Case 3:08-cr-00242-CSH Document 51 Filed 02/03/11 Page 1 of 8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA :

:
:
v. : Case No.: 3:08cr242(CSH)
:
:
:
PETER BOTTI : February 3, 2011

GOVERNMENT’S SENTENCING MEMORANDUM

The United States submits this memorandum in connection with the sentencing of defendant

Peter Botti scheduled for February 9, 2011 at 10:30 a.m. and in response to the sentencing

memorandum of Peter Botti dated February 1, 2011. As set forth in this memorandum, the United

States does not specifically recommend that the Court impose a prison sentence for defendant Peter

Botti. Rather, given the Court’s familiarity with the facts and circumstances underlying Peter Botti’s

conviction for structuring, the United States leaves it to the Court’s discretion to determine whether

the father of defendant James Botti should receive a prison sentence or a term of Probation. The

United States does request that defendant Peter Botti be fined for his criminal conduct in helping his

son James Botti commit structuring crimes - - all done in an effort to frustrate and interfere with

lawful Government investigations.

BACKGROUND

As the Court is well aware from having presided at the two trials and sentencing of James

Botti, Peter Botti knowingly assisted his son to structure and hide a significant sum of cash that

James Botti used to commit criminal activity. On June 1, 2009, Peter Botti entered a plea of guilty

to count two of Indictment No. 3:08cr242 (CSH) that charged him with structuring in violation of

31 U.S.C. § 5324. In short, Peter Botti structured, and permitted his son James to structure, almost

$100,000 of cash through two bank accounts nominally controlled by Peter Botti. After the funds
 Case 3:08-cr-00242-CSH Document 51 Filed 02/03/11 Page 2 of 8

were structured in amounts slightly below $10,000 to avoid the filing of currency transaction reports

(“CTRs”), Peter Botti caused the funds to be returned to James Botti as evidenced by the summary

charts introduced at James Botti’s trials. In this manner, James and Peter Botti sought to hide the

significant amount of cash that James maintained and used to further his crimes of corruption.

After IRS agents visited James Botti in July 2006, the structuring occurred only in accounts

in the name of Peter Botti. Thus, it is rather evident that once James Botti realized that the IRS was

investigating him, James used his father, and his father’s bank accounts, to further hide his illicit

cash from federal law enforcement scrutiny. To be clear, however, Peter Botti knowingly and

willingly assisted James Botti hide his cash. This fact is evident from Peter Botti’s actions in July
2006 and in June 2007. In July 2006, while IRS agents were interviewing James Botti in the kitchen

of his office, Peter Botti brazenly walked out of the office with hundreds of thousands of cash - -

cash that was later hidden and structured with Peter Botti’s help to prevent the IRS and federal law

enforcement from becoming aware of its existence.

In June 2007, Peter Botti falsely represented to IRS agents that the cash that was structured

in Peter Botti’s bank accounts was his own cash. As the Court well knows, and as Peter Botti later

admitted in his plea agreement, the cash that was structured in Peter Botti’s accounts was not his

cash. In his plea agreement - - an agreement Peter Botti swore was complete and accurate - - Peter

Botti stipulated that he (Peter Botti) “did act with reckless disregard of the source of the funds” that

were structured. See Peter Botti Plea Agreement at 5. This stipulation enhances Peter Botti’s

Guidelines exposure. Thus, it is rather axiomatic that if Peter Botti did not know the source of the

funds that were structured, the funds were not his own monies. Furthermore, the United States

certainly agrees with the Probation Office’s conclusion that defendant James Botti “organized, led,

managed and supervised his father in the commission of the [structuring] conspiracy.” See James

Botti PSR ¶ 30. In short, James Botti used his father to further his own criminal interests and Peter

Botti was willing to be so used.

The Indictment charging Peter Botti did include a forfeiture allegation. In the plea agreement

2
 Case 3:08-cr-00242-CSH Document 51 Filed 02/03/11 Page 3 of 8

in this matter, defendant Peter Botti waived his right to a forfeiture trial and agreed that the Court

would decide the issue and amount of forfeiture. See Peter Botti Plea Agreement at 2. It was also

agreed that if any other person was ordered to forfeit the funds deposited into Peter Botti’s bank

accounts (a total of $97,800), the United States would not seek to collect these funds more than once.

Id. at 3. As the Court will recall, defendant James Botti was ordered to forfeit and did forfeit

$120,500 as part of the sentence the Court imposed in September 2010. This sum included all but

$3,000 of the funds that were deposited into Peter Botti’s bank accounts. Hence, the Government

has already forfeited $94,800 of the $97,800 that was deposited into Peter Botti’s bank accounts.

Since the jury that served at James Botti’s structuring trial did not find that the lone $3,000 deposit
into Peter Botti’s bank account should be forfeited, the United States will not seek to forfeit this

$3,000. In short, rather than request that the Court conduct a forfeiture trial to determine whether

$3,000 should be forfeited, the United States will forego forfeiture from this defendant and will seek

a criminal fine instead.

On his conviction for structuring, Peter Botti faces a statutory maximum prison sentence of

five years. The Probation Office has conducted a thorough presentence investigation and compiled

a detailed Presentence Report (“PSR”). The PSR concludes that Peter Botti faces an advisory

Guidelines sentencing range of 10 to 16 months and a criminal fine range of $3,000 to $30,000. See

PSR ¶ ¶ 49, 55. Although the Sentencing Guidelines are no longer mandatory, the Guidelines must

be considered by the Court along with the other factors listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). United States

v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 260-61 (2005); United States v. Crosby, 397 F.3d 103, 110 (2d Cir. 2005);

Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. at 50 n.6 (“district courts must begin their analysis with the

Guidelines and remain cognizant of them throughout the sentencing process”); see also Gall v.

United States, 552 U.S. at 46 (“though the Guidelines are advisory rather than mandatory, they are,

as we pointed out in Rita, the product of careful study based on extensive empirical evidence derived

from the review of thousands of individual sentencing decisions”) (footnote omitted);.see 18 U.S.C.

§ 3553(a)(4) (Court shall consider the sentence applicable under the Guidelines).

3
 Case 3:08-cr-00242-CSH Document 51 Filed 02/03/11 Page 4 of 8

A. The Section 3553 Factors Should Guide the Court’s Sentencing Decision.

Title 18, United States Code, Section 3553(a) provides, in pertinent part, that:

(a) Factors to be considered in imposing a sentence.--The court shall impose a

sentence sufficient, but not greater than necessary, to comply with the purposes set
forth in paragraph (2) of this subsection. The court, in determining the particular
sentence to be imposed, shall consider--

(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;

***
(4) the kind of sentence and sentencing range established for (A) the applicable
category of offense committed by the applicable category of defendant as set forth in
the 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.

1. The Nature and Circumstances of the Offense.

Peter Botti’s criminal conduct in assisting his son hide money from the IRS is a serious

offense that interferes with the IRS’s ability and right to investigate potential tax crimes and federal

law enforcement’s ability to investigate crimes involving public corruption. What is now obvious

is that defendant, an eighty year old man with no prior criminal record, was: (a) willing to help his

son cheat the IRS; (b) remove hundreds of thousands of dollars from an office safe while IRS agents

were interviewing James Botti down the hall; and thereafter (c) hide money from federal law

enforcement personnel trying to ferret out corruption in Shelton through the crime of structuring cash

4
 Case 3:08-cr-00242-CSH Document 51 Filed 02/03/11 Page 5 of 8

deposits. When defendant Peter Botti knowingly chose to engage in criminal activity to help his son

he sadly placed his desire to help his son ahead of his own moral compass. While perhaps

understandable on some level, a parent must be strongly discouraged from engaging in criminal

activity to help their children in an effort to further criminal activity. Otherwise, family matters will

not think twice before helping someone in their family cheat and obstruct the Government’s right

to enforce the laws of our nation.

2. History and Characteristics of Botti.

Peter Botti’s criminal conduct in helping his son cheat the IRS appears to be a deviation

given his lack of exposure to the criminal justice system. Nevertheless, as evidenced by his brazen
removal of cash during an IRS interview and his decision to lie to IRS agents who interviewed him

in June 2007, he was willing to go to some length to prevent his son’s criminal conduct from being

exposed even after it became apparent that the IRS was focused on the cash that was structured

through his own bank accounts. That Peter Botti is bothered by the fact that he is now a convicted

felon is hardly surprising. See PSR ¶ 63. He should be bothered by this fact as he knew better than

to help his son engage in criminal activity.

3. The Sentence Must Promote Respect for the Law

The sentence in this case must reflect the seriousness of the offenses committed by Peter

Botti, and provide a message of deterrence to all persons, parents or otherwise, to turn down an offer

to help someone cheat the Government through structuring. People need to understand that helping

someone, even a family member, cheat the IRS and obstruct federal investigations will not be

tolerated. While the Court need not imprison an 83 year old man to make this point, some type of

punishment must be imposed so that others will think twice before allowing themselves, and their

bank accounts, to be used to cheat the Government and frustrate law enforcement’s ability to

investigate crimes such as public corruption. General deterrence serves an important function and

works to prevent crimes of structuring of the sort committed by Peter Botti. The sentence must also

be significant enough to promote public respect for the law.

5
 Case 3:08-cr-00242-CSH Document 51 Filed 02/03/11 Page 6 of 8

4. The Court Should Consider General Deterrence.

One of the factors the Court must consider in imposing sentence is the need for the sentence

to “afford adequate deterrence to criminal conduct.” 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(B). The Government

requests that a criminal fine be imposed on defendant Peter Botti to satisfy the goal of general

deterrence in this case. It should be made clear to all persons that they cannot seek to help their

loved ones cheat law enforcement without consequences. The message must be sent in a manner

that can be easily understood. A criminal fine in this case will send an appropriate and

understandable message.

B. The Court Should Impose a Fine on Peter Botti.

According to the PSR, Peter Botti has a net worth in excess of $250,000. Thus, he can

certainly afford to pay a fine within the advisory Guidelines fine range of $3,000 to $30,000. Given

that Peter Botti was willing to help his son by removing hundreds of thousands of dollars from an

office safe and thereafter participate in structuring almost $100,000, a fine within the advisory range

is reasonable and just.

6
 Case 3:08-cr-00242-CSH Document 51 Filed 02/03/11 Page 7 of 8

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Government submits that the Court should exercise its

discretion to decide whether to impose a prison sentence or Probation for defendant Peter Botti while

imposing a criminal fine within the applicable Guidelines fine range.

Respectfully submitted,

MICHAEL GUSTAFSON
ACTING UNITED STATES ATTORNEY

/S/
RICHARD J. SCHECHTER
SENIOR LITIGATION COUNSEL
United States Attorney’s Office
915 Lafayette Boulevard
Bridgeport, Connecticut 06604
(203)696-3000
Federal Bar No. CT24238

/S/
RAHUL KALE
ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY
United States Attorney’s Office
915 Lafayette Boulevard
Bridgeport, Connecticut 06604
(203)696-3000
Federal Bar No. phv0256

7
 Case 3:08-cr-00242-CSH Document 51 Filed 02/03/11 Page 8 of 8

CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on February 3, 2011, a copy of the foregoing was filed electronically, by

facsimile and served by mail 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/___________________________________
Richard J. Schechter
Senior Litigation Counsel