U.S. Department of Justice United States Attorney ' Southern District of New York The Silvio J. Motto Building One Saint Andrew's Plaza ‘New York, Mew York 10007 January 11, 2012 By Electronic Mail Richard Avery Finkel Meissner, Kleinberg & Finkel, LLP 275 Madison Avenue, Ste. 1000 New York, NY 10016 rafmkflaw@hotmail.com Re: United States v. Ira Rubin, $3 10 Cr. 336 (LAK) Dear Mr. Finkel: On the understandings specified below, the Office of the United States Attomey for the Southern District of New York (“this Office”) will accept a guilty plea from Ira Rubin (“the defendant”) to Counts One, Eight, and Nine of the above-referenced Indictment, Count One of the Indictment charges the defendant with conspiring with those in the business of bettering and wagering in connection with unlawil internet gambling, in violation of Title 31, United States Code, Section 5363, and carries a maximum penalty of $ years? imprisonment, a maximum term of 3 years’ supervised release, a maximum fine ofthe greatest of $250,000, twice the gross pecuniary gain derived fiom the offense, or twice the gross pecuniary loss fo a person other than the defendant asa result ofthe offense, and a mandatory $100 special assessment, Count Eight of the Indictment charges conspiracy to commit bank and wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1349, and carries a maximum penalty of 30 years” imprisonment, a ‘maximum term of 5 years’ supervised release, a maximum fine of the greatest of $1,000,000, twice the gross pecuniary gain derived from the offense, or twice the gross pecuniary lose to a Person other than the defendant as a result ofthe offense, and a mandatory $100 special assessment. Count Nine of the Indictment charges the defendant with conspiracy to commit money laundering, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1956(h), and carries a maximum penalty of 20 years’ imprisonment, a maximum term of 3 years’ supervised release, a maximum fine of the greater of $500,000 or twice the value of the laundered funds, and a mandatory $100 special assessment. 6.062011Mr. Finkel January 11, 2012 Page 2 ‘The total maximum sentence of incarceration on all counts is 55 years’ imprisonment. In addition to the foregoing, the Court must order restitution in accordance with Sections 3663, 3663A and 3664 of Title 18, United States Code. In consideration of the defendant's plea to the above offenses, the defendant will not be further prosecuted criminally by this Office (except for criminal tax violations as to which this Office cannot, and does not, make any agreement) for conduct charged in the Indictment relating to the defendant's role in facilitating internet gambling for Pokerstars, Full Tilt Poker, or Absolute Poker from in or about 2006 up through and including in or about May 2011, it being understood that this agreement does not bar the use of such conduct as a predicate act or as the basis for a sentencing enhancement in a subsequent prosecution including, but not limited to, a prosecution pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961 et seq. In addition, at the time of sentencing, the Government will move to dismiss any open Counts against the defendant. The defendant agrees that with respect to any and all dismissed charges he is not a “prevailing party” within the meaning of the “Hyde Amendment,” Section 617, P.L. 105-119 (Nov. 26, 1997), and will not file any claim under that law. The defendant furthermore admits the forfeiture allegations with respect to Counts Eight and Nine of the Indictment and agrees to forfeit to the United States (1) an amount of funds representing the direct and indirect proceeds of the conduct charged in Count Bight of the ‘Superseding Indictment, and (2) an amount of funds representing all property involved in the conduct charged in Count Nine of the Superseding Indictment (collectively, the "Money Judgment"). It is further understood that any forfeiture of the defendant's assets shall not be treated as satisfaction of any fine, restitution, cost of imprisonment, or any other penalty the Court may impose upon him in addition to forfeiture. In consideration of the foregoing and pursuant to United States Sentencing Guidelines (U.8.8.G.” or “Guidelines”) Section 6B1.4, the parties hereby stipulate to the following: A. Offense Level 1, The applicable Guidelines manual is the November 1, 2011 Guidelines manual, 2, Pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3D1.2 Counts One, Eight and Nine constitute a single group of closely related counts pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3D1.2(b) because the Counts involve the same victim and two or more acts or transactions connected by @ common criminal objective or constituting part of a common scheme or plan, 062011 2Mr. Finkel January 11, 2012 Page 3 3. Pursuant to U.S.8.G. § 3D1.3(a) the applicable guideline for the group is U.S.8.G. § 281.1 because itis the guideline that provides for the highest offense level of the counts in the group, 4. Pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2S1.1(a)(1) the base offense level is determined according {o the underlying offense from which the laundered funds were derived, which, because the funds derived from illegal gambling, results in a base offense level of 12 pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2E3.1(a)(1). 5. Pursuant to U.S.8.G. § 281.1(b)(2)(B) there is a 2 level increase because the defendant was convicted under 18 U.S.C. § 1956. 6. Pursuant to U.S.8.G. § 2S1.1(b)(3) there is a 2 level increase because the offense involved sophisticated laundering, 7. Assuming the defendant clearly demonstrates acceptance of responsibility, to the satisfaction of the Government, through his allocution and subsequent conduet Prior to the imposition of sentence, a 2-Ievel reduction will be warranted, pursuant to USS.G. § 3E1.1(a). Furthermore, assuming the defendant has accepted responsibility as described in the previous sentence, an additional 1-level reduction is warranted, pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1(b), because the defendant gave timely notice of his intention to enter a plea of guilty thereby permitting the Government to avoid preparing for trial and permitting the Court to allocate its resources efficiently. In accordance with the above, the applicable Guidelines offense level 13. B. Criminal History Category Based upon the information now available to this Office (including representations by the defense), the defendant has 6 criminal history points, calculated as follows. 1, On or about October 4, 1995, the defendant was convicted in the United States District Court for the Westem District of Missouri of five counts of wire fraud, in violation of 18 US.C_ § 1343, and was sentenced to aterm of 37 months’ imprisonment. Pursuant to U.S.8.G, § 4A1.2(@), this conviction results in three criminal history points 2, On or about October 19, 1995, the defendant was convicted in South Mayes 26062011 3