Case 1:12-cr-00224-JBW Document 17 Filed 08/10/12 Page 1 of 56 PageID #: 76

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS


Preliminary Statement ...................................................................................................... 1
Statement of Facts ............................................................................................................. 1
1. OIIense 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 Familv ...................................................................... 8
d. Work Historv ................................................................................. 10
Discussion......................................................................................................................... 12
4. The Section 3553(a) Factors Militate in Favor oI 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
v. Cultural Context ..................................................................... 20
b. Section 3553(a)(2) Factors ........................................................... 23
i. Punishment Peterson Has SuIIered ......................................... 23
ii. Low Probability oI Recidivism .............................................. 26
c. The Kinds of Sentences Available ................................................. 28
Case 1:12-cr-00224-JBW Document 17 Filed 08/10/12 Page 2 of 56 PageID #: 77

ii

d. The Sentencing Range in Guidelines ............................................ 30
e. The Need to Avoid Unwarranted Disparities ................................ 32
f. Restitution ..................................................................................... 32
Conclusion ....................................................................................................................... 34
Case 1:12-cr-00224-JBW Document 17 Filed 08/10/12 Page 3 of 56 PageID #: 78
iii

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 WL 4555900
(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 WL 1242344
(S.D.N.Y. May 24, 2005) .........................................................................................................27
United States v. Husein, 478 F.3d 318 (6th Cir. 2007) ..................................................................16
United States v. Lazenby439 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
Case 1:12-cr-00224-JBW Document 17 Filed 08/10/12 Page 4 of 56 PageID #: 79

iv

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 .................................................................................................................... passim
18 U.S.C. § 3559 ............................................................................................................................29
18 U.S.C. § 3583 ............................................................................................................................29
U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1 ...........................................................................................................................31
U.S.S.G. § 2F1.1 ............................................................................................................................31
U.S.S.G. § 5D1.1 ...........................................................................................................................29
Case 1:12-cr-00224-JBW Document 17 Filed 08/10/12 Page 5 of 56 PageID #: 80

v

U.S.S.G. § 5E1.2 ............................................................................................................................33
U.S.S.G. § 5H1.4 ...........................................................................................................................19
U.S.S.G. § 5H1.6 ...........................................................................................................................16
U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1 ...........................................................................................................................19
U.S.S.G. § 5K2.0 ...........................................................................................................................19

OTHER AUTHORITIES
Children oI 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 EIIicacy oI Cost Savings oI Drug
Treatment Versus Imprisonment (2004) ..................................................................................25
Gary Stein, Sentencing oI 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 oI Intent, 47
Am. Crim. L. Rev. 1463 (2010) ...............................................................................................21
Kathleen Z. Russell, et al., Children oI 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, EIIects oI Parental Incarceration on Young
Children (2001). .......................................................................................................................15
Sentencing Project, Incarceration and Crime: A Complex Relationship (2005) ..................... 15-16
United States Sentencing Commission, Federal OIIenders Sentenced to Supervised
Release (2010) .........................................................................................................................29
United States Sentencing Commission, Measuring Recidivism: The Criminal History
Computation oI the Federal Sentencing Guidelines (2004) .....................................................27
Case 1:12-cr-00224-JBW Document 17 Filed 08/10/12 Page 6 of 56 PageID #: 81

1
Preliminary Statement

We respectIully submit this memorandum on behalI oI DeIendant Garth Peterson seeking
a mitigated sentence pursuant to Section 3553(a) oI Title 18 oI the United States Code. For the
Iollowing reasons, we urge the Court to impose a sentence with no or minimal incarceration and
with any probation or non-incarceration portion oI 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 Ior a variety oI reasons: (1) because Peterson has shown his
commitment to rehabilitate himselI by cooperating with the Government`s investigation into his
conduct, by pleading guilty, and by living a law-abiding liIe Ior the nearly Iour years since the
investigation into his conduct began; (2) because any sentence oI incarceration, or other sentence
requiring him to be away Irom Singapore Ior a signiIicant period oI time would be unusually
hard on him and his wiIe and two young children in Singapore who would be unable to see him
iI he were incarcerated in the United States and who rely on him Ior Iinancial and emotional
support; and (3) because he has already suIIered enormously by reason oI his oIIense and the
resulting loss oI his career and Iinancial stability, and his painIul settlement with the Securities
and Exchange Commission ('SEC¨), which included a permanent bar on associating with
Iinancial organizations regulated by the SEC.
Statement of Facts
1. Offense Conduct
On April 25, 2012, Peterson pled guilty to a conspiracy to evade the internal accounting
controls oI a public company beIore Your Honor. He conspired to mislead his employer,
Morgan Stanley, about the identities oI the investors in an investment that Morgan Stanley sold.
Morgan Stanley believed that it was selling a portion oI its investment to a Chinese company.
Case 1:12-cr-00224-JBW Document 17 Filed 08/10/12 Page 7 of 56 PageID #: 82

2

Instead, it sold shares to an entity controlled by Peterson, Peterson`s co-conspirator, and a
Chinese oIIicial.
Prior to 2002, Peterson was close Iriends with a man who was the head oI Yongye, a
Chinese company. Yongye is a state-owned real estate investment corporation in the Luwan
district oI Shanghai. Peterson understood that his Iriend`s position made him a 'Ioreign oIIicial¨
('the Chinese OIIicial¨) under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act oI 1977 ('FCPA¨). Peterson
and the Chinese OIIicial became close beIore Peterson started working at Morgan Stanley. They
met through a job that Peterson had in 1993 and they Iorged a mentor-mentee relationship. They
oIten met Ior dinner aIter work. From 1995, when Peterson leIt Shanghai to go to business
school, until 2002, when Peterson started at Morgan Stanley, Peterson occasionally traveled to
Shanghai to visit the Chinese OIIicial without any business purpose. They were so close that
Peterson considered him to be like the Iather that he never had. AIter 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 Iunds.
Peterson approached the Chinese OIIicial about ideas Ior an investment Ior his mother and the
Chinese OIIicial 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 oI Shanghai and
was slated to be developed into a number oI diIIerent buildings, including a Iull service
apartment building, similar to the American model oI a long stay hotel. Through the Chinese
OIIicial, Peterson invested his mother`s retirement money in the Site #9 development project.
In 2002, Peterson took a job with Morgan Stanley in China. When Peterson joined
Morgan Stanley, he inIormed them about the investment in Site #9 and Morgan Stanley allowed
Case 1:12-cr-00224-JBW Document 17 Filed 08/10/12 Page 8 of 56 PageID #: 83

3

him to retain it. From 2002 to 2008, Peterson worked Ior Morgan Stanley in a group that made
real estate investments in China.
AIter he joined Morgan Stanley, and was encouraged by his boss to identiIy 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 Ior
10° oI 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 aIter Peterson had joined the Iirm.
1

AIter Morgan Stanley invested in Project Wally, the group oI owners, including Peterson
and Morgan Stanley, began selling oII assets developed on Site #9 and returning capital to the
investors. Ultimately, only one building was leIt the Iull service apartment building. The
owners decided to sell it. An Australian bank, Macquarie, entered into negotiations to buy the
building but those negotiations Iailed. Morgan Stanley then decided to purchase the serviced
apartment building Irom the consortium oI owners, becoming a 100° owner oI the building
instead oI a 10° owner. They called that investment buying the Iull service apartment
building Irom Project Wally 'Project Cavity.¨
Morgan Stanley`s desire to become the 100° owner oI Project Cavity would Iorce
Peterson to sell his mother`s holding in the real estate investment, since the investment in Site #9
was an owner oI the serviced apartment building. Peterson did not want to do so and asked his
boss at Morgan Stanley, Zain Fancy, iI 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

1
Morgan Stanley purchased the investment Ior the same per share price as the initial investors, even though it
invested a year later.
Case 1:12-cr-00224-JBW Document 17 Filed 08/10/12 Page 9 of 56 PageID #: 84

4

well received, and Peterson dropped it. Morgan Stanley bought Project Cavity in 2004. The
Chinese OIIicial helped ensure that Morgan Stanley was able to buy the building.
Peterson was Irustrated that he had been Iorced to liquidate the investment he had made
Ior his mother, so he decided to seek a selI-help remedy: to secretly buy back into Project Cavity
at the same price at which he was Iorced 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 Ior 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 oI the investment to 'Yongye¨ because oI the prior assistance that Morgan Stanley
had received Irom the Chinese OIIicial. Morgan Stanley likely also perceived a beneIit to selling
a portion oI the investment to a local investor Iluent in Chinese. However, Asiasphere was
actually controlled by Peterson, the Chinese OIIicial, and another person. Peterson included the
Chinese OIIicial in Asiasphere in order to pay him back Ior Iavors that the Chinese OIIicial had
extended to Peterson. Unlike the traditional FCPA case, Peterson had a close relationship with
the Chinese OIIicial. He did not invest with the Chinese OIIicial in order to obtain a speciIic
business outcome, but out oI a misplaced desire to help the Chinese oIIicial Ior all he had done
Ior Peterson and Morgan Stanley over the years. Peterson`s criminal misconduct arose Irom 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 transIer oI items oI value to Ioreign oIIicials and to Morgan Stanley employees. In March
Case 1:12-cr-00224-JBW Document 17 Filed 08/10/12 Page 10 of 56 PageID #: 85

5

2006, the sale to Asiasphere was consummated and the Chinese OIIicial, 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 aIter learning oI its investigation and ultimately, aIter cooperating with the both
the SEC and the DOJ Ior over two years, pled guilty beIore Your Honor on April 25, 2012. See
Exh. A (Letter Irom 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. SigniIicantly, in August 2009, beIore the
Government had made any attempt to contact him, Peterson contacted the United States
Attorney`s OIIice, through counsel, while he was living abroad, to oIIer his cooperation.
Peterson`s unusual decision to approach the Government in this way showed a sincere desire to
assist with the Government`s investigation.
AIter reaching out to the Government, Peterson leIt his home and Iamily in Singapore Ior
an extended period oI time, at considerable cost to himselI, in order to be interviewed by the
Government on Iour occasions between November 2009 and June 2010. During most oI this
period, he remained in the United States, away Irom his wiIe and children, to be available Ior the
Government. This was a diIIicult period Ior him and his Iamily. See Exh. B (Letter Irom
Peterson`s sister) ('I have participated in his suIIering over the past three and a halI
years and carry the intense sorrow oI impeding Iuture consequences.¨);

Case 1:12-cr-00224-JBW Document 17 Filed 08/10/12 Page 11 of 56 PageID #: 86

6

Indeed, he has Iew contacts in the United
States, having spent most oI his liIe 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, Ior a total oI approximately 28 hours. Although his memory was
hindered by his lack oI access to the enormous record oI emails and other documents,
he was sincere in his desire to help the Government and we
believe that his responses were oI value to the Government.
Further, an important part oI Peterson`s eIIort to assist the Government was his provision
oI documents. He provided his own Iinancial records, some oI which he had not kept, and which
required signiIicant eIIort on his part to obtain and compile, many oI which would have been
diIIicult or impossible Ior the Government to obtain because they were located in Ioreign
jurisdictions. He provided his tax returns since 2006. He also answered many rounds oI
questions Irom the SEC to help its attorneys analyze and understand the documents he provided.
Providing this assistance has been both time-consuming and expensive Ior Peterson.
He has assisted the Government`s investigation in a number oI 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 oI limitations expiring. He has indicated that he is
willing to testiIy Ior the Government, iI asked. Finally, Peterson is voluntarily surrendering
himselI Irom a Ioreign country, avoiding the need Ior the Government to extradite him.
The Government has recognized the value oI the cooperation that Peterson has provided
to the SEC. In lieu oI criminal IorIeiture, Peterson`s plea agreement calls Ior him to cooperate
with the SEC`s eIIorts to IorIeit assets that were proceeds Irom Peterson`s oIIense. Peterson has
Case 1:12-cr-00224-JBW Document 17 Filed 08/10/12 Page 12 of 56 PageID #: 87

7

settled with the SEC, paid $241,589 in cash, and convinced his mother to IorIeit her interest in
the Cavity investment. This onerous settlement, calculated on the basis oI Peterson`s ability to
pay, has leIt him and his Iamily with a very uncertain Iuture. He is cooperating with the receiver
who was appointed to transIer his interest in Cavity to the SEC.
3. Personal History
2

a. Childhood and Relationship with His Parents
Peterson, age 43, was born in Downey, CaliIornia. He was raised with his older sister
by his mother, and Dorothy, a woman he considered to be akin to an adopted
grandmother, aIter his parents divorced. See Exh. A (Letter Irom Garth Peterson); Exh. B
(Letter Irom Peterson`s sister) ('Growing up, the dearest person to Garth and I
was our adopted grandmother, Dorothy.¨); Exh. C (Letter Irom Peterson`s wiIe)
('Garth was very close to Dorothy, and they shared a very special relationship . . . .¨).






2
The details oI Peterson`s personal history are set Iorth in Exhs. A (Letter Irom Garth Peterson) and B (Letter Irom
Peterson`s sister).
Case 1:12-cr-00224-JBW Document 17 Filed 08/10/12 Page 13 of 56 PageID #: 88

8



Peterson`s Iamily was not particularly wealthy while he was growing up. worked
a second job and rented rooms in their house to boarders.
Through his Singaporean Iriends, he learned Asian
customs and culture as well as several Asian languages. Peterson was a well-behaved child. See
Exh. D (Letter Irom 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¨).
His Iather 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 oI Arts in Economics and Asian Studies. Peterson graduated Irom
the University oI Chicago business school in 1998.
c. Marriage and Familv
Peterson and his wiIe, married in 1997. They have two children: 9,
and 4.
Case 1:12-cr-00224-JBW Document 17 Filed 08/10/12 Page 14 of 56 PageID #: 89

9

was born just beIore Morgan Stanley inIormed Peterson that he was under
investigation. Peterson spent signiIicant time away Irom 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 wiIe considers
this the only 'blessing to be counted out oI this ordeal.¨ Id. (stating that their daughter 'is able
to recite the names oI Roman emperors in chronological order thanks to her dad, who spends
time every night with her¨). His Iriends 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 signiIicant loss¨ to his
wiIe and children. See Exh. E. His niece, wrote about how Peterson tries to make
his daughter`s homework into a Iun game and cooks Ior the Iamily. Exh. F.
Peterson is intimately involved in the lives oI his extended Iamily. His nephew,
wrote to the Court about how his liIe has been 'deIined by Garth,¨ with Peterson
inspiring him to study abroad and get involved in a community service project in Peru. Peterson
pushed to 'study hard and succeed in school¨ and paid Ior to study Spanish in Spain
and Mexico and helped to pay Ior his college tuition. Exh. G. his niece, described how she
has seen him 'act with kindness and generosity¨ and how he is 'very loved¨ by his Iamily. Exh.
F. She described how Peterson 'paid Ior |Dorothy`s| nursing home Ior two years so that she
could be near to | | Iamily¨ in CaliIornia, where they lived at the time. Id. His sister
describes how this assistance 'relieved us oI the burden oI relying on public assistance and
Medicaid.¨ Exh. B. His mother wrote about how he provided care to both her and his
grandIather in 2007 and 'made sure |they| were given the best care possible.¨ Exh. D.
Case 1:12-cr-00224-JBW Document 17 Filed 08/10/12 Page 15 of 56 PageID #: 90

10

Peterson has also been generous with others. As wrote, Peterson
helped two Iriends in China apply to study in the United States and paid their tuition and living
expenses. See Exh. H.
d. Work Historv
Peterson has worked nearly continuously since graduating Irom college. See Exh. A
(Letter Irom Garth Peterson).
In 2002, Peterson joined Morgan Stanley`s Hong Kong oIIice as an Associate. Peterson
was instrumental in helping Morgan Stanley grow the Hong Kong oIIice, and, later, in 2006, in
opening the Shanghai oIIice Ior Morgan Stanley. According to his colleague
'Garth built the Morgan Stanley Shanghai oIIice Irom scratch and employed over 70 people
within three years, managing 30 real estate projects and USD $2.5 billion oI total equity.¨ Exh.
I. From his Iirst year with Morgan Stanley, Peterson brought deals to Morgan Stanley. See Exh.
J (Letter Irom Peterson`s colleague at Morgan Stanley) (explaining that Irom
2005 to 2008 '|t|he overwhelming majority oI |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 oIIice oI Morgan Stanley
contributed to the Iirm receiving the top award by Euromoney at Euromoney`s 2006 Real Estate
Awards Ior 'Investment Management in China.¨
3
who worked at Morgan
Stanley with Peterson, explained that Peterson 'helped put Morgan Stanley on the map in terms
oI the property developer IPO space.¨ Exh. H. listed a number oI companies that
Peterson was able to persuade to do initial public oIIerings with Morgan Stanley. Id. Based on
his successes, he was promoted to Vice President aIter two years. He was promoted the next

3
ReIerence to this award is made on Morgan Stanley`s website at:
http://www.morganstanley.com/about/awards/articles/56561ee6-eI41-11dd-a44I-ebeaI225e6I5.html.
Case 1:12-cr-00224-JBW Document 17 Filed 08/10/12 Page 16 of 56 PageID #: 91

11

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 oI these deals
have not been sold so the proIits to Morgan Stanley cannot be accurately estimated at this point.
The amount oI capital that Morgan Stanley put into Peterson-managed deals over $2 billion
speaks to the company`s reliance on him as a source Ior business. Exh. I (Letter Irom
). who worked at Morgan Stanley with Peterson, wrote that 'Peterson
introduced good partners and investment opportunities to Morgan Stanley and made many
successIul investments that made Morgan Stanley and Morgan Stanley`s real estate Iunds
investors an incredible amount oI money.¨ Exh. H. describes Peterson`s
contribution to the Morgan Stanley business as helping 'build Morgan Stanley`s real estate
business in China Irom nothing to a huge success.¨ Id.; see also Exh. K (Letter Irom
) ('Garth had signiIicant 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 oI just a Iew
years Peterson was instrumental in evolving Morgan Stanley Irom somewhat oI a non-player in
this market into the leading banker Ior Chinese real estate Iirms, as well as the leading Ioreign
real estate investor in China.¨).




Case 1:12-cr-00224-JBW Document 17 Filed 08/10/12 Page 17 of 56 PageID #: 92

12





Discussion
As discussed more below, there are a number oI Iactors that we believe support our
request Ior a probationary sentence Ior Peterson.
Incarceration in the United States will be especially hard on Peterson and his Iamily.
Peterson`s Iamily lives in Singapore, and his young children will be separated Irom him during
any period oI incarceration. They simply do not have the Iinancial means to come to the United
States to visit him. It is virtually certain that he will not see his wiIe or children during any
period oI incarceration. OI course, any period that Peterson is out oI the work Iorce will
exacerbate that already devastating eIIect oI the Iinancial circumstances and uncertain Iuture he
and his Iamily now Iace.
Further, Peterson`s acceptance oI responsibility Ior his oIIense and his expressions oI
remorse are well beyond the normal. He came Irom overseas to cooperate with the
Government`s investigation and ultimately waived his trial rights to plead guilty. He has lived a
law-abiding liIe since the investigation into his conduct began. Peterson is over Iorty and
unlikely to reoIIend.
Case 1:12-cr-00224-JBW Document 17 Filed 08/10/12 Page 18 of 56 PageID #: 93

13

Peterson`s actions are mitigated when viewed in the proper cultural context, as
discussed below.
Moreover, Peterson has already suIIered severe punishment Ior his oIIense in a number
oI ways, including having his Iinancial security eviscerated, being barred Irom work in his
proIession, becoming nearly unemployable, and spending the last three-plus years waiting Ior
resolution oI this matter. Based on the Section 3553(a) Iactors,
4
we respectIully submit that a
sentence without incarceration is most appropriate and would best serve the interests oI 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 Ior this
oIIense is 60 months, eIIectively making the sentencing range 51 to 60 months. The guideline
range is advisory, and the Court is also obligated to consider the Iactors set Iorth in 18 U.S.C. §
3553(a) in order to craIt an appropriate sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 49-50
(2007) (explaining that the court must 'consider all oI the § 3553(a) Iactors 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
Iactors delineated in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) . . . including the now-advisory Guidelines range¨).
Section 3553(a) requires that the Court impose a sentence 'suIIicient, but not greater than

4
These Iactors are: '(1) the nature and circumstances oI the oIIense and the history and characteristics oI the
deIendant; (2) the need Ior the sentence imposed (A) to reIlect the seriousness oI the oIIense, to promote respect
Ior the law, and to provide just punishment Ior the oIIense; (B) to aIIord adequate deterrence to criminal conduct;
(C) to protect the public Irom Iurther crimes oI the deIendant; and (D) to provide the deIendant with needed
educational or vocational training, medical care, or other correctional treatment in the most eIIective manner;
(3) the kinds oI sentences available; (4) the kinds oI sentence and the sentencing range established Ior (A) the
applicable category oI oIIense committed by the applicable category oI deIendant as set Iorth in the |Sentencing
Guidelines| . . . ; (5) any pertinent policy statement |in the Sentencing Guidelines|; (6) the need to avoid
unwarranted sentence disparities among deIendants with similar records who have been Iound guilty oI similar
conduct; and (7) the need to provide restitution to any victims oI the oIIense.¨ 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).
Case 1:12-cr-00224-JBW Document 17 Filed 08/10/12 Page 19 of 56 PageID #: 94

14

necessary,¨ to comply with the purposes set Iorth in that section. See United States v. Cull, 446
F. Supp. 2d 961, 963 (E.D. Wis. 2006) (describing the 'suIIicient, 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 satisIy the Iour purposes oI sentencing punishment,
deterrence, protection oI the public and rehabilitation¨); see also United States v. Menyweather,
447 F.3d 625 (9th Cir. 2005) (upholding an eight-level departure Ior embezzlement oI $500,000
in light oI broader, post-Booker discretion to weigh a multitude oI Iactors 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 oI the
oIIense and the history and characteristics oI the deIendant¨ when craIting a sentence. We ask
the Court to consider the below Iactors 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 Ior them, and spends
time teaching them everyday. The longer he is imprisoned, the more he will miss oI their early
development. Peterson`s mother wrote, 'I cannot imagine the trauma these children would
endure iI he were absent Irom their lives Ior an extended period.¨ Exh. D.

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 aIIord to visit him even once
while he is in jail, given the distance and his Iamily`s lack oI income while he is in jail. It will be
diIIicult Ior them to even talk by phone, since Singapore`s time zone is twelve hours diIIerent
Case 1:12-cr-00224-JBW Document 17 Filed 08/10/12 Page 20 of 56 PageID #: 95

15

Irom the East Coast oI the United States. Also, prisoners can only make collect phone calls, and
collect phone calls to Singapore will be prohibitively expensive.
The brunt oI this burden will be born by Peterson`s innocent children. Children oI
incarcerated parents suIIer emotional and psychological eIIects during the period oI
incarceration. See Children oI 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 oI imprisonment Iare better than those who cannot. See Kathleen Z. Russell, et al.,
Children oI Incarcerated Parents 11 (2006).
6
UnIortunately, 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, EIIects oI Parental Incarceration on Young Children
(2001) ('|O|ver 50° oI the children oI incarcerated parents had school problems, such as poor
grades or instances oI aggression . . . .¨).
7
This result is likely here Peterson`s wiIe noted in
her letter to the Court that their daughter 'started having behavioral problems in school¨ while
Peterson was in the United States cooperating with the Government. See Exh. C. Parke and
Clarke-Stewart also note that an 'important determinant oI children`s adjustment to their parent
being in prison is regular contact with the incarcerated parent.¨ Ross D. Parke & K. Alison
Clarke-Stewart, EIIects oI 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 oI 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
oI Incarcerated Parents, at 12; see also The Sentencing Project, Incarceration and Crime: A

5
This publication is available at: http://www.oregon.gov/DOC/PUBAFF/docs/pdI/legreport¸bill133.pdI?ga÷t.
6
This publication is available at: http://www.dshs.wa.gov/pdI/main/legrep/Leg0706/IncarPar0606.pdI.
7
This publication is available at: http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/prison2home02/parke-stewart.htm.
Case 1:12-cr-00224-JBW Document 17 Filed 08/10/12 Page 21 of 56 PageID #: 96

16

Complex Relationship 7 (2005) (noting that the 'persistent removal oI persons Irom the
community to prison . . . has a destabilizing eIIect that has been demonstrated to Iray Iamily and
community bonds¨ particularly when 'prisoners are . . . incarcerated in Iacilities hundreds oI
miles Irom their homes¨).
8

Although Iamily circumstances are a discouraged Iactor 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|Iter Booker, courts can justiIy consideration oI
Iamily responsibilities, an aspect oI the deIendant`s history and characteristics, 18 U.S.C. §
3553(a)(1). . . . District courts now have the discretion to weigh a multitude oI mitigating and
aggravating Iactors that existed at the time oI mandatory Guidelines sentencing, but were
deemed not ordinarily relevant, such as . . . familv ties and responsibilities.¨ (ellipses, Iootnotes,
and quotation marks omitted)). Such consideration is called Ior here because Peterson`s Iamily
circumstances are extraordinary: a near total absence oI communication will occur between him
and his young children.
Post-Booker, courts regularly consider deIendants` Iamily circumstances when setting an
appropriate sentence under Section 3553(a). See, e.g., United States v. Munoz-Nava, 524 F.3d
1137, 1141 (10th Cir. 2008) (aIIirming below-guidelines sentence oI a year and a day which was
based in part on the Iact that the deIendant raised his eight-year-old son as a single Iather and
cared Ior his elderly parents who had serious medical problems); United States v. Husein, 478
F.3d 318, 330 (6th Cir. 2007) (aIIirming a one-day sentence, below the 37- to 46-month
guidelines range, which was based in part on the deIendant`s need to care Ior her ailing Iather);

8
This publication is available at: http://www.sentencingproject.org/doc/publications/inc¸iandc¸complex.pdI.
9
See U.S.S.G. § 5H1.6 ('|F|amily 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 Iactors . . . are those
not ordinarily relevant to the determination oI whether a sentence should be outside the applicable guideline range.¨
(quotation marks omitted)).
Case 1:12-cr-00224-JBW Document 17 Filed 08/10/12 Page 22 of 56 PageID #: 97

17

United States v. Anderson, 267 F. App`x 847, 850 (11th Cir. 2008) (per curiam) (unpublished
opinion) (aIIirming sentence oI home conIinement and probation, below the guidelines range oI
18 to 24 months, Ior an over-50-year-old deIendant who supported his college-aged children,
who lost his high-paying job, and also relocated to Iind employment). This Court has also taken
a deIendant`s Iamily circumstances into account when sentencing under Section 3553(a). See
United States v. Marsh, 820 F. Supp. 2d 320, 350-51 (E.D.N.Y. 2011) (sentencing deIendant to a
non-guidelines sentence oI three months imprisonment to avoid having a young son have two
incarcerated parents).
We ask that the Court consider this Iactor when sentencing Peterson and when setting the
terms oI any supervised release term that the Court deems appropriate. We discuss the
supervised release issue Iurther below.
ii. Peterson`s Need to Provide Support to His Family
Prior to the termination oI his employment at Morgan Stanley, Peterson supported his
wiIe and children, his mother and stepIather, and provided some support to his sister. Although
Peterson has been out oI work Ior several years, his Iamily has continued to pay living expenses
Irom the money that he saved while he was working. Those savings, particularly aIter his
settlement with the SEC, are almost gone. At the same time, his wiIe has not worked outside the
home, and is not well equipped to start working now, with two small children at home.
Peterson`s absence Irom the workIorce Ior these last Iew years has been a signiIicant strain on
his Iamily, and the longer that he is imprisoned, the harder the burden will be.
OI course, Peterson cannot return to the workIorce while he is incarcerated or detained in
the United States. As wrote in his letter to the Court, Peterson has been working
on a plan Ior providing Ior his Iamily as soon as he has completed whatever sentence the Court
issues to him. explained that Peterson has expressed a vision oI opening a series oI
Case 1:12-cr-00224-JBW Document 17 Filed 08/10/12 Page 23 of 56 PageID #: 98

18

restaurants in Singapore with See Exh. L (Letter Irom
Director oI Gran Davey`s, a restaurant company in Singapore). wrote that he is
considering a 'joint venture¨ with Peterson to IulIill Peterson`s vision. Id.
This Court regularly recognizes the importance oI allowing deIendants to provide Ior
their Iamilies when craIting 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 deIendant has a good relationship with his wiIe and children and he has been
trying to support them¨). Other courts have considered this same Iactor. See, e.g., United States
v. Ranum, 353 F. Supp. 2d 984, 990-91 (E.D. Wis. 2005) (considering that 'deIendant`s absence
would have a proIoundly adverse impact on both his children and his parents¨ when sentencing
the deIendant to a below guidelines sentence).
iii. Cooperation
Peterson made substantial eIIorts to assist the Government in its investigation.
SpeciIically, Peterson, a target in the investigation, reached out to the Government to oIIer his
cooperation, traveled to the United States Irom his home to Singapore to participate in Iour
proIIer sessions, provided documents to the Government, including documents that he obtained
at the Government`s request Irom third-parties, and answered many rounds oI questions about
those documents Irom the SEC, signed tolling agreements with both the Government and SEC,
and voluntarily surrendered himselI Irom abroad.
His cooperation with the investigation into his conduct is appropriate Ior the Court to
consider during sentencing. Cooperation, even in the absence oI a motion made by the
Government pursuant to Section 5K oI the Sentencing Guidelines, is a beneIicial part oI a
deIendant`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 Iormulating a reasonable sentence
Case 1:12-cr-00224-JBW Document 17 Filed 08/10/12 Page 24 of 56 PageID #: 99

19

a sentencing judge . . . should take under advisement . . . the contention that a deIendant made
eIIorts to cooperate, even iI those eIIorts did not yield a Government motion Ior a downward
departure pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1 . . . .¨); United States v. Lazenby439 F.3d 928, 933-34
(8th Cir. 2006) (remanding Ior resentencing where the district court, among other things, Iailed
to consider the deIendant`s cooperation with the government in the absence oI a Section 5K
motion); United States v. Ochoa-Ramos,No. 07-CR-102,2008 WL 2062341, at *3 (E.D. Wis.
2008) (considering deIendant`s cooperation with the government as evidence oI deIendant`s
positive character and acceptance oI responsibility under Section 3553(a) beyond |an acceptance
oI responsibility| reduction under Section 3E1.1, in the absence oI a Section 5K motion Irom the
prosecution).

Case 1:12-cr-00224-JBW Document 17 Filed 08/10/12 Page 25 of 56 PageID #: 100

20











v. Cultural Context
Peterson committed an FCPA oIIense without stepping Ioot in the United States while
working Ior a Chinese subsidiary oI 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 OIIicial to invest
personally in a Morgan Stanley investment at a beneIicial price and that by misleading Morgan
Stanley about this Iact with another person, he conspired to violate the FCPA. The Chinese
OIIicial was a close Iriend oI Peterson`s in many ways a Iather Iigure to him and Peterson
helped him in order to repay the help that the Chinese OIIicial had given him through his career.
This type oI Iavor is called 'guanxi¨ in China, a term that describes the exchange oI giIts or
Iavors in a proIessional setting. Guanxi is the traditional way that business relationships are
Case 1:12-cr-00224-JBW Document 17 Filed 08/10/12 Page 26 of 56 PageID #: 101

21

developed in China. See Gregory M. Lipper, Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and the Elusive
Question oI Intent, 47 Am. Crim. L. Rev. 1463, 1485 (2010). The article explains that
diIIerent cultures have diIIerent understandings oI what constitutes a giIt as
opposed to a corrupting bribe. To take one example, in China the exchange oI
giIts, Iavors, and banquets is critical to the development oI relationships (or
connections) known as guanxi. These connections are considered to be the single
most important Iactor Ior 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 giIts and doing Iavors. . . . The
reciprocity and mutual obligation aspects oI 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 oI his liIe living in Asia. He learned Asian cultural traditions,
and they are as Iamiliar, iI not more Iamiliar to him, than United States cultural traditions. His
childhood Iriend wrote about Peterson`s 'inexperience with the United States¨ and
his lack oI Iamiliarity with U.S. 'culture, expectations, and walks oI U.S. liIe.`¨ Exh. M.
wrote that Peterson 'seemed to Iit in better on the other side oI the PaciIic¨ and 'thinks
more like an Asian than an American.¨ Id.
As part oI Peterson`s Asian cultural understanding, he learned the Chinese business
culture oI giIt giving, or guanxi. See also Exh. C (Letter Irom Peterson`s wiIe)
('In China`s business culture, having guanxi` (having contacts and inIluence) is oI paramount
importance to getting things done.¨). the Vice Chairman oI a real estate company
with oIIices in Shanghai, echoed this contextual understanding oI the Chinese business
environment in his letter to the Court. described the 'atmosphere¨ in China during the
Case 1:12-cr-00224-JBW Document 17 Filed 08/10/12 Page 27 of 56 PageID #: 102

22

time that Peterson worked at Morgan Stanley by saying that doing business 'in China was in its
inIancy stages, rules were Iew, enIorcement was ambiguous and indecisive. The American
values oI right and wrong, were, and are not practiced in China in the same manner as in
America.¨ Exh. K.
In the context oI illegal reentry cases, courts have recognized the relevance oI cultural
context to sentencing considerations. In those cases, courts have held that '|c|ultural
assimilation may . . . be relevant to the character oI a deIendant . . . insoIar as |the deIendant`s|
culpability might be lessened iI |the deIendant`s| motives were Iamilial 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 oI cultural assimilation iI it Iinds that the deIendant`s circumstances
remove his case Irom the heartland oI cases governed by the relevant individual guidelines and
the Guidelines as a whole¨)). Though Peterson`s motivations were partially economic, his
motivation Ior including the Chinese OIIicial in the transaction was also cultural. Peterson Ielt
that it was a normal and expected part oI doing business in China to trade Iavors with business
partners.
In addition to helping the Chinese OIIicial to invest personally in a Morgan Stanley
investment at a beneIicial price, Peterson also conspired to violate the FCPA by misleading
Morgan Stanley about the Iact that he invested his mother`s money in Asiasphere. Peterson was
Irustrated that he had been Iorced to liquidate the investment he had made Ior his mother and
acted in part as a misguided selI-help remedy, that is, secretly buying back into Project Cavity at
the same price at which he was Iorced to sell in order to restore his mother`s investment in Site
#9.
Case 1:12-cr-00224-JBW Document 17 Filed 08/10/12 Page 28 of 56 PageID #: 103

23

Courts consider deIendants` motives when setting the appropriate sentence under Section
3553(a). Ranum, 353 F. Supp. 2d at 990 (holding that the 'deIendant`s culpability was mitigated
in that he did not act Ior personal gain or Ior improper personal gain oI 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 oI 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 Ior the
sentence imposed to reIlect the seriousness oI the oIIense, to promote respect Ior the law, and to
provide just punishment Ior the oIIense; to aIIord adequate deterrence to criminal conduct; to
protect the public Irom Iurther crimes oI the deIendant; and to provide the deIendant with needed
educational or vocational training, medical care, or other correctional treatment in the most
eIIective manner. We contend that all oI these Iactors have been and can be satisIied 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 Ior the oIIense, and aIIord adequate
deterrence to others who contemplate committing similar conduct.
i. Punishment Peterson Has SuIIered
Peterson has already suIIered greatly as a result oI his conduct in this matter.
He has suIIered enormously Iinancially. He lost his job at Morgan Stanley, his beneIits,
his cash bonus Ior 2008 which would have been, conservatively, around $500,000 Ior 2008
alone and his investment bonus, which he was told was worth several million dollars in 2007.
He settled with the SEC and IorIeited $241,589 and the interest in the Cavity investment (which
is worth approximately $2.5 million), leaving him with a net worth oI no real
Case 1:12-cr-00224-JBW Document 17 Filed 08/10/12 Page 29 of 56 PageID #: 104

24

estate, no other savings or pensions, and a wiIe and two children to support. See Exh. C (Letter
Irom
In addition, in connection with his settlement with the SEC, Peterson
agreed to be barred Irom associating with Iinancial organizations regulated by the SEC. This
Court has recognized that it is punishment to be barred Irom work in your chosen proIession.
United States v. Mack, No. 08-CR-806, 2010 WL 3282648, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 18, 2010)
('SpeciIic deterrence is achieved through the impact oI this conviction on the deIendant's
employability, and speciIically her inability in the Iuture to pursue work in her chosen proIession
in the Iield oI 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 Ior
nearly Iour years as he has awaited the disposition in this matter. the Vice
Chairman oI a real estate company in Shanghai, explained in his letter that he was interested in
Peterson working Ior him but he could not hire him while 'a legal cloud hung over his head.¨
Exh. K. His Iuture prospects are uncertain, though they are better the Iaster he can return to the
working world. At the current moment, has
expressed interest in hiring Peterson, and 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 liIe. '|T|he impact oI a
Ielony conviction may last a liIetime, and even a short period oI incarceration has been shown to
aIIect people`s earnings and ability to get a job, to be parents, and to become productive parts oI
Case 1:12-cr-00224-JBW Document 17 Filed 08/10/12 Page 30 of 56 PageID #: 105

25

their communities.¨ Doug McVay, Vincent Schiraldi, & Jason Ziedenberg, Justice Policy
Institute, Treatment or Incarceration: National and State Findings on the EIIicacy oI Cost
Savings oI 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 liIe on pause, waiting Ior the disposition oI
any investigation against him. He also spent a considerable time away Irom his Iamily in the
United States in an eIIort to assist the Government`s investigation. Though technically Iree at
that time, his desire to cooperate with the government required that he remain away Irom his
Iamily. Peterson made clear to the Government that he was anxious to put this chapter oI his liIe
behind him so that he can move on.
Over the nearly Iour years that have elapsed since he was Iired Irom Morgan Stanley, he
has been technically Iree, but he has been in a state oI constant waiting, not knowing how his
case would be resolved. Indeed, the stress oI the investigation,
see also Exh. M
(Letter Irom ) ('During this time, he . . . re-lived his mistakes again and again.¨);

During this period, he
has been unable to Iind a job 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 stressIul and draining Ior both Peterson and
his Iamily. The stress a deIendant suIIers as a result oI prosecution can be a Iactor considered in

10
This publication is available at: http://www.justicepolicy.org/images/upload/04-
01¸REP¸MDTreatmentorIncarceration¸AC-DP.pdI.
Case 1:12-cr-00224-JBW Document 17 Filed 08/10/12 Page 31 of 56 PageID #: 106

26

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 oI probation was unreasonable
under Booker. The D.C. Circuit aIIirmed the probationary sentence Iinding that it was not an
abuse oI discretion to sentence a deIendant to probation where the deIendant had cooperated with
authorities, accepted responsibility Ior his crimes, and 'suIIered substantially due to his
prosecution¨ as shown by the Iact that he was 'treated Ior depression due to the stress oI the . . .
investigation.¨ Id. (internal quotations omitted).
It is appropriate Ior the Court to consider how Peterson has already been punished. See
United States. v. Samaras, 390 F.Supp. 2d 805, 809 (E.D. Wis. 2005) (noting that where
deIendant was convicted oI Iraud, a below-guideline sentence was warranted in part because 'as
a consequence oI his conviction and sentence, deIendant lost a good public sector job, another
Iactor not considered by the guidelines¨); Ranum, 353 F. Supp. 2d at 991 (sentencing deIendant
to a below-guidelines sentence where 'deIendant's conviction had signiIicant collateral eIIects on
him¨ including being 'unable to work in banking again¨); United States v. Redemann, 295 F.
Supp. 2d 887, 894-97 (E.D. Wis. 2003) (sentencing deIendant to a below-guidelines sentence
where deIendant suIIered collateral consequences Irom conduct including loss oI his business
and payment oI Iines in related civil enIorcement action and agreement to relevant bars).
We ask that the Court sentence Peterson to probation in recognition oI the Iact that he has
already been punished Ior his crime.
ii. Low Probability oI Recidivism
Peterson`s circumstances, including his age and absence oI prior criminal history,
indicate a low probability oI recidivism.
Peterson is 43 years old. Courts have recognized that the risk oI reoIIending goes down
Ior older deIendants. Accordingly, courts have imposed below-guidelines sentences Ior
Case 1:12-cr-00224-JBW Document 17 Filed 08/10/12 Page 32 of 56 PageID #: 107

27

deIendants over Iorty. 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 deIendant 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. 11, 2005) (imposing a below-guidelines sentence on a 55-year-old deIendant,
recognizing her low risk oI reoIIending, and noting that '|t|wo recent courts have declined to
impose Guidelines sentences on deIendants who, like Carmona-Rodriguez, were over the age oI
Iorty on the grounds that such deIendants exhibit markedly lower rates oI recidivism in
comparison to younger deIendants¨ (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 Ior 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 Iound
that Ior deIendants in Criminal History Category I, as Peterson is, the recidivism rate Ior
deIendants who are between the ages oI 41 and 50 is 6.9°. In contrast, the recidivism rate Ior
deIendants in Criminal History Category I who are under 21 is 29.5°. See United States
Sentencing Commission, Measuring Recidivism: The Criminal History Computation oI the
Federal Sentencing Guidelines 28 (2004).
11
We ask that the Court consider this Iactor in
sentencing.
In addition, Peterson Ialls within a criminal history category I, and has never spent any
time in jail beIore. Indeed, he has never been arrested. His crime was anomalous with
Peterson`s otherwise law-abiding liIe, a Iactor this Court has considered. See United States v.

11
This publication is available at:
http://www.ussc.gov/Research/Research¸Publications/Recidivism/200405¸Recidivism¸Criminal¸History.pdI.
Case 1:12-cr-00224-JBW Document 17 Filed 08/10/12 Page 33 of 56 PageID #: 108

28

Rowe, No. 10-CR-607, 2011 WL 6019010, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 29, 2011) (sentencing
deIendant to time served and Iive years oI supervised release, where the guidelines range was 70-
87 months, because the crime was 'out-oI-character with the deIendant`s prior law-abiding
liIe¨). Moreover, courts regularly consider the Iact that a deIendant is a Iirst-time oIIender when
deciding the appropriate sentence as considering this Iactor 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 oI 2 months in jail and 4
months home conIinement, where advisory range was 10-16 months, Ior marijuana oIIense by
deIendant who had never been conIined, was suIIicient to impress on him the seriousness oI his
crime and deter others Irom oIIending); cI. United States v. Qualls, 373 F. Supp. 2d 873, 877
(E.D. Wis. 2005) (noting that a shorter prison term is suIIicient to deter someone who has not
been subject to prior lengthy incarceration). We ask that the Court consider the Iact that
Peterson is a Iirst-time oIIender 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 oI sentences
available.
SigniIicantly, here home conIinement 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 oI requiring
Peterson to serve a sentence in the United States and, accordingly, to Iashion a sentence that
Peterson can serve in Singapore. See Gardellini, 545 F.3d at 1091 (aIIirming sentence oI
probation to be served in Belgium where deIendant lived with his wiIe and child).
12


12
II 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 halIway house less than a halI hour Irom his
Case 1:12-cr-00224-JBW Document 17 Filed 08/10/12 Page 34 of 56 PageID #: 109

29

The court may, but is not required to, order the deIendant serve a term oI supervised
release up to three years long
13
aIter any term oI imprisonment that is ordered.
14
We ask that the
Court not impose a term oI supervised release iI it chooses to impose a term oI imprisonment
under the unique Iacts oI this case in which the deIendant`s Iamily lives abroad and he has no
intention oI working in the United States aIter he completes whatever term oI imprisonment the
Court orders.
In the alternative, iI the Court chooses to impose a term oI supervised release aIter the
deIendant`s term oI imprisonment, we ask that the Court set the conditions oI the supervised
release so that Peterson serve it in Singapore. His wiIe 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, iI it chooses to set a term oI supervised release, to set the
conditions so that Peterson could return to Singapore to live with his Iamily when he completes
whatever term oI imprisonment is imposed. Section 3583(d) provides certain conditions that
must be included in a term oI supervised release. None oI the mandatory conditions oI a term oI
supervised release under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(d) require the deIendant to be in the United States.

sister`s house. II 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 EdgeIield, SC, which is approximately two and a halI hours Irom his
sister`s house.

13
Section 3583(b) authorizes the maximum length oI supervised release depending on the class oI Ielony that the
deIendant was convicted oI. Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3559(a)(4), Peterson`s oIIense is a Class D Ielony because up
to a Iive-year sentence is authorized. Under Section 3583(b)(2), the Court is authorized to impose up to three years
oI supervised release aIter Peterson is released Irom prison.

14
Under Section 3583(a) oI Title 18, the court 'may¨ impose a term oI 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.G. § 5D1.1 calls Ior a term oI supervised release in the case oI any
prison sentence over a year. This directive is only applicable iI the Court chooses to sentence Peterson to more than
a year in prison. Moreover, this directive, like the rest oI the guidelines, is merely advisory. See United States
Sentencing Commission, Federal OIIenders Sentenced to Supervised Release, 51 & 5-6 n.19-22 (2010) (discussing
the narrow list oI crimes, not relevant here, that require mandatory supervised release).

Case 1:12-cr-00224-JBW Document 17 Filed 08/10/12 Page 35 of 56 PageID #: 110

30

We thereIore ask that the Court permit Peterson to serve any term oI supervised release in
Singapore, and to set the conditions oI any term oI supervised release accordingly.
Several cases conIirm our view that the Court has authority to allow a deIendant to serve
a term oI supervised release in another country. Indeed, this Court has ordered that supervised
release be served in a diIIerent country. See United States v. Delgado, 994 F. Supp. 143, 146
(E.D.N.Y. 1998) (holding that '|s|ince deIendant will be deported, the Iive year period oI
supervised release need not be served in this country¨). Other courts have come to the same
conclusion. United States v. Pugliese, 960 F.2d 913, 916 (10th Cir. 1992) (holding that the law
provides 'no direct impediment to authorizing a person on supervised release to leave the United
States, iI the supervision the judge believes is necessary can be enIorced abroad¨).
It is clear that the Court has and has previously exercised the authority to set
conditions oI supervised release to allow a deIendant to live abroad during supervised release.
This case presents the appropriate Iactors Ior the Court to choose to exercise its discretion in this
way. Accordingly, we ask the Court to either decline to order a term oI supervised release, or to
set the conditions oI the supervised release term such that Peterson can serve it in Singapore with
his Iamily.
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 oIIense level oI 24. Eighteen points
oI the oIIense level are driven by the loss calculation.
15
The amount oI 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.
Case 1:12-cr-00224-JBW Document 17 Filed 08/10/12 Page 36 of 56 PageID #: 111

31

The agreed upon loss amount here is based on the amount oI money Morgan Stanley
would have made on the portion oI the Cavity investment that it sold to Asiasphere had it
retained that portion oI the Cavity investment. But Morgan Stanley was willing to sell a portion
oI the Cavity investment. It just was willing to sell it to a diIIerent party than it sold to. By
selling to the wrong party, Morgan Stanley was not robbed oI the asset in the traditional way.
The loss amount is based on a market calculation done in 2010. The amount oI loss
depends on the overall market Ior real estate in China, and thus reIlects a degree oI arbitrariness.
See Smirlock v. United States, No. 04 CV 9670, 2005 WL 975875 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 25, 2005)
(noting that during sentencing the court considered the Iact that 'the amount oI loss that actually
winds up resulting Irom a person`s conduct can be arbitrary and can result Irom any number oI
Iactors in the market, and may not reIlect with precision the seriousness oI misconduct¨ (ellipsis
and internal quotation marks omitted)). II the market Ior 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 Irom losing money. The Sentencing Guidelines applicable to this case
recognize that the loss amount may cause the guideline to overstate the seriousness oI the
oIIense. Under U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1 cmt. n. 19(C), the Guidelines indicate that '|t|here may be
cases in which the oIIense level determined under this guideline substantially overstates the
seriousness oI the oIIense.¨ This note has undergone revisions over the years, and previous
versions indicated that '|w|here the loss determined above signiIicantly understates or overstates
the seriousness oI the deIendant`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 oI style rather than
substance.¨ United States v. Roen, 279 F. Supp. 2d 986, 990 (E.D. Wis. 2003). We ask that the
Case 1:12-cr-00224-JBW Document 17 Filed 08/10/12 Page 37 of 56 PageID #: 112

32

Court consider the Iact that Peterson`s guideline range is primarily driven by a loss Iigure 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 deIendants with similar records who have been Iound guilty oI
similar conduct¨ during sentencing. In an article published in Business Crimes Bulletin, Gary
Stein observed that there is a 'growing riIt between the views oI the DOJ and the courts as to the
appropriate sentences Ior individual violators in FCPA cases¨ and that recent sentencing
decisions have not supported prosecutors` eIIorts to obtain lengthy prison sentences Ior FCPA
violators. Gary Stein, Sentencing oI Individuals in FCPA Cases, Business Crimes Bulletin, Vol.
18, No. 5, Jan. 2011. Stein listed a series oI recent cases, and Iound that courts had imposed
sentences 'amounting to roughly 10°, or less, oI the government`s recommended sentence.¨ Id.
Stein Iound that in FCPA cases 'a Guidelines sentence is the exception rather than the norm,¨
and that post-Booker, 81° oI deIendants who have been sentenced Ior 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 deIendants sentenced
Ior FCPA violations.
f. Restitution
Finally, Section 3553(a)(7) directs the Court to consider 'the need to provide restitution
to any victims oI the oIIense.¨ In this case, the only possible victim Morgan Stanley has
waived restitution. Under the Mandatory Victim Restitution Act oI 1996 ('MVRA¨), the
purpose oI restitution has shiIted away Irom punishment to a means oI repairing the victim`s
losses. See, e.g., United States v. Aguirre-Gonzalez, 597 F.3d 46, 51 (1st Cir. 2010) ('The
MVRA`s changes reIlect a Iundamental shiIt in the purpose oI restitution away Irom its strictly
Case 1:12-cr-00224-JBW Document 17 Filed 08/10/12 Page 38 of 56 PageID #: 113

33

penal origins; the new restitution scheme is not merely a means oI punishment and rehabilitation,
but an attempt to provide those who suIIer the consequences oI crime with some means oI
recouping the personal and Iinancial losses.¨ (internal quotation marks and alterations omitted)).
Since Morgan Stanley has expressed that it is uninterested in restitution, there is no need Ior
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 Ior victims and no
victim responded to the government's outreach attempts . . . I respectIully recommend that the
District Court order NO RESTITUTION ($0)¨). To the extent that restitution can act as an
additional Iorm oI punishment, there is no need Ior additional monetary punishment in this case.
The SEC has settled with Peterson and has leIt him with little to live on.
16
That amount is being
used to support his wiIe and children. Peterson has not been leIt with any proceeds oI his crime.
The Court has the authority to impose a criminal Iine. Under the advisory guidelines,
'|t|he court shall impose a Iine in all cases, except where the deIendant establishes that he is
unable to pay and is not likely to become able to pay any Iine.¨ U.S.S.G. § 5E1.2(a). In setting
the amount oI the criminal Iine, the Sentencing Guidelines also direct the Court to consider 'the
burden that the Iine places on the deIendant and his dependents relative to alternative
punishments¨ and 'any collateral consequences oI conviction, including civil obligations arising
Irom the deIendant`s conduct.¨ U.S.S.G. § 5E1.2(d)(3) & (5). Here, because oI Peterson`s
settlement with the SEC, a collateral consequence oI his conduct, the burden oI a Iine on his wiIe
and children is great. Peterson`s Iamily needs the money leIt over aIter his settlement with the
SEC to pay regular living expenses. Accordingly, we ask that the Court waive any Iine in this

16
The Government has waived IorIeiture based on Peterson`s settlement with the SEC.

Case 1:12-cr-00224-JBW Document 17 Filed 08/10/12 Page 39 of 56 PageID #: 114
Case 1:12-cr-00224-JBW Document 17 Filed 08/10/12 Page 40 of 56 PageID #: 115












EXHIBIT A

Case 1:12-cr-00224-JBW Document 17 Filed 08/10/12 Page 41 of 56 PageID #: 116
5('$&7('
Case 1:12-cr-00224-JBW Document 17 Filed 08/10/12 Page 42 of 56 PageID #: 117
5('$&7('
Case 1:12-cr-00224-JBW Document 17 Filed 08/10/12 Page 43 of 56 PageID #: 118
5('$&7('
Case 1:12-cr-00224-JBW Document 17 Filed 08/10/12 Page 44 of 56 PageID #: 119
5('$&7('
Case 1:12-cr-00224-JBW Document 17 Filed 08/10/12 Page 45 of 56 PageID #: 120
5('$&7('
Case 1:12-cr-00224-JBW Document 17 Filed 08/10/12 Page 46 of 56 PageID #: 121












EXHIBIT B

Case 1:12-cr-00224-JBW Document 17 Filed 08/10/12 Page 47 of 56 PageID #: 122

5('$&7('
Case 1:12-cr-00224-JBW Document 17 Filed 08/10/12 Page 48 of 56 PageID #: 123

5('$&7('
Case 1:12-cr-00224-JBW Document 17 Filed 08/10/12 Page 49 of 56 PageID #: 124












EXHIBIT C

Case 1:12-cr-00224-JBW Document 17 Filed 08/10/12 Page 50 of 56 PageID #: 125
The Honorable Jack B. Weinstein
United States District Judge
United States District Court
Eastern District oI New York
225 Cadman Plaza East
Brooklyn, NY 11201
May 31, 2012
Dear Judge Weinstein,
My name is , and I am the wiIe oI Garth Peterson. I write this letter Ior you to consider as
you sentence him Ior entering into a conspiracy to violate Morgan Stanley`s internal accounting
controls.
Garth and I met in Singapore in the early 1990s, shortly aIter he graduated Irom university. We hit it oII
right Irom the beginning. I was impressed by his intelligence and humility. Whenever we came across a
topic that I didn't understand or had no knowledge oI (such as some historical Iact), he patiently
explained it to me, without making me Ieel stupid. He still does that to this day.
When we Iirst started dating, one oI the Iirst Iamily members that Garth introduced me to was Dorothy
his nanny who had been with his Iamily even beIore he was born. She was already in her early 80s
when we met! Garth was very close to Dorothy, and they shared a very special relationship even though
they were not related. There's a photo in our home oI Dorothy taken when she was in her mid seventies,
on a beach in Spain she was wearing a bathing suit Ior the Iirst time! Garth was supporting her on one
arm, and another Iamily Iriend was holding her by the other arm. Their smiles paint a thousand words. I
saw Ior myselI the way Garth treated Dorothy so endearingly and dedicated. I remember saying to
myselI, "I could marry this guy."
During the time that Dorothy was alive, Garth took good care oI her. We oIten would meet her aIter
church, and Garth would take her Ior lunch or an ice-cream and just sit and watch the world go by
something Dorothy enjoyed doing. AIter Garth and I got married and moved to Chicago and Hong
Kong, Dorothy continued to visit and stay with us Ior a month or so each time she came. At that point,
Dorothy was getting more Irail, and had to walk with support. But Garth would still insist on taking her
out Ior walks, and meals whenever he had time and engaging her in card games and other healthy
activities.
When Dorothy gradually got weaker at the end oI 1990s, Garth paid Ior her to be in a comIortable
nursing home in CaliIornia. We visited her whenever we could, and Garth would sit with Dorothy and
5('$&7('
Case 1:12-cr-00224-JBW Document 17 Filed 08/10/12 Page 51 of 56 PageID #: 126
play bingo together with her and the rest oI the Iolks at the home. The people at the home were always
so envious oI Dorothy! When our daughter, was born in 2003 in Hong Kong, the Iirst person
Garth called to inIorm was Dorothy. She was already on her deathbed at that point, and sadly passed
away a couple oI days later. Dorothy's death was a huge blow to Garth, and with the arrival oI at
the same time, he was on a roller coaster ride emotionally imagine being a new Iather, and losing his
beloved Dorothy at the same time. Garth rushed back to CaliIornia Ior Dorothy's Iuneral the day
and I got discharged Irom hospital. That was hard Ior me at the time but I understand that he needed to
be there Ior the Iuneral.
Garth has always been a very generous, thoughtIul, and Iamily oriented man. During our time in
Chicago and Hong Kong, he would ask me when was the last time I spoke to my Iamily and would
remind me to call them. He paid Ior my Iamily to come visit us in Hong Kong and Shanghai a Iew
times and he did the same Ior his Iamily.













5('$&7('
Case 1:12-cr-00224-JBW Document 17 Filed 08/10/12 Page 52 of 56 PageID #: 127














In the last year and a halI, Garth has made signiIicant
progress. We have come to know God, and attend church regularly and that has helped us cope. Garth
has become indispensable around the house helping with the laundry and cooking Ior the Iamily. He
has made up Ior lost time, bonding really well with our son who, like his sister, has become very
attached to his dad. He wants to be with his dad all the time, and will sometimes even protest when
Garth steps away Ior cigarette breaks.
II there is any blessing to be counted out oI this ordeal it is the quality time that we get to spend
together as a Iamily. Because oI Garth's presence, our two children have beneIited Irom having a Iather
Iigure at home. Our eight year-old daughter who, like her Iather, enjoys history is able to recite the
names oI Roman emperors in chronological order thanks to her dad, who spends time every night with
her, talking about Roman or Egyptian history beIore she goes to bed. Our son is also able to read short
story books on his own, do simple addition, and spell the names oI many oI Singapore's subway
stations not bad Ior someone who is three and a halI. Again, the credit goes to Garth who spends
quality time engaging him and interacting with him, and teaching him phonics, spelling and numbers in
a Iun way. Garth also has started working out regularly at the gym and has lost over thirty pounds. He
works out at the gym and does Bible study every weekday together with a Iriend Irom church. This
truly has beneIited Garth.
As a result oI this investigation into Garth's misconduct, we have suIIered Iinancially.
5('$&7('
Case 1:12-cr-00224-JBW Document 17 Filed 08/10/12 Page 53 of 56 PageID #: 128
5('$&7('
Case 1:12-cr-00224-JBW Document 17 Filed 08/10/12 Page 54 of 56 PageID #: 129












EXHIBIT D

Case 1:12-cr-00224-JBW Document 17 Filed 08/10/12 Page 55 of 56 PageID #: 130
5('$&7('
Case 1:12-cr-00224-JBW Document 17 Filed 08/10/12 Page 56 of 56 PageID #: 131

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful