged Morgan Stanley to sell a 12% interest in Project Cavity to an entity called
Asiasphere at the price Morgan Stanley had paid for the investment in 2004. Peterson, along
with another person, misrepresented to others at Morgan Stanley that Asiasphere was owned by
Yongye, the Luwan district real estate investment company. Peterson convinced Morgan Stanley
to sell a piece of the investment to "Yongye" because of the prior assistance that Morgan Stanley
had received from the Chinese Official. Morgan Stanley likely also perceived a benefit to selling
a portion of the investment to a local investor fluent in Chinese. However, Asiasphere was
actually controlled by Peterson, the Chinese Official, and another person. Peterson included the
Chinese Official in Asiasphere in order to pay him back for favors that the Chinese Official had
extended to Peterson. Unlike the traditional FCPA case, Peterson had a close relationship with
the Chinese Official. He did not invest with the Chinese Official in order to obtain a specific
business outcome, but out of a misplaced desire to help the Chinese official for all he had done
for Peterson and Morgan Stanley over the years. Peterson's criminal misconduct arose from an
ill-conceived and misplaced attempt to protect his mother's investment. Peterson knew that by
misleading Morgan Stanley into believing that Asiasphere was owned by Yongye, he was
intentionally circumventing Morgan Stanley's internal controls, which were designed to prevent
the transfer of items of value to foreign officials and to Morgan Stanley employees. In March
rd
Case 1:12-cr-00224-JBW Document 19 Filed 08/13/12 Page 11 of 40 PageID #: 224
2006, the sale to Asiasphere was consummated and the Chinese Official, his co-conspirator, and
Peterson became investors in Project Cavity.
Peterson knows that what he did was wrong. He contacted the Government through
counsel shortly after learning of its investigation and ultimately, after cooperating with the both
the SEC and the DOJ for over two years, pled guilty before Your Honor on April 25, 2012, See
Exh. A (Letter from Garth Peterson) ("It has been years since I made the mistakes that landed me
in this place and I continue to deeply regret my actions.").
2. CoOperation with the Government
Peterson sought to come clean and cooperate with the Government as soon as he knew
that there was an investigation into his conduct by the United States. Though he knew what he
did was wrong, it did not initially occur to him that the United States would be interested in his
conduct because he lived and worked abroad. Significantly, in August 2009, before the
Government had made any attempt to contact him, Peterson contacted the United States
Attorney's Office, through counsel, while he was living abroad, to offer his cooperation.
Peterson's unusual decision to approach the Government in this way showed a sincere desire to
assist with the Government's investigation.
After reaching out to the Government, Peterson left his home and family in Singapore for
an extended period of time, at considerable cost to himself, in order to be interviewed by the
Government on four occasions between November 2009 and June 2010. During most of this
period, he remained in the United States, away from his wife and children, to be available for the
Government. This was a difficult period for him and his family. See Exh, B (Letter from Renee
Sanabria, Peterson's sister) ("I have participated in his suffering over the past three and a half
years and carry the intense sorrow of impeding future consequences."); Exh. C (Letter from Aw
Sok-Ling, Peterson's wife)
Case 1:12-cr-00224-JBW Document 19 Filed 08/13/12 Page 12 of 40 PageID #: 225
Indeed, he has few contacts in the United
States, having spent most of his life abroad, and had no reason to be in the United States other
than to help the Government. He appeared at the Government's request, and answered all
questions posed to him, for a total of approximately 28 hours. Although his memory was
hindered by his lack of access to the enormous record of emails and other documents, as well as
by his history of alcohol abuse, he was sincere in his desire to help the Government and we
believe that his responses were of value to the Government.
Further, an important part of Peterson's effort to assist the Government was his provision
of documents. He provided his own financial records, some of which he had not kept, and which
required significant effort on his part to obtain and compile, many of which would have been
difficult or impossible for the Government to obtain because they were located in foreign
jurisdictions. He provided his tax returns since 2006. He also answered many rounds of
questions from the SEC to help its attorneys analyze and understand the documents he provided.
Providing this assistance has been both time-consuming and expensive for Peterson.
He has assisted the Government's investigation in a number of other ways. He signed
two tolling agreements with the Government and another with the SEC to allow them to continue
their investigations without risking the statute of limitations expiring. He has indicated that he is
willing to testify for the Government, if asked. Finally, Peterson is voluntarily surrendering
himself from a foreign country, avoiding the need for the Government to extradite him.
The Government has recognized the value of the cooperation that Peterson has provided
to the SEC. In lieu of criminal forfeiture, Peterson's plea agreement calls for him to cooperate
with the SEC's efforts to forfeit assets that were proceeds from Peterson's offense. Peterson has
6
Case 1:12-cr-00224-JBW Document 19 Filed 08/13/12 Page 13 of 40 PageID #: 226
settled with the SEC, paid $241,589 in cash, and convinced his mother to forfeit her interest in
the Cavity investment. This onerous settlement, calculated on the basis of Peterson's ability to
pay, has left him and his family with a very uncertain future. He is cooperating with the receiver
who was appointed to transfer his interest in Cavity to the SEC.
3. Personal History
a. Childhood and Relationship with His Parents
Peterson, age 43, was born in Downey, California. He was raised with his older sister
Renee by his mother, Dianne, and Dorothy, a woman he considered to be akin to an adopted
grandmother, after his parents divorced. See Exh. A (Letter from Garth Peterson); Exh. B
(Letter from Renee Sanabria, Peterson's sister) ("Growing up, the dearest person to Garth and I
was our adopted grandmother, Dorothy."); Exh. C (Letter from Aw Sok-Ling, Peterson's wife)
("Garth was very close to Dorothy, and they shared a very special relationship. . .
Peterson's father was an alcoholic. See Exh. B (Letter from Renee Sanabria, Peterson's
sister) ("[O]ur father suffered from chronic alcoholism . . . ."). Though he did not know it when
he was young, his father was also mentally ill. See Exh. B (Letter from Renee Sanabria,
Peterson's sister) ("As adults, we learned that our father suffered from . . . schizophrenia.")
In 1975, when Peterson was six, his mother moved to Singapore to get away from
Peterson's father. See Exh. B (Letter from Renee Sanabria) ("The ongoing tension and legal
battle over custody rights and alimony payments resulted in bitter hatred between my parents.
Eventually my mother accepted a teaching job outside the United States and we moved to
Singapore."). In part to avoid Peterson's father, Dianne moved with Peterson and Renee at least
nine times in ten years. Id. ("My mother was terrorized and would make us move every 9-12
2 The details of Peterson's personal history are set forth in Exhs. A (Letter from Garth Peterson) and B (Letter from Renee Sanabria, Peterson's sister).
7
Case 1:12-cr-00224-JBW Document 19 Filed 08/13/12 Page 14 of 40 PageID #: 227
months to try to stay ahead of our father."). Despite Dianne's efforts to stay hidden, in 1978,
when Peterson was nine, Peterson's father kidnapped Dorothy, Peterson, and Renee. Id. ("A few
years [after they moved to Singapore], my father retaliated for that move by kidnapping us.
"). They were rescued by the police in a Hong Kong hotel. Id. ("[M]y mother [contacted]
Interpol and drain[ed] her already limited finances to recover us.")
Peterson's family was not particularly wealthy while he was growing up. Dianne worked
a second job and rented rooms in their house to boarders. (stating that "[m]y mother worked
constantly, taking extra tutoring and teaching responsibilities, and renting out rooms in our home
to boarders" to provide for the family). Through his Singaporean friends, he learned Asian
customs and culture as well as several Asian languages. Peterson was a well-behaved child. See
Exh. D (Letter from Dianne Peterson, Peterson's mother) (providing that Peterson was the
"model son" who "did errands and routine chores" and "stayed home on Friday nights to keep
Dorothy or me company").
Peterson reconnected with his father, briefly and unsuccessfully, in 1988. His father died
at age 59 in 1999. Id.
b. Education
Peterson returned to the United States to attend Cornell University and graduated cum
laude in 1992 with a Bachelor of Arts in Economics and Asian Studies. Peterson graduated from
the University of Chicago business school in 1998.
c. Marriage and Family
Peterson and his wife, Aw Sok-Ling married in 1997. They have two children: 0. 9,
and_____ 4.
Case 1:12-cr-00224-JBW Document 19 Filed 08/13/12 Page 15 of 40 PageID #: 228
____ was born just before Morgan Stanley informed Peterson that he was under
investigation. Peterson spent significant time away from M when he was young to cooperate
with the Government in the United States.
Peterson has spent the last several years bonding with his children. His wife considers
this the only "blessing to be counted out of this ordeal." Id. (stating that their daughter "is able
to recite the names of Roman emperors in chronological order thanks to her dad, who spends
time every night with her"). His friends Eunice Ew and Agabus Lee wrote about how Peterson is
"deeply involved in his children's education," teaching his three-year-old son to "read and do
simple math." They also noted that a prison sentence would be a "very significant loss" to his
wife and children. See Exh. E. His niece, Elsa Sanabria, wrote about how Peterson tries to make
his daughter's homework into a fun game and cooks for the family. Exh. F.
Peterson is intimately involved in the lives of his extended family. His nephew, Josh
Sanabria, wrote to the Court about how his life has been "defined by Garth," with Peterson
inspiring him to study abroad and get involved in a community service project in Peru. Peterson
pushed Josh to "study hard and succeed in school" and paid for Josh to study Spanish in Spain
and Mexico and helped to pay for his college tuition. Exh. G. Elsa, his niece, described how she
has seen him "act with kindness and generosity" and how he is "very loved" by his family. Exh.
F. She described how Peterson "paid for [Dorothy's] nursing home for two years so that she
could be near to [Elsa's] family" in California, where they lived at the time. Id. His sister
describes how this assistance "relieved us of the burden of relying on public assistance and
Medicaid." Exh. B. His mother wrote about how he provided care to both her and his
grandfather in 2007 and "made sure [they] were given the best care possible." Exh, D.
Case 1:12-cr-00224-JBW Document 19 Filed 08/13/12 Page 16 of 40 PageID #: 229
Peterson has also been generous with others. As Bryan Southergill wrote, Peterson
helped two friends in China apply to study in the United States and paid their tuition and living
expenses. See Exh. H.
d. Work History
Peterson has worked nearly continuously since graduating from college. See Exh. A
(Letter from Garth Peterson).
In 2002, Peterson joined Morgan Stanley's Hong Kong office as an Associate. Peterson
was instrumental in helping Morgan Stanley grow the Hong Kong office, and, later, in 2006, in
opening the Shanghai office for Morgan Stanley. According to his colleague Henry Young,
"Garth built the Morgan Stanley Shanghai office from scratch and employed over 70 people
within three years, managing 30 real estate projects and USD $2.5 billion of total equity." Exh.
I. From his first year with Morgan Stanley, Peterson brought deals to Morgan Stanley. See Exh.
J (Letter from Jonathan Davis, Peterson's colleague at Morgan Stanley) (explaining that from
2005 to 2008 "[t]he overwhelming majority of [Chinese real estate investments by Morgan
Stanley] were personally sourced and actively guided to closing by Mr. Peterson"). Peterson's
hard work bringing investment banking business to the China office of Morgan Stanley
contributed to the firm receiving the top award by Euromoney at Euromoney's 2006 Real Estate
Awards for "Investment Management in China." 3 Bryan Southergill, who worked at Morgan
Stanley with Peterson, explained that Peterson "helped put Morgan Stanley on the map in terms
of the property developer IPO space." Exh. H. Southergill listed a number of companies that
Peterson was able to persuade to do initial public offerings with Morgan Stanley. Id. Based on
his successes, he was promoted to Vice President after two years. He was promoted the next
Reference to this award is made on Morgan Stanley's website at: http://www.morganstanley.comlaboutlawards/articies/5656 1 ee6-ef4 i-il dd-a44f-ebeaI225e6f5 html.
10
Case 1:12-cr-00224-JBW Document 19 Filed 08/13/12 Page 17 of 40 PageID #: 230
year to Executive Director. Two years later, he was promoted to Managing Director. Overall, he
brought in about nineteen deals during his six years at Morgan Stanley. Many of these deals
have not been sold so the profits to Morgan Stanley cannot be accurately estimated at this point.
The amount of capital that Morgan Stanley put into Peterson-managed deals over $2 billion
speaks to the company's reliance on him as a source for business. Exh. I (Letter from Henry
Young). Bryan Southergill, who worked at Morgan Stanley with Peterson, wrote that "Peterson
introduced good partners and investment opportunities to Morgan Stanley and made many
successful investments that made Morgan Stanley arid Morgan Stanley's real estate funds
investors an incredible amount of money." Exh. H. Southergill describes Peterson's
contribution to the Morgan Stanley business as helping "build Morgan Stanley's real estate
business in China from nothing to a huge success." Id.; see also Exh. K (Letter from John C.
Portman III) ("Garth had significant achievements as a real estate investor and banker in China.
It is reasonably common knowledge in the China real estate market that in the space of just a few
years Peterson was instrumental in evolving Morgan Stanley from somewhat of a non-player in
this market into the leading banker for Chinese real estate firms, as well as the leading foreign
real estate investor in China.")
e. Alcoholism and Depression
Peterson is genetically predisposed to alcoholism. Although he had not previously
exhibited signs of alcoholism, when he joined Morgan Stanley, he started to abuse alcohol,
drinking with his team and when entertaining clients. See Exh. C (Letter from Aw Sok-Ling)
("It was during our move to Shanghai in 2006 with our daughter Ning, that I beg[a]n to see
drastic changes in Garth, . Garth's drinking slowly became a huge problem. . .
When he was fired by Morgan Stanley in 2008, his drinking got worse. He has been
severely depressed because of his termination and the instant investigation. He was treated for
11
Case 1:12-cr-00224-JBW Document 19 Filed 08/13/12 Page 18 of 40 PageID #: 231
alcohol abuse at an in-patient substance abuse treatment program in 2009 in Long Island. Later
in 2009, he was treated for alcoholism again in a Massachusetts hospital and attended several
mental health counseling sessions in early 2010.
More recently, consistent with his effort to take responsibility for his actions and
rehabilitate himself, he has made significant strides to stop drinking. See Exh. C (Letter from
Aw Sok-Ling) ("In the last year and a half, Garth has made significant progress. We have come
to know God, and attend church regularly and that has helped us cope."). Of course, alcoholism
is a lifelong battle, and he continues to need support to stay sober
Discussion
As discussed more below, there are a number of factors that we believe support our
request for a probationary sentence for Peterson.
Incarceration in the United States will be especially hard on Peterson and his family.
Peterson's family lives in Singapore, and his young children will be separated from him during
any period of incarceration. They simply do not have the financial means to come to the United
States to visit him. It is virtually certain that he will not see his wife or children during any
period of incarceration. Of course, any period that Peterson is out of the work force will
exacerbate that already devastating effect of the financial circumstances and uncertain future he
and his family now face.
Further, Peterson's acceptance of responsibility for his offense and his expressions of
remorse are well beyond the normal. He came from overseas to cooperate with the
Government's investigation and ultimately waived his trial rights to plead guilty. He has lived a
law-abiding life since the investigation into his conduct began. Peterson is over forty and
unlikely to reoffend. Peterson is a recovering alcoholic and has made significant steps towards
12
Case 1:12-cr-00224-JBW Document 19 Filed 08/13/12 Page 19 of 40 PageID #: 232
rehabilitation. Peterson's actions are mitigated when viewed in the proper cultural context, as
discussed below.
Moreover, Peterson has already suffered severe punishment for his offense in a number
of ways, including having his financial security eviscerated, being barred from work in his
profession, becoming nearly unemployable, and spending the last three-plus years waiting for
resolution of this matter. Based on the Section 3553(a) factors, 4 we respectfully submit that a
sentence without incarceration is most appropriate and would best serve the interests of justice.
4. The Section 3553(a) Factors Militate in Favor of a Below Guideline Sentence
As indicated in Peterson's plea agreement, the Government has agreed that the guidelines
range that applies to Peterson's conduct is 51 to 63 months, and that the maximum for this
offense is 60 months, effectively making the sentencing range 51 to 60 months. The guideline
range is advisory, and the Court is also obligated to consider the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. §
3553(a) in order to craft an appropriate sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 49-50
(2007) (explaining that the court must "consider all of the § 3553(a) factors to determine whether
they support the sentence requested by a party" and the court "may not presume that the
Guidelines range is reasonable"); Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 381 (2007) (Stevens, J.,
concurring) (noting that post-Booker "sentencing courts [are] obligated to consider the various
factors delineated in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) . including the now-advisory Guidelines range')
Section 3 553(a) requires that the Court impose a sentence "sufficient, but not greater than
These factors are: "(1) the nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and characteristics of the defendant; (2) the need for the sentence imposed— (A) to reflect the seriousness of the offense, to promote respect for the law, and to provide just punishment for the offense; (B) to afford adequate deterrence to criminal conduct; (C) to protect the public from further crimes of the defendant; and (D) to provide the defendant with needed educational or vocational training, medical care, or other correctional treatment in the most effective manner; (3) the kinds of sentences available; (4) the kinds of sentence and the sentencing range established for— (A) the applicable category of offense committed by the applicable category of defendant as set forth in the [Sentencing Guidelines] . . . ; (5) any pertinent policy statement [in the Sentencing Guidelines]; (6) the need to avoid unwarranted sentence disparities among defendants with similar records who have been found guilty of similar conduct; and (7) the need to provide restitution to any victims of the offense." 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).
13
Case 1:12-cr-00224-JBW Document 19 Filed 08/13/12 Page 20 of 40 PageID #: 233
necessary," to comply with the purposes set forth in that section. See United States v. Cull, 446
F. Supp. 2d 961, 963 (E.D. Wis. 2006) (describing the "sufficient, but not greater than
necessary" clause in § 3553(a) as the "parsimony provision, which requires the court to impose
the least severe sentence necessary to satisfy the four purposes of sentencing punishment,
deterrence, protection of the public and rehabilitation"); see also United States v. Menyweather,
447 F.3d 625 (9th Cir. 2005) (upholding an eight-level departure for embezzlement of $500,000
in light of broader, post-Booker discretion to weigh a multitude of factors previously deemed
"not ordinarily relevant")
a. The Nature and Circumstances of the Offense and the Characteristics of the Defendant
Section 3553(a)(1) instructs courts to consider the "nature and circumstances of the
offense and the history and characteristics of the defendant" when crafting a sentence. We ask
the Court to consider the below factors under Section 3553(a)(1).
i. Peterson's Need to Be in Singapore to Raise His Children
Peterson has a close relationship with his two children. He cares for them, and spends
time teaching them everyday. The longer he is imprisoned, the more he will miss of their early
development. Peterson's mother wrote, "I cannot imagine the trauma these children would
endure if he were absent from their lives for an extended period." Exh. D. Peterson did not have
a father figure as a child, and suffered for it. His children should not have to suffer the same
consequence. Peterson's imprisonment will be a particular burden on his relationship with his
children since they live abroad. They likely will not be able to afford to visit him even once
while he is in jail, given the distance and his family's lack of income while he is in jail. It will be
difficult for them to even talk by phone, since Singapore's time zone is twelve hours different
14
Case 1:12-cr-00224-JBW Document 19 Filed 08/13/12 Page 21 of 40 PageID #: 234
from the East Coast of the United States. Also, prisoners can only make collect phone calls, and
collect phone calls to Singapore will be prohibitively expensive.
The brunt of this burden will be born by Peterson's innocent children. Children of
incarcerated parents suffer emotional and psychological effects during the period of
incarceration, See Children of Incarcerated Parents Project, Report to the Oregon Legislature on
Senate Bill 133, at 1 (2002) .
5 Indeed, children who are able to visit their parents in prison during
the time of imprisomrnent fare better than those who cannot. See Kathleen Z. Russell, et al.,
Children of Incarcerated Parents 11 (2006).6 Unfortunately, that option is not realistically
available to Peterson's children.
Children typically exhibit behavioral problems while a parent is incarcerated. See Ross
D. Parke & K. Alison Clarke-Stewart, Effects of Parental Incarceration on Young Children
(2001) ("[O]ver 50% of the children of incarcerated parents had school problems, such as poor
grades or instances of aggression. . .
See Exh. C. Parke and
Clarke-Stewart also note that an "important determinant of children's adjustment to their parent
being in prison is regular contact with the incarcerated parent." Ross D. Parke & K. Alison
Clarke-Stewart, Effects of Parental Incarceration on Young Children. Parke and Clarke-Stewart
suggest house arrest as a possible solution to the harm associated with incarcerated parents.
The impact of parental incarceration is long-term and severe children whose parents
are incarcerated are seven times more likely to go to prison themselves. Russell, et al., Children
of Incarcerated Parents, at 12; see also The Sentencing Project, incarceration and Crime: A
This publication is available at: ht://wwwore2ongov/DOC/PUBAFF/d df/legLe2ort bill I 31pdf?ga=t. This publication is available at: //www+dshs.wa.gov/idf'main/Iegrep/LegO7O6/IncarParO6O6.pdf.
' This publication is available at: http://aspe.hhs.govihsp/prison2horneO2/parke-stewart.htm.
15
Case 1:12-cr-00224-JBW Document 19 Filed 08/13/12 Page 22 of 40 PageID #: 235
Complex Relationship 7 (2005) (noting that the "persistent removal of persons from the
community to prison.. . has a destabilizing effect that has been demonstrated to fray family and
community bonds" particularly when "prisoners are ... incarcerated in facilities hundreds of
miles from their homes"). 8
Although family circumstances are a discouraged factor under the sentencing guidelines, 9
courts may consider them post-Booker. See United States v. Aitoro, 446 F.3d 246, 255 n.9 (1st
Cir. 2006); Menyweather, 447 F.3d at 634 ("[A]fter Booker, courts can justify consideration of
family responsibilities, an aspect of the defendant's history and characteristics, 18 U.S.C. §
3553(a)(1). . . . District courts now have the discretion to weigh a multitude of mitigating and
aggravating factors that existed at the time of mandatory Guidelines sentencing, but were
deemed not ordinarily relevant, such as. . . family ties and responsibilities." (ellipses, footnotes,
and quotation marks omitted)). Such consideration is called for here because Peterson's family
circumstances are extraordinary: a near total absence of communication will occur between him
and his young children.
Post-Booker, courts regularly consider defendants' family circumstances when setting an
appropriate sentence under Section 3553(a). See, e.g., United States v. Munoz-Nava, 524 F.3d
11 37, 1141 (10th Cir. 2008) (affirming below-guidelines sentence of a year and a day which was
based in part on the fact that the defendant raised his eight-year-old son as a single father and
cared for his elderly parents who had serious medical problems); United States v. Husein, 478
F.3d 318, 330 (6th Or. 2007) (affirming a one-day sentence, below the 37- to 46-month
guidelines range, which was based in part on the defendant's need to care for her ailing father);
8 This publication is available at: http://www.sentencingproject.org/doc.ipublications/inc iandc eompex.pdf. See U.S.S.G. § 5H1 .6 ("[Fjamily ties and responsibilities are not ordinarily relevant in determining whether a
departure may be warranted."); Koon v. United States, 518 U.S. 81,95 (1996) ("Discouraged factors... are those not ordinarily relevant to the determination of whether a sentence should be outside the applicable guideline range." (quotation marks omitted)).
16
Case 1:12-cr-00224-JBW Document 19 Filed 08/13/12 Page 23 of 40 PageID #: 236
United States v. Anderson, 267 F. App'x 847, 850 (11th Cir. 2008) (per curiam) (unpublished
opinion) (affirming sentence of home confinement and probation, below the guidelines range of
18 to 24 months, for an over-SO-year-old defendant who supported his college-aged children,
who lost his high-paying job, and also relocated to find employment). This Court has also taken
a defendant's family circumstances into account when sentencing under Section 3553(a). See
United States v. Marsh, 820 F. Supp. 2d 320, 350-5 1 (E.D.N.Y. 2011) (sentencing defendant to a
non-guidelines sentence of three months imprisonment to avoid having a young son have two
incarcerated parents).
We ask that the Court consider this factor when sentencing Peterson and when setting the
terms of any supervised release term that the Court deems appropriate. We discuss the
supervised release issue further below.
ii. Peterson's Need to Provide Sutmort to His Famil
Prior to the termination of his employment at Morgan Stanley, Peterson supported his
wife and children, his mother and stepfather, and provided some support to his sister. Although
Peterson has been out of work for several years, his family has continued to pay living expenses
from the money that he saved while he was working. Those savings, particularly after his
settlement with the SEC, are almost gone. At the same time, his wife has not worked outside the
home, and is not well equipped to start working now, with two small children at home.
Peterson's absence from the workforce for these last few years has been a significant strain on
his family, and the longer that he is imprisoned, the harder the burden will be.
Of course, Peterson cannot return to the workforce while he is incarcerated or detained in
the United States. As Jeremy Tarrier wrote in his letter to the Court, Peterson has been working
on a plan for providing for his family as soon as he has completed whatever sentence the Court
issues to him. Tarrier explained that Peterson has expressed a vision of opening a series of
17
Case 1:12-cr-00224-JBW Document 19 Filed 08/13/12 Page 24 of 40 PageID #: 237
restaurants in Singapore with Southern Californian cuisine. See Exh. L (Letter from Jeremy
Tarrier, Tarrier wrote that he is
considering a "joint venture" with Peterson to fulfill Peterson's vision. Id.
This Court regularly recognizes the importance of allowing defendants to provide for
their families when crafting sentences. See, e.g., United States v. Aristizabal, No. 07-CR-101-
01, 2007 WL 4555900, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 20, 2007) (imposing a "below-guidelines sentence.
because the defendant has a good relationship with his wife and children and he has been
trying to support them"). Other courts have considered this same factor. See, United States
v. Ranum, 353 F. Supp. 2d 984, 990-91 (E.D. Wis. 2005) (considering that "defendant's absence
would have a profoundly adverse impact on both his children and his parents" when sentencing
the defendant to a below guidelines sentence).
iii. Cooperation
Peterson made substantial efforts to assist the Government in its investigation.
Specifically, Peterson, a target in the investigation, reached out to the Government to offer his
cooperation, traveled to the United States from his home to Singapore to participate in four
proffer sessions, provided documents to the Government, including documents that he obtained
at the Government's request from third-parties, and answered many rounds of questions about
those documents from the SEC, signed tolling agreements with both the Government and SEC,
and voluntarily surrendered himself from abroad.
His cooperation with the investigation into his conduct is appropriate for the Court to
consider during sentencing. Cooperation, even in the absence of a motion made by the
Government pursuant to Section 5K of the Sentencing Guidelines, is a beneficial part of a
defendant's history and character supporting a non-guideline sentence. See United States v.
Fernandez, 443 F.3d 19, 33 (2d Cir. 2006) ("We agree that in formulating a reasonable sentence
Case 1:12-cr-00224-JBW Document 19 Filed 08/13/12 Page 25 of 40 PageID #: 238
a sentencing judge.. . should take under advisement. . . the contention that a defendant made
efforts to cooperate, even if those efforts did not yield a Government motion for a downward
departure pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1 .. . ."); United States v. Lazenby, 439 F.3d 928, 933-34
(8th Cir. 2006) (remanding for resentencing where the district court, among other things, failed
to consider the defendant's cooperation with the government in the absence of a Section 5K
motion); United States v. Ochoa-Ramos, No. 07-CR-102, 2008 WL 2062341, at *3 (E.D. Wis.
2008) (considering defendant's cooperation with the government as evidence of defendant's
positive character and acceptance of responsibility under Section 3553(a) beyond [an acceptance
of responsibility] reduction under Section 3E1.1, in the absence of a Section 5K motion from the
prosecution).
iv. Alcoholism
Peterson struggled with alcoholism during the time that he committed the offense. While
he was in the United States cooperating with the Government, he sought treatment for his alcohol
dependence. Since returning to Singapore, he no longer abuses alcohol. He has turned his life
around in order to maximize his time with his young children.
Although alcohol dependence is a discouraged factor for a downward departure under the
Sentencing Guidelines, U.S.S.G. § 5H1 .4, § 5K2.0(d)(1), the Court has an obligation to consider
"the nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and characteristics of defendant"
under Section 3553(a), a requirement which is in tension with the Guidelines prohibition on
considering alcohol dependence. This tension was recognized in United States v. Garcia, 497
F.3d 964, 971 (9th Cir, 2007). In Garcia, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit explained
that "[j]ust because a consideration was improper under the mandatory Guidelines regime does
not mean that it is necessarily improper under the advisory Guidelines regime." The Court
concluded that "district courts are not prohibited in all circumstances from considering a
Case 1:12-cr-00224-JBW Document 19 Filed 08/13/12 Page 26 of 40 PageID #: 239
defendant's drug addiction in choosing a reasonable sentence." Id.; see also United States v.
Matheny, 450 F.3d 633, 641 (6th Cir. 2006) (approving tacitly the sentencing court's statement
"that it considered, pursuant to § 3553(a)(1), the fact that Matheny had his drug addiction since
childhood").
This Court has recognized that a defendant who has struggled with alcohol dependence
and who rehabilitates himself is worthy of sentencing consideration. See, e.g., United States v.
Lehner, No. 09-CR-72, 2010 WL 2521438, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. June 7, 2010) (sentencing defendant
to a below-guidelines sentence and acknowledging defendant's "apparent post-arrest
rehabilitation" from alcohol abuse). We ask that the Court consider Peterson's efforts to
rehabilitate himself in sentencing.
V. Cultural Context
Peterson committed an FCPA offense without stepping foot in the United States while
working for a Chinese subsidiary of a United States company. Peterson's tenuous connection
with the United States, despite being a United States citizen, makes this case very unusual and
makes Chinese cultural considerations relevant.
Peterson admitted at his plea hearing that he helped the Chinese Official to invest
personally in a Morgan Stanley investment at a beneficial price and that by misleading Morgan
Stanley about this fact with another person, he conspired to violate the FCPA. The Chinese
Official was a close friend of Peterson's —in many ways a father figure to him and Peterson
helped him in order to repay the help that the Chinese Official had given him through his career.
This type of favor is called 'guanxi" in China, a term that describes the exchange of gifts or
favors in a professional setting. Guanxi is the traditional way that business relationships are
20
Case 1:12-cr-00224-JBW Document 19 Filed 08/13/12 Page 27 of 40 PageID #: 240
developed in China. See Gregory M. Lipper, Foreign Copt Practices Act and the Elusive
Question of Intent, 47 Am. Crim. L. Rev. 1463, 1485 (2010). The article explains that
different cultures have different understandings of what constitutes a gift as opposed to a corrupting bribe. To take one example, in China the exchange of gifts, favors, and banquets is critical to the development of relationships (or connections) known as guanxi. These connections are considered to be the single most important factor for success in China.
Id. (internal quotations and emphasis omitted). Another article explains that
[w]ithout guanxi, accomplishing anything in China is virtually impossible. . To develop guanxi the Chinese reciprocate giving gifts and doing favors. . . The reciprocity and mutual obligation aspects of guanxi increase the chances that a Chinese subsidiary will commit FCPA violations.
Nicole Y. Hines, Cultural Due Diligence: The Lost Diligence that Must be Found by U.S.
Corporations Conducting M&A Deals in China to Prevent Foreign Corrupt Practices Act
Violations, 9 Duq. Bus. L.J. 19, 56, 59 (2007).
Peterson has spent much of his life living in Asia. He learned Asian cultural traditions,
and they are as familiar, if not more familiar to him, than United States cultural traditions. His
childhood friend Pat Bollom wrote about Peterson's "inexperience with the United States" and
his lack of familiarity with U.S. "culture, expectations, and walks of'U.S. life." Exh. M.
Bollom wrote that Peterson "seemed to fit in better on the other side of the Pacific" and "thinks
more like an Asian than an American." Id.
As part of Peterson's Asian cultural understanding, he learned the Chinese business
culture of gift giving, or guanxi. See also Exh. C (Letter from Aw Sok-Ling, Peterson's wife)
("In China's business culture, having 'guanxi' (having contacts and influence) is of paramount
importance to getting things done."). John Portman, the Vice Chairman of a real estate company
with offices in Shanghai, echoed this contextual understanding of the Chinese business
environment in his letter to the Court. Portman described the "atmosphere" in China during the
21
Case 1:12-cr-00224-JBW Document 19 Filed 08/13/12 Page 28 of 40 PageID #: 241
time that Peterson worked at Morgan Stanley by saying that doing business "in China was in its
infancy stages, rules were few, enforcement was ambiguous and indecisive. The American
values of right and wrong, were, and are not practiced in China in the same manner as in
America." Exh. K.
In the context of illegal reentry cases, courts have recognized the relevance of cultural
context to sentencing considerations. In those cases, courts have held that "[c]ultural
assimilation may. . . be relevant to the character of a defendant. . . insofar as [the defendant's]
culpability might be lessened if [the defendant's] motives were familial or cultural rather than
economic." United States v. Todd, 618 F. Supp. 2d 1349, 1353-54 (M.D. Ala. 2009) (citing to
United States v. Lipman, 133 F.3d 726, 731 (9th Cir. 1998) (holding that "a sentencing court
may depart on the basis of cultural assimilation if it finds that the defendant's circumstances
remove his case from the heartland of cases governed by the relevant individual guidelines and
the Guidelines as a whole")). Though Peterson's motivations were partially economic, his
motivation for including the Chinese Official in the transaction was also cultural. Peterson felt
that it was a normal and expected part of doing business in China to trade favors with business
partners.
In addition to helping the Chinese Official to invest personally in a Morgan Stanley
investment at a beneficial price, Peterson also conspired to violate the FCPA by misleading
Morgan Stanley about the fact that he invested his mother's money in Asiasphere. Peterson was
frustrated that he had been forced to liquidate the investment he had made for his mother and
acted in part as a misguided self-help remedy, that is, secretly buying back into Project Cavity at
the same price at which he was forced to sell in order to restore his mother's investment in Site
#9.
22
Case 1:12-cr-00224-JBW Document 19 Filed 08/13/12 Page 29 of 40 PageID #: 242
Courts consider defendants' motives when setting the appropriate sentence under Section
3553(a). Ranum, 35' ) F. Supp. 2d at 990 (holding that the "defendant's culpability was mitigated
in that he did not act for personal gain or for improper personal gain of another"); accord United
States v. Peralta-Espinoza, 383 F. Supp. 2d 1107, 1112 (E.D. Wis. 2005) ("Motive is a relevant
sentencing consideration."). We ask the Court to consider Peterson's motives and the cultural
context of Peterson's crime when sentencing him.
b. Section 3553(a) (2) Factors
Next, Section 3553(a)(2) instructs the sentencing court to consider the need for the
sentence imposed to reflect the seriousness of the offense, to promote respect for the law, and to
provide just punishment for the offense; to afford adequate deterrence to criminal conduct; to
protect the public from further crimes of the defendant; and to provide the defendant with needed
educational or vocational training, medical care, or other correctional treatment in the most
effective manner. We contend that all of these factors have been and can be satisfied with a
below-guidelines sentence. As addressed below, there is a low risk that Peterson will commit
another crime. We believe that given the punishment that he has already endured, a non-
incarceratory sentence will both provide just punishment for the offense, and afford adequate
deterrence to others who contemplate committing similar conduct.
Punishment Peterson Has Suffered
Peterson has already suffered greatly as a result of his conduct in this matter.
He has suffered enormously financially. He lost his job at Morgan Stanley, his benefits,
his cash bonus for 2008 - which would have been, conservatively, around $500,000 for 2008
alone and his investment bonus, which he was told was worth several million dollars in 2007.
He settled with the SEC and forfeited $241,589 and the interest in the Cavity investment (which
is worth approximately $2.5 million), leaving him with
23
Case 1:12-cr-00224-JBW Document 19 Filed 08/13/12 Page 30 of 40 PageID #: 243
and a wife and two children to support. See Exh. C (Letter
from Aw Sok-Ling) (stating that "there hasn't been any income for more than three years. Bit by
bit, we have down-scaled our expenses" and describing how they are sending their children to
public school, eliminating private after-school activities, and how his wife is contemplating
moving in with her sister). In addition, in connection with his settlement with the SEC, Peterson
agreed to be barred from associating with financial organizations regulated by the SEC. This
Court has recognized that it is punishment to be barred from work in your chosen profession.
United States v. Mack, No. 08-CR-806, 2010 WL 3282648, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 18, 2010)
('Specific deterrence is achieved through the impact of this conviction on the defendant's
employability, and specifically her inability in the future to pursue work in her chosen profession
in the field of corrections."). His settlement with the SEC also requires him to cooperate with
the receiver who was appointed to liquidate his mother's interest in Cavity.
Moreover, Peterson has been virtually unemployable. He has been unemployed for
nearly four years as he has awaited the disposition in this matter. John C. Portman, the Vice
Chairman of a real estate company in Shanghai, explained in his letter that he was interested in
Peterson working for him but he could not hire him while "a legal cloud hung over his head."
Exh. K. His future prospects are uncertain, though they are better the faster he can return to the
working world. At the current moment, John Poriman's company, has
expressed interest in hiring Peterson, and Jeremy Tarrier has expressed interest in opening
restaurants in Singapore with Peterson, See Exhs. K & L,
Any prison term will have a long term impact on Peterson's life. "[T]he impact of a
felony conviction may last a lifetime, and even a short period of incarceration has been shown to
affect people's earnings and ability to get a job, to be parents, and to become productive parts of
24
Case 1:12-cr-00224-JBW Document 19 Filed 08/13/12 Page 31 of 40 PageID #: 244
their communities." Doug McVay, Vincent Schiraldi, & Jason Ziedenberg, Justice Policy
Institute, Treatment or Incarceration: National and State Findings on the Efficacy of Cost
Savings of Drug Treatment Versus Imprisonment 3 (2004) 10
Since November 2008, when he admitted to Morgan Stanley attorneys that he had
violated Morgan Stanley rules, he has been living his life on pause, waiting for the disposition of
any investigation against him. He also spent a considerable time away from his family in the
United States in an effort to assist the Government's investigation. Though technically free at
that time, his desire to cooperate with the government required that he remain away from his
family. Peterson made clear to the Government that he was anxious to put this chapter of his life
behind him so that he can move on.
Over the nearly four years that have elapsed since he was fired from Morgan Stanley, he
has been technically free, but he has been in a state of constant waiting, not knowing how his
case would be resolved. Indeed, the stress of the investigation, led him to "attempt to jump from
the balcony" of his apartment in Singapore in March 2009 and his wife grabbed his legs before
he went over, while holding their baby son. Exh. C (Letter from Aw Sok-Ling); see also Exh. M
(Letter from Pat Bollom) ("During this time, he. . . re-lived his mistakes again and again.");
Exh. E (Letter from Eunice Ew and Agabus Lee) ("In my experience as a therapist, I see families
struggling with difficult times and this is one of the worst I have seen."). During this period, he
has been unable to find ajob that he could commit to, knowing that he may have to serve a
prison sentence in the United States. For the entire time, he expected that his case would be
concluded shortly. The waiting has been extremely stressful and draining for both Peterson and
his family. The stress a defendant suffers as a result of prosecution can be a factor considered in
'° This publication is available at: huitp://wwwiusticepolicy.orc/iniages/upload/04- 01 REP viDTreatrne.ntorincarcerationAC-DP.pdf.
25
Case 1:12-cr-00224-JBW Document 19 Filed 08/13/12 Page 32 of 40 PageID #: 245
sentencing. For example, the court in United States v. Gardellini, 545 F.3d 1089, 1091, 1095
(D.C. Cir. 2008), considered whether the district court's sentence of probation was unreasonable
under Booker. The D.C. Circuit affirmed the probationary sentence finding that it was not an
abuse of discretion to sentence a defendant to probation where the defendant had cooperated with
authorities, accepted responsibility for his crimes, and "suffered substantially due to his
prosecution" as shown by the fact that he was "treated for depression due to the stress of the
investigation." Id. (internal quotations omitted).
It is appropriate for the Court to to how Peterson has already been punished. See
United States. v. Samaras, 390 RSupp. 2d 805, 809 (E.D. Wis. 2005) (noting that where
defendant was convicted of fraud, a below-guideline sentence was warranted in part because "as
a consequence of his conviction and sentence, defendant lost a good public sector job, another
factor not considered by the guidelines"); Ranum, 353 F. Supp. 2d at 991 (sentencing defendant
to a below-guidelines sentence where "defendant's conviction had significant collateral effects on
him" including being "unable to work in banking again"); United States v. Redemann, 295 F.
Supp. 2d 887, 894-97 (ED. Wis. 2003) (sentencing defendant to a below-guidelines sentence
where defendant suffered collateral consequences from conduct including loss of his business
and payment of fines in related civil enforcement action and agreement to relevant bars).
We ask that the Court sentence Peterson to probation in recognition of the fact that he has
already been punished for his crime.
ii. Low Probability of Recidivism
Peterson's circumstances, including his age and absence of prior criminal history,
indicate a low probability of recidivism.
Peterson is 43 years old. Courts have recognized that the risk of reoffending goes down
for older defendants. Accordingly, courts have imposed below-guidelines sentences for
26
Case 1:12-cr-00224-JBW Document 19 Filed 08/13/12 Page 33 of 40 PageID #: 246
defendants over forty. See, e.g., United States v. Hernandez, No. 03 CR. 1257, 2005 WL
1242344, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. May 24, 2005) (imposing below-guidelines sentencing on a 48-year-
old defendant in part on the grounds that there was a low probability that he would recidivate
given his age); United States v. Carmona-Rodriguez, No. 04 CR 667, 2005 WL 840464, at *4
(S.D.N.Y. Apr. ii, 2005) (imposing a below-guidelines sentence on a 55-year-old defendant,
recognizing her low risk of reoffending, and noting that "[t]wo recent courts have declined to
impose Guidelines sentences on defendants who, like Carrnona-Rodriguez, were over the age of
forty on the grounds that such defendants exhibit markedly lower rates of recidivism in
comparison to younger defendants" (citing Simon v. United States, 361 F. Supp. 2d 35, 40
(E.D.N.Y. 2005) (recognizing that recidivism decreases with age and is not accounted for in the
Sentencing Guidelines) and United States v. Nellum, No. 2:04-CR-30, 2005 WL 300073, at *3
(N.D. Ind. Feb. 3, 2005) (same))). It is well settled that recidivism decreases with age. Indeed,
the United States Sentencing Commission published a report on recidivism and aging, and found
that for defendants in Criminal History Category I, as Peterson is, the recidivism rate for
defendants who are between the ages of 41 and 50 is 6.9%. In contrast, the recidivism rate for
defendants in Criminal History Category I who are under 21 is 29.5%. See United States
Sentencing Commission, Measuring Recidivism: The Criminal History Computation of the
Federal Sentencing Guidelines 28 (2004).11 We ask that the Court consider this factor in
sentencing.
In addition, Peterson falls within a criminal history category I, and has never spent any
time in jail before. Indeed, he has never been arrested. His crime was anomalous with
Peterson's otherwise law-abiding life, a factor this Court has considered. See United States v.
This publication is available at: http://www.ussc.oviResearchIResearch Publications/Recidivism/200405 Recidivism Criminal Histopf.
27
Case 1:12-cr-00224-JBW Document 19 Filed 08/13/12 Page 34 of 40 PageID #: 247
Rowe, No. 10-CR-607, 2011 WL 6019010, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 29, 2011) (sentencing
defendant to time served and five years of supervised release, where the guidelines range was 70-
87 months, because the crime was "out-of-character with the defendant's prior law-abiding
life"). Moreover, courts regularly consider the fact that a defendant is a first-time offender when
deciding the appropriate sentence as considering this factor is consistent with Section 3553(a)'s
directive to consider "just punishment" and "adequate deterrence," § 3553(a)(2)(A) & (B). See
Cull, 446 F. Supp. 2d at 965-67 (imposing non-guideline sentence of 2 months in jail and 4
months home confinement, where advisory range was 10-16 months, for marijuana offense by
defendant who had never been confined, was sufficient to impress on him the seriousness of his
crime and deter others from offending); ç United States v. Qualls, 373 F. Supp. 2d 873, 877
(E.D. Wis. 2005) (noting that a shorter prison term is sufficient to deter someone who has not
been subject to prior lengthy incarceration). We ask that the Court consider the fact that
Peterson is a first-time offender and sentence him to a below-guidelines sentence.
c. The Kinds of Sentences Available
Under Section 3553(a)(3), the court is directed to consider the types of sentences
available.
Significantly, here home confinement appears not, as a practical matter, to be available in
this case because Peterson's home is in Singapore. Probation in Singapore appears to be
available. In any event, we ask the Court to recognize the unusual harshness of requiring
Peterson to serve a sentence in the United States and, accordingly, to fashion a sentence that
Peterson can serve in Singapore. See Gardellini, 545 F.3d at 1091 (affirming sentence of
probation to be served in Belgium where defendant lived with his wife and child) .12
12 If the Court sentences him to less than a year in prison, we ask the Court to recommend that he be placed at the Salvation Army Community Corrections Center in Asheville, NC, a halfway house less than a half hour from his
W.
Case 1:12-cr-00224-JBW Document 19 Filed 08/13/12 Page 35 of 40 PageID #: 248
The court may, but is not required to, order the defendant serve a term of supervised
release up to three years longt3 after any term of imprisonment that is ordered. 14 We ask that the
Court not impose a term of supervised release if it chooses to impose a term of imprisonment
under the unique facts of this case in which the defendant's family lives abroad and he has no
intention of working in the United States after he completes whatever term of imprisonment the
Court orders.
In the alternative, if the Court chooses to impose a term of supervised release after the
defendant's term of imprisonment, we ask that the Court set the conditions of the supervised
release so that Peterson serve it in Singapore. His wife and children live in Singapore. He
intends to work in Singapore whenever he is allowed to return. He has limited contacts in the
United States.
The Court has the authority, if it chooses to set a term of supervised release, to set the
conditions so that Peterson could return to Singapore to live with his family when he completes
whatever term of imprisonment is imposed. Section 3583(d) provides certain conditions that
must be included in a term of supervised release. None of the mandatory conditions of a term of
supervised release under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(d) require the defendant to be in the United States.
sister's house. If the Court sentences him to more than a year in prison, we ask the Court to recommend that he be designated to the minimum security camp in Edgefield, SC, which is approximately two and a half hours from his sister's house.
Section 3583(b) authorizes the maximum length of supervised release depending on the class of felony that the defendant was convicted of. Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3559(a)(4), Peterson's offense is a Class D felony because up to a five-year sentence is authorized. Under Section 3583(b)(2), the Court is authorized to impose up to three years of supervised release after Peterson is released from prison.
14 Under Section 3583(a) of Title 18, the court "may" impose a term of supervised release, unless supervised release is mandated by statute, in which case supervised release must be ordered. The FCPA does not mandate supervised release. Under the sentencing guidelines, U.S.S.O. § 5D1 .1 calls for a term of supervised release in the case of any prison sentence over a year. This directive is only applicable if the Court chooses to sentence Peterson to more than a year in prison. Moreover, this directive, like the rest of the guidelines, is merely advisory. See United States Sentencing Commission, Federal Offenders Sentenced to Supervised Release, 51 & 5-6 n.19-22 (2010) (discussing the narrow list of crimes, not relevant here, that require mandatory supervised release).
29
Case 1:12-cr-00224-JBW Document 19 Filed 08/13/12 Page 36 of 40 PageID #: 249
We therefore ask that the Court permit Peterson to serve any term of supervised release in
Singapore, and to set the conditions of any term of supervised release accordingly.
Several cases confirm our view that the Court has authority to allow a defendant to serve
a term of supervised release in another country. Indeed, this Court has ordered that supervised
release be served in a different country. See United States v. Delgado, 994 F. Supp. 143, 146
(E.D.N.Y. 1998) (holding that "[s]ince defendant will be deported, the five year period of
supervised release need not be served in this country"). Other courts have come to the same
TT 1 C fl 1 11 (+1 C'. 1 flfl')\ u1,-1,1 that the law conclusion. uuwu tates v. rugiiese, 960 F.2d 913, yv .
provides "no direct impediment to authorizing a person on supervised release to leave the United
States, if the supervision the judge believes is necessary can be enforced abroad")
It is clear that the Court has - and has previously exercised - the authority to set
conditions of supervised release to allow a defendant to live abroad during supervised release.
This case presents the appropriate factors for the Court to choose to exercise its discretion in this
way. Accordingly, we ask the Court to either decline to order a term of supervised release, or to
set the conditions of the supervised release term such that Peterson can serve it in Singapore with
his family.
d. The Sentencing Range in Guidelines
The Court is directed by Section 3553(a) (4) to consider the sentencing range under the
Sentencing Guidelines. The Government has calculated Peterson's Sentencing Guidelines range
to be 51 to 63 months, capped at 60 months, based on a total offense level of 24. Eighteen points
of the offense level are driven by the loss calculation. 15 The amount of the loss drives the
guidelines range.
15 We agree with the Government that the loss is properly calculated as between $2.5 million and $7 million under the directives in the sentencing guidelines.
30
Case 1:12-cr-00224-JBW Document 19 Filed 08/13/12 Page 37 of 40 PageID #: 250
The agreed upon loss amount here is based on the amount of money Morgan Stanley
would have made on the portion of the Cavity investment that it sold to Asiasphere had it
retained that portion of the Cavity investment. But Morgan Stanley was willing to sell a portion
of the Cavity investment. It just was willing to sell it to a different party than it sold to. By
selling to the wrong party, Morgan Stanley was not robbed of the asset in the traditional way.
The loss amount is based on a market calculation done in 2010. The amount of loss
depends on the overall market for real estate in China, and thus reflects a degree of arbitrariness.
(C r T T See Smirlock v. United States, No. 04 CV 9670, 2005 WL 975875 JJ.1N.1. Apr. 25, 2005)
(noting that during sentencing the court considered the fact that "the amount of loss that actually
winds up resulting from a person's conduct can be arbitrary and can result from any number of
factors in the market, and may not reflect with precision the seriousness of misconduct" (ellipsis
and internal quotation marks omitted)). If the market for real estate in China had moved in the
opposite direction, and the asset had decreased in value, Morgan Stanley's sale to Asiasphere
would have shielded it from losing money. The Sentencing Guidelines applicable to this case
recognize that the loss amount may cause the guideline to overstate the seriousness of the
offense. Under U.S.S.G. § 2B1 .1 cmt. n. 19(C), the Guidelines indicate that "[t]here may be
cases in which the offense level determined under this guideline substantially overstates the
seriousness of the offense." This note has undergone revisions over the years, and previous
versions indicated that "[w]here the loss determined above significantly understates or overstates
the seriousness of the defendant's conduct, an upward or downward departure may be
warranted." U.S.S.G. § 2F1.1 cmt. n. 8(b) (2000). This change was "one of style rather than
substance." United States v. Roen, 279 F. Supp. 2d 986, 990 (E.D. Wis. 2003). We ask that the
31
Case 1:12-cr-00224-JBW Document 19 Filed 08/13/12 Page 38 of 40 PageID #: 251
Court consider the fact that Peterson's guideline range is primarily driven by a loss figure that is
somewhat arbitrary when setting Peterson's sentence.
e. The Need to Avoid Unwarranted Disparities
Section 3553(a)(6) instructs the Court to consider "the need to avoid unwarranted
sentence disparities among defendants with similar records who have been found guilty of
similar conduct" during sentencing. In an article published in Business Crimes Bulletin, Gary
Stein observed that there is a "growing rift between the views of the DOJ and the courts as to the
appropriate sentences for individual violators in FCPA cases" and that recent sentencing
decisions have not supported prosecutors' efforts to obtain lengthy prison sentences for FCPA
violators. Gary Stein, Sentencing of Individuals in FCPA Cases, Business Crimes Bulletin, Vol.
18, No. 5, Jan. 2011. Stein listed a series of recent cases, and found that courts had imposed
sentences "amounting to roughly 10%, or less, of the government's recommended sentence." Id.
Stein found that in FCPA cases "a Guidelines sentence is the exception rather than the norm,"
and that post-Booker, 81% of defendants who have been sentenced for FCPA violations have
received below-guidelines sentences. Id. We ask the Court to sentence Peterson to a below-
guidelines sentence to avoid creating an unwarranted disparity with other defendants sentenced
for FCPA violations.
f Restitution
Finally, Section 3553(a)(7) directs the Court to consider "the need to provide restitution
to any victims of the offense." In this case, the only possible victim Morgan Stanley has
waived restitution. Under the Mandatory Victim Restitution Act of 1996 ("MyRA"), the
purpose of restitution has shifted away from punishment to a means of repairing the victim's
losses. See, e.g., United States v. Aguine-Gonzalez, 597 F.3d 46, 51(1st Cir. 2010) ("The
MVRA's changes reflect a fundamental shift in the purpose of restitution away from its strictly
32
Case 1:12-cr-00224-JBW Document 19 Filed 08/13/12 Page 39 of 40 PageID #: 252
penal origins; the new restitution scheme is not merely a means of punishment and rehabilitation,
but an attempt to provide those who suffer the consequences of crime with some means of
recouping the personal and financial losses." (internal quotation marks and alterations omitted)).
Since Morgan Stanley has expressed that it is uninterested in restitution, there is no need for
restitution in this case. See, e.g., United States v. Placensio, No. 10-CR-20699, 2011 WL
7807880, at *1 (S.D. Fla. June 28, 2011), report and recommendation adopted, No. 10-CR-
20699, 2012 WL 1606093 (S.D. Fla. May 8, 2012) ("Because restitution is for victims and no
+ T +1+ 4 victim 5piuu e government's outreach attempLs ... recommend
District Court order NO RESTITUTION ($0)"). To the extent that restitution can act as an
additional form of punishment, there is no need for additional monetary punishment in this case.
The SEC has settled with Peterson and has left him with little to live on. 16 That amount is being
used to support his wife and children. Peterson has not been left with any proceeds of his crime.
The Court has the authority to impose a criminal fine. Under the advisory guidelines,
[t]he court shall impose a fine in all cases, except where the defendant establishes that he is
unable to pay and is not likely to become able to pay any fine." US.S.G. § 5E1.2(a). In setting
the amount of the criminal fine, the Sentencing Guidelines also direct the Court to consider 'the
burden that the fine places on the defendant and his dependents relative to alternative
punishments" and "any collateral consequences of conviction, including civil obligations arising
from the defendant's conduct." U.S.S.G. § 5E1.2(d)(3) & (5). Here, because of Peterson's
settlement with the SEC, a collateral consequence of his conduct, the burden of a fine on his wife
and children is great. Peterson's family needs the money left over after his settlement with the
SEC to pay regular living expenses. Accordingly, we ask that the Court waive any fine in this
6 The Government has waived forfeiture based on Peterson's settlement with the SEC.
33
Case 1:12-cr-00224-JBW Document 19 Filed 08/13/12 Page 40 of 40 PageID #: 253
case. Based on Peterson's economic status, the SEC decided to waive a fine above the
disgorgement. We ask that the Court also decline to impose any criminal fine because of his
strained economic position.
Conclusion
The Court should consider a sentence with no or minimal incarceration and with any
probation or non-incarceration portion of Peterson's sentence to be served in Singapore.
LANKLER SIFFERT & WQFIL LLP
By: 4A/1 Abiail E. Rose'n (AR-87A8)
/ / frrank H. Wohi (FW-1737)
500 Fifth Ayenue,33 rd Floor Newcwk'NY 10110 Tel: (212) 921-8399
Attorneys for Defendant Garth Peterson
34