DOJ Sentencing Memo Re David Correia - Feb 1 2021

Case 1:19-cr-00725-JPO Document 171 Filed 02/01/21 Page 1 of 14
U.S. Department of Justice
United States Attorney

Southern District of New York
The Silvio J. Mollo Building

One Saint Andrew’s Plaza
New York, New York 10007
February 1, 2021
By ECF
The Honorable J. Paul Oetken

United States District Judge
40 Foley Square
New York, New York 10007
Re: United States v. David Correia, S1 19 Cr. 725 (JPO)
Dear Judge Oetken:
The Government respectfully submits this letter in advance of sentencing in the above-
captioned case, which is currently scheduled for February 8, 2021, at 11:30 a.m. David Correia
stands convicted of two offenses that stem from his successful efforts to lie to and defraud
numerous investors out of millions of dollars over the course of a seven-year period, and to lie to
the Federal Election Commission (“FEC”) by submitting a materially false affidavit in response to
an FEC inquiry. His brazen fraud and deceitful behavior caused significant financial harm to his
victims, and his lies to the FEC frustrated the agency’s important mission. For the reasons set
forth below, the Government submits that a sentence within the stipulated United States
Sentencing Guidelines (“Guidelines” or “U.S.S.G.”) range of 33 to 41 months’ imprisonment is
warranted in this case.
A. Offense Conduct
Correia pled guilty to two serious offenses. First, between 2012 and 2019, Correia and co-
defendant Lev Parnas defrauded seven different victims out of more than $2.3 million dollars.
Correia played a critical role in the scheme by convincing investors that Fraud Guarantee was a
legitimate and functioning business, when Correia knew that it was not operational and that the
vast majority of the money investors put into the company was spent on purposes having nothing
to do with Fraud Guarantee. Second, after a complaint was filed with the FEC about straw
donations made by Parnas and Igor Fruman, Correia submitted a materially false affidavit to the
FEC and helped Parnas and Fruman modify their accounting records so that they were consistent
with the their false affidavits.
Hon. J. Paul Oetken Page 2

February 1, 2021
1. The Fraud Guarantee Scheme
In late 2012, Correia and Parnas established Fraud Guarantee, and pitched it to potential
investors as a company that would provide services to protect investors from fraud. (Presentence
Investigation Report (“PSR”), dated January 20, 2021, at ¶ 27). Parnas and Correia marketed
Fraud Guarantee as a company that would “help reduce the risk of fraud as well as mitigate the
damage caused by fraudulent acts . . . by building products that protect investors in the private
equity marketplace.” They claimed that Fraud Guarantee would “provide[] . . . investors peace of
mind through comprehensive intelligence, and insurance against losses due to fraudulent behavior,
or defaults due to fraud.” Their planned product, “InvestSafe,” would be “an insurance product
which will insure investors against investment fraud.” Although the specifics morphed over time
from 2013 to 2018, the general idea the defendants pitched was that if an investor invested in
“Company XYZ” and purchased a Fraud Guarantee policy, then in the event that the investor lost
the value of his investment due to a criminal fraud at Company XYZ (resulting in a criminal
conviction), Fraud Guarantee would enable the investor to recoup his losses. (Id.).
Beginning in late 2012, Correia and Parnas began raising money for Fraud Guarantee.
(PSR ¶ 28). In their pitches to investors, they repeatedly made several false material statements:
that funds would be used for Fraud Guarantee’s purposes, that Correia and Parnas would not take
a salary from investors’ funds, and that Parnas had already invested millions in the company. (PSR
¶ 28-36). Specifically, in late 2012 and early 2013, Correia and Parnas induced three victims—
Victim-1, Victim-2, and Victim-3—to invest in Fraud Guarantee through false and fraudulent
representations. (PSR ¶ 28). Correia and Parnas told these victims that Fraud Guarantee was
raising funds to develop insurance and anti-fraud products, and otherwise facilitate the company’s
development. (Id.). Correia and Parnas, who claimed to investors that they themselves had been
victims of fraud, lulled investors into parting with their money by promising not to draw salaries
and assuring investors that all funds would be used for appropriate business expenses of Fraud
Guarantee. (Id.) Correia was responsible for sending these investors emails, management
presentations, and business plans. Based on those representations, Victim-1, Victim-2, and
Victim-3 invested a total of approximately $750,000 in Fraud Guarantee in 2013 and 2014. (PSR
¶ 29). Contrary to the promises made by Correia and Parnas, the majority of those funds were not
spent on purposes having anything to do with Fraud Guarantee. (Id.). Over $230,000 was
withdrawn in cash and used for personal expenses; $130,000 was used to pay rent for Parnas’s
house; $40,000 was transferred to accounts in the name of Parnas’s wife; and tens of thousands of
dollars were spent on personal expenditures, including more than $30,000 at luxury car leasing
companies. (Id.).
As Correia and Parnas burned through their victims’ initial funds, they sought additional
investments. Based on representations by Correia and Parnas that additional funds were needed
for legitimate business expenses of Fraud Guarantee, Victim-1 and Victim-2 paid another
$190,000 in 2014 to an account controlled by Parnas and his wife. (PSR ¶ 30). Over $100,000 of
those investments were used to pay rent for Parnas’s home; more than $29,000 was withdrawn in
cash; $4,000 was transferred to an account in the name of Correia’s wife; 1 $3,000 was transferred
1
According to his wife, who was interviewed by the FBI, Correia’s bank accounts had
been closed due to the number of checks that he had bounced and he was barred from opening a

February 1, 2021
to Parnas’s saving account; and thousands of dollars were spent on other personal expenditures.
(Id.). Correia and Parnas also made additional misrepresentations to Victim-3 in 2014, telling him
that additional funds were needed for legitimate business expenses of Fraud Guarantee. (Id.).
Victim-3 paid another $15,000 to an account in the name of Fraud Guarantee, on which both
Correia and Parnas were signatories. (Id.). From that investment, $8,000 was withdrawn in cash,
$3,000 was transferred to an account in Correia’s wife’s name, and at least a few hundred dollars
were spent on various personal expenses. (Id.).
In late 2015, Parnas and Correia were again desperate for money, and based on false and
fraudulent representations, they induced another victim, Victim-4, to invest in Fraud Guarantee.
(PSR ¶ 31). Correia and Parnas provided Victim-4 with a Fraud Guarantee business plan, that
Correia had put together, which contained multiple false and misleading claims about the
company, including suggestions that the funds raised up until that point had been used on
legitimate business expenses, when in actuality, those funds had largely been used on cash
withdrawals and personal expenses. (PSR ¶ 31). Correia and Parnas also told Victim-4 that the
funds Victim-4 invested would similarly be used solely for legitimate business expenses of Fraud
Guarantee. (Id.). Correia and Parnas committed that promise to writing, providing Victim-4 with
a convertible loan agreement which represented that Victim-4’s funds would be used “. . . to
finance the development, promotion and initial operation of an investment protection business. .
.” and would be “. . . fully reserved and committed. . .” for such purposes. (Id.). To seal the deal
with Victim-4, Parnas and Correia told him that Parnas had personally invested millions of dollars
in Fraud Guarantee, which was false. (Id.). Based on those representations, between December
2015 and mid-2016, Victim-4 invested a total of approximately $300,000 in Fraud Guarantee.
(PSR ¶ 32). Victim-4 wired his funds to a bank account in Parnas’s name—not in the name of
Fraud Guarantee—because Parnas and Correia led Victim-4 to falsely believe that Parnas had
already contributed approximately $300,000 to Fraud Guarantee on Victim-4’s behalf, and that
Victim-4 therefore needed to reimburse Parnas. (Id.). In actuality, Parnas had never contributed
any funds to Fraud Guarantee on Victim-4’s behalf, nor had Parnas contributed the $300,000 to
Fraud Guarantee once Victim-4 transferred those funds to Parnas’s personal account. (Id.).
Rather, while a portion of the funds Victim-4 transferred to Parnas’s account was used for Fraud
Guarantee’s business expenses, Parnas and Correia mainly used the funds for personal purposes.
(Id.). In particular, during that period, more than $76,000 was withdrawn as cash from the account;
approximately $14,000 was transferred to accounts in the name of Parnas, his wife, and his son.
From those accounts, approximately $2,000 was then transferred to an account in the name of
Correia’s wife; approximately $5,500 was transferred directly to an account in Correia’s wife’s
name; and thousands of dollars were spent on various personal expenditures, including more than
$30,000 at luxury car leasing companies. (Id.).
The fraud scheme continued in 2016 when Correia and Parnas induced another victim,
Victim-5, to invest in Fraud Guarantee through false and fraudulent representations. (PSR ¶ 33).
Correia and Parnas told Victim-5 that Parnas had contributed a significant amount of money to the
company. (Id.). Correia and Parnas also provided Victim-5 with Fraud Guarantee documents
which indicated that Parnas’s capital contribution was $570,000, and in another document that
Parnas’s capital contribution was $1,100,000 and Correia’s capital contribution was $143,000.
bank in his own name. The funds transferred to her account, she confirmed, were Correia’s
contribution to his family’s living expenses.

February 1, 2021
(Id.). Those representations were false: Parnas and Correia had invested little, if any, money in
Fraud Guarantee. (Id.). Correia also provided Victim-5 with a false and misleading business
plan—the same one that had previously been furnished to Victim-4. (Id.). Based on those
representations, Victim-5 invested approximately $250,000 in Fraud Guarantee, consisting of
approximately $200,000 in payments to Parnas’s personal account plus a vehicle valued at
approximately $50,000 which Victim-5 transferred to Parnas. (Id.).
In late 2016, Correia and Parnas induced Victim-6 to invest in Fraud Guarantee through
false and fraudulent representations. (PSR ¶ 34). Correia and Parnas promised Victim-6 that they
were not drawing salaries and that Victim-6’s funds would be used for appropriate business
expenses of Fraud Guarantee. (Id.). Parnas told Victim-6 that Parnas had invested millions of
dollars of his own money in Fraud Guarantee, which was false. Correia also advised Victim-6,
via email, that there was significant investment from all parties in order to take ownership in Fraud
Guarantee which equated to several millions of dollars invested. (Id.). Correia’s statement was
patently false: Fraud Guarantee had raised substantially less than several millions of dollars and,
of those funds raised, they had largely been withdrawn as cash, transferred to personal accounts,
and spent on personal expenditures. (Id.). Parnas and Correia also sent Victim-6 the false and
misleading business plan which they had provided to Victim-4 and Victim-5. (Id.). Victim-6
invested approximately $300,000 in Fraud Guarantee through a payment to Parnas’s personal bank
account. (PSR ¶ 35). At the time they were soliciting money from Victim-6, it was clear that they
intended to use the funds on personal expenses. Shortly before Victim-6 wired the funds, Parnas
texted Correia: “Waiting 🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏,” to which Correia responded, “[s]till nothing” and Parnas wrote,
“[n]ope.” After Correia spoke to Victim-6 and relayed to Parnas that Victim-6 said he would be
wiring funds soon, Correia said to Parnas: “Please do the $25!... really need every penny to pay
people and bills.” Parnas replied, “👍👍👍👍.” 2 Once the wire arrived in Parnas’s account,
approximately $169,000 was transferred to a personal account belonging to Parnas and his wife;
approximately $14,000 was withdrawn as cash; and thousands of dollars were spent on various
personal expenditures. (Id.). Additionally, out of the approximately $169,000 transferred to an
account in the name of Parnas and his wife, approximately $50,000 was used to pay for a political
contribution so that Parnas could attend a fundraising event hosted by Victim-6 and meet then-
candidate Donald Trump. As Correia had requested before the money arrived, Parnas also wired
approximately $25,000 to an account in the name of Correia’s wife so that Correia could pay
personal expenses and use some of the money to attend the event.
In 2018, Parnas and Correia met Victim-7 and induced him to invest in Fraud Guarantee
through false and fraudulent representations. (PSR ¶ 36). Parnas and Correia falsely told Victim-
7 that Fraud Guarantee had raised millions of dollars from investors. (Id.) Victim-7 pressed Parnas
and Correia for assurances about how his investment would be used. On September 18, 2018,
Correia and Victim-7 spoke by telephone, and Victim-7 questioned Correia about the potential
investment. Victim-7 was, in particular, interested in the involvement of a high-profile attorney
(“Attorney-1”) whom Victim-7 greatly admired. Victim-7 recorded the conversation without
2
The text messages referenced herein have been produced to Correia in discovery and
will be provided to the Court upon request.

February 1, 2021
Correia’s knowledge and the transcript of the call, which is attached as Exhibit A, reflects the
following: 3
• Victim-7 asked about the valuation of the company, inquiring whether they expected it
to go from a $20 million valuation to “a $50 million valuation on the high end, right?”
Correia responded, “No, not the high end. It’ll probably go [to] a $50 million valuation
with [Attorney-1] being signed on.” Victim-7 said, “No, shit. Really?” and Correia
said, “oh, absolutely.”
• Victim-7 asked Correia “[h]ow much money do you have from people that are
committed to this . . . venture? How much money do you have that has been . . . pledged
. . . at this point to come in?” Correia said that he “do[esn’t] keep a ledger of that” but
said the amount is “[t]ens of millions of dollars” if he adds up everyone who has said
they will invest when the company is ready. Correia added, “If I reached out to the
people that . . . have been along for the ride in terms of waiting for us to raise money,
and I said to them, . . . we want to go forward. I bet you if we wanted to raise ten million
we wouldn’t have a problem raising ten million at this valuation . . . without any effort.”
• Victim-7 asked Correia “how much money do you have scheduled to raise at the
moment?” Correia said that “[r]ight now, we’re just doing a smaller amount for a couple
of million dollars to be able to get . . . to the next phase.” He continued, “Right now
I’ve got the existing shareholders that are going to put in money . . . we’re bringing in
about $1 million from them right now, and then Lev will probably throw in 250.” These
statements were false. None of Fraud Guarantee’s “existing shareholders” were in
discussions to contribute any funds, much less $1 million. Nor was Parnas himself
planning to contribute $250,000. (Id.).
• Victim-7 asked why—if the company was raising approximately $1 million, of which
he was contributing $250,000—he was receiving only 1% of the equity rather than 25%.
Correia responded that “we put millions of dollars into the company.” Victim-7 asked,
“So are you telling me, just so we’re clear, are you telling me that you’ve got millions
of dollars of your actual money in this thing?” Correia replied, “Of course. Not my
money, but . . . some of my money. Lev has money in it. We have other. . . original
shareholders, of course.” Victim-7 asked again, “How much money . . . has been
invested in this company so far overall?” Correia replied, “I just said millions, man. I
don’t misspeak. Four or $5 million probably.” These statements were false. Fraud
Guarantee had raised far less than the “millions” claimed by Correia, and certainly had
not raised the four to five million dollars Correia claimed. (PSR ¶ 36). Parnas and
Correia had not contributed millions of their own money. (Id.).
• Correia said that Fraud Guarantee was more than a mere “idea.” He said that Attorney-
1 was “signing on” “to the fact that we have built underwriting and scoring systems and
algorithms that have blown their minds that insurance companies have decided to, for
3
The transcript, which was produced in unredacted form in discovery, has been partially
redacted due to victim and third party privacy interests. The Government will provide an
unredacted copy to the Court upon request.

February 1, 2021
the first time in history of the United States—actually globally, ever decided to engage
in covering fraud in the investment world.” This statement was false. The business was
nowhere near the stage represented by Correia. By this point, they were still in
discussions with insurance carriers, and none had “decided to” enter into a deal with
them.
• Victim-7 said that if “[Attorney-1] wasn’t part of this thing, I probably wouldn’t do it.
. . . If you’re telling me that [Attorney-1] is definitely on board with this thing and he’s
not going to back out . . . I’m good. So I’m getting your assurance that [Attorney-1] is
definitely in with this thing without a problem?” Correia replied, “Absolutely, 100
percent.” He then told Victim-7 that he could send his $250,000 payment directly to
Attorney-1’s consulting business, on behalf of Fraud Guarantee.
To seal the deal with Victim-7, Correia texted Parnas the next day that “all is good” with
Victim-7 and the “only contingency he had was that he was asking that Attorney-1 jump on the
phone with him to welcome him aboard so he knows he’s really a part of it. He trusts, but he’s
just a little trigger shy having lost money on another deal recently. Let me know if you can
facilitate that.” Parnas responded, “Tell him when everything is sighed and wire hits he will call
him.” Correia sent Victim-7 a voicemail that Attorney-1 had left for Correia. In the voicemail,
Attorney-1 noted certain of the steps he would take to assist Fraud Guarantee in exchange for a
$500,000 payment. Victim-7 responded to Correia, “Just please confirm here that [Attorney-1] is
a partner on this and be in it for the long haul with all of us.” Correia wrote, “He is absolutely on
board and part of the company. He, via[] [his consulting firm] will be with us and help with
compliance and regulatory issues, advertising and marketing, and several other deliverables. He
has also agreed that we can use his likeness to be the ‘face of the company’ (should we choose)
for commercials, advertisements, etc. He personally will also engage in sales/business
development . . . . Simply put, we will have full access to his entire team. Extremely broad list of
things he has agreed to do. The relationship is very strong and we are doing business with him in
other capacities as well.” Victim-7 replied, “Ok. I’m in. Money will be there within the next 2
hours.” Victim-7 then wired $250,000 to Attorney-1’s firm. Approximately two weeks later,
Parnas asked Victim-7 to wire an additional $250,000 to Attorney-1’s firm, which Victim-7 did.
In sum, over the course of the scheme, Correia and Parnas conspired to defraud at least
seven victims out of a total of approximately $2,322,500 through the commission of wire fraud.
(PSR ¶ 37). Despite the length of the scheme and the amount of money invested by victims, Fraud
Guarantee never became operational. (PSR ¶ 27). At his guilty plea proceeding, Correia admitted
that he gave “incorrect information” to potential investors in Fraud Guarantee and “knew this was
wrong at the time that it was done.” (Plea Tr., Oct. 29, 2020, at 18).
2. Correia’s False Statements to the FEC
In March 2018, Parnas and Fruman began attending political fundraising events related to
the 2018 midterm elections. (PSR ¶ 21). To attend those events, Parnas and Fruman made, or
promised to make, substantial contributions to candidates, joint fundraising committees, and
independent expenditure committees with the purpose of enhancing their influence in political
circles and gaining access to politicians. (Id.). Parnas, Fruman, and Correia believed that by
attending these events, they could advance their personal financial interests and promote an energy
import-export business, Global Energy Producers (“GEP”), which they were in the process of

February 1, 2021
launching. (Id.). At that time, GEP did not have any income or assets, including a bank account.
(Id.). According to records from the IRS, GEP never filed any return, and according to U.S.
Department of Energy records, GEP never had a permit to engage in shipping of oil or natural gas.
In April 2018, Parnas received an invitation to a fundraising dinner later that month with
President Trump. Parnas was told that he would need to pledge to contribute $1,000,000 to the
America First Action super PAC to attend the event. Parnas, Fruman, and Correia agreed that by
attending the event, Parnas and Fruman could promote their business interests, including but not
limited to GEP. But since GEP had no money, the defendants had to obtain funding from other
sources. Parnas texted Correia on April 25, 2018, “Bro when you wake up please look at every
hard money lender you know and how quick can we turn it around.” The next morning, Correia
emailed a mortgage broker the next morning about getting a private loan on one of Fruman’s
properties, and told him they needed the money to take advantage of a potential energy business
deal. Fruman ultimately agreed to a one-year $3 million private loan with a 9 percent interest rate.
On May 17, 2018, the proceeds of the loan were transferred to a bank account controlled by Parnas
in the name of an LLC (with very little money in the account), and from there $325,000 was wired
to American First Action PAC. (PSR ¶ 22). The memo on the wire indicated it was from “Global
Energy Producers” and days later, a personal assistant who worked for Parnas, Fruman, and
Correia completed a contribution form, at Parnas’s direction, which stated the contribution came
from “Global Energy Producers.” The contribution form required Parnas to affirm that “[t]his
contribution is made from the funds of the above-listed donor, will not be reimbursed by another,
and if this contribution is made via credit card, it is being made with a card for which the donor
has a legal obligation to pay and will not be made on the card of another.”
In July 2018, multiple press stories ran about the $325,000 contribution from GEP, raising
questions about its source and validity. On July 25, 2018, the Campaign Legal Center filed a
complaint with the FEC about the contribution, arguing that it was an illegal straw donation.
Correia took the lead on responding to the press and FEC allegations. Correia contacted an
accountant about recording the $325,000 contribution as coming from GEP and told the accountant
to “update the GEP balance sheet to properly reflect the fact that the $325,000 donation is in-fact
booked properly and will memorialize[] that GEP is the entity that made the donation (albeit via
[Parnas’s LLC]).” Correia also told the accountant that they would “follow-up with [Parnas’s]
LLC’s info so the numbers will properly jive” and it was their “intent all along, just need to show
it on the financials.” Correia further asked the accountant for “any insight as to any specific
language that should be included with the loan documents that would memorialize the transaction.”
On October 11, 2018, GEP, Fruman, Parnas, and Correia filed a response with the FEC to
the Campaign Legal Center’s complaint. Attached to the response were sworn affidavits by
Parnas, Fruman, and Correia. According to the Fruman, Parnas, and Correia affidavits, GEP “is a
real business enterprise funded with substantial bona fide capital investments,” “its major purpose
is energy trading, not political activity,” and the America First Action contribution “was made
with GEP funds for GEP purposes.” Those statements were false. (PSR ¶¶ 24-25). The funds
used to make the America First Action PAC contribution came from Fruman’s private real estate
lending transaction, and GEP had no business activity or revenues when it made the contribution.
(Id.). At his guilty plea, Correia admitted that his FEC affidavit contained information “that [was]
not correct” and he “knew that this was wrong at the time [he] did it.” (Plea Tr. at 17).

February 1, 2021
B. Procedural History and the Stipulated Guidelines Range
On October 9, 2019, Correia and his three co-defendants were charged in an indictment
with campaign finance offenses. (Dkt. 1). Correia was arrested on October 16, 2019. (PSR p. 2).
On September 17, 2020, a Grand Jury returned a superseding indictment charging: (i) Parnas and
Fruman with conspiring to defraud the United States by obstructing the lawful functions of the
FEC and knowingly make straw donations in excess of $25,000, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371;
52 U.S.C. § 30122 and 30109(d)(1)(A) and (D) (Count One); (ii) Parnas, Fruman, and Correia
with making materially false statements to the FEC, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a)(2) and (2)
(Count Two); (iii) Parnas, Fruman, and Correia with making materially false statements to the FEC
with the intent to impede, obstruct, and influence the administration of a matter within the
jurisdiction of the FEC, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1519 and 2 (Count Three); (iv) Parnas, Fruman,
Correia, and Andrey Kukushkin with conspiring to defraud the United States by obstructing the
lawful functions of the FEC and knowingly make foreign straw donations in excess of $25,000, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371; 52 U.S.C. § 30121, 30122 and 30109(d)(1)(A) and (D) (Count Four);
(v) Parnas, Fruman, and Correia with soliciting contributions from a foreign national, in violation
of 52 U.S.C. § 30121 and 30109(d)(1)(A) (Count Five); (vi) Parnas, Fruman, and Kukushkin with
aiding and abetting the making of contributions by a foreign national, in violation of 52 U.S.C.
§ 30121 and 30109(d)(1)(A) (Count Six); and (vii) Parnas and Correia with conspiring to commit
wire fraud in connection with defrauding seven investors in their business “Fraud Guarantee,” in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1349 (Count Seven). (PSR ¶¶ 1-8).
On October 29, 2020, Correia pled guilty to Counts Two and Seven pursuant to a plea
agreement. (Id. ¶ 10). As part of that agreement, the parties agreed that the Guidelines range was
33 to 41 months’ imprisonment (the “Stipulated Guidelines Range”). (Id.). Correia also agreed
to (i) forfeit to the Government $43,650, which represented the proceeds of the offense traceable
to Correia; and (ii) pay restitution in the amount of $2,322,500 to the seven victims listed in the
plea agreement. (Id.).
C. Presentence Investigation Report
On January 20, 2021, the Probation Department issued the final PSR. (Dkt. 168). In the
PSR, the Probation Department agreed with the parties’ Guidelines calculation, and determined
that the total offense level was 20; that Correia was assigned to Criminal History Category I; and
that as a result the applicable Guidelines range, consistent with the Stipulated Guidelines Range,
was 33 to 41 months’ imprisonment. (PSR ¶¶ 44-65, p. 35). Citing the seriousness of the offense,
and specifically the “severity of the wire fraud scheme” that “resulted in significant losses totaling
more than $2.3 million to several victims,” the Probation Department recommends “a custodial
sentence.” (Id. at 37). However, because Correia’s personal gain “amounted to only a fraction of
the total losses of the conspiracy,” and since he is a first-time offender, the Probation Department

February 1, 2021
recommends a term of imprisonment of 366 days. (Id.). In addition, the Probation Department
recommends forfeiture in the amount of $43,650, and restitution in the amount of $2,322,500.
D. Discussion
The Government submits that a sentence within the Stipulated Guidelines Range of 33 to
41 months’ imprisonment is appropriate in order to reflect the serious nature of the defendant’s
conduct, afford adequate deterrence, and promote respect for the law.
1. The Nature and Circumstances of the Offense
First, a sentence within the Stipulated Guidelines Range would appropriately reflect the
serious nature of the defendant’s conduct and promote respect for the law. See 18 U.S.C. §§
3553(a)(1), (2)(A). Over the course of a seven year period, Correia defrauded seven different
investors out of more than $2 million. He did so not once, not twice, but over and over again. He
lied to each of these investors on a variety of material topics; prepared and disseminated
demonstrably and materially false investment materials; and knew that the vast majority of the
funds he and Parnas raised were not going to be used, as promised, to grow Fraud Guarantee’s
business, but instead to other, improper purposes, including to cover their own personal expenses.
The recording of the call between Correia and Victim-7 is emblematic of the pivotal role Correia
played in defrauding investors. Correia lent credibility to the venture: he knew the details and
could “talk the talk” and appeared knowledgeable and confident, even though much of what he
was saying was false or misleading. Correia knew as much, of course, and yet he made these false
claims anyways. Moreover, Correia knew how to gain the trust of his victims (for instance, by
taking advantage of Victim-7’s admiration for Attorney-1) when all the while Correia was lying
to them about the money invested in Fraud Guarantee; how operational the business was; and how
their funds would be spent.
What makes this fraud so shameless, and the conduct so serious, is the fact that a significant
portion of the victims’ funds were used to pay for the personal expenses of Correia, Parnas, and
their families. The vast majority of the investors’ funds were not used to develop the business, or
pay for employees’ salaries: Correia and Parnas simply stole the money. Correia clearly knew
where their victims’ money was going. In addition to his intimate involvement in Fraud
Guarantee’s day-to-day activities, Correia was a signatory to the Fraud Guarantee accounts—
despite his claim that Parnas controlled them—and thus knew precisely how little of the victims’
funds were going to legitimate business expenses. (Def. Ltr. 9). Correia places the blame for his
own actions on Parnas, citing the amount of money that went to Parnas (Def. Ltr. 8-9). While
Parnas and his family received a far greater share of the profits of the scheme, the amount of money
received by Correia was significant to his overall financial picture and essential to covering his
living expenses. Indeed, text messages between Parnas and Correia reflect the fact that Correia
was routinely broke, and consistently seeking ways to cover basic living expenses. When victims’
funds came in and a comparatively small amount was transferred to Correia, he was overjoyed to
be able to cover his living costs and existing debts. For example, as the text exchange between
Correia and Parnas about Victim-6’s funds makes clear, Correia was eagerly awaiting the arrival
of money from Victim-6 not because of the impact on Fraud Guarantee, but because he wanted
Parnas to wire $25,000 to him for living expenses. In short, Correia’s role should not be assessed
solely by the total amount of money he received since he was instrumental in carrying out the
fraud. As detailed extensively above, Correia was pivotal to convincing investors that the

February 1, 2021
operation was seemingly legitimate, he handled many of the direct (and fraudulent)
communications with donors and potential donors, he created the materially false investment
materials and circulated them to the victims, and he continued to dupe investors for years knowing
that their investments would instead be used for improper, personal expenses. Correia’s lies and
deceit had serious consequences for his victims, each of whom lost hundreds of thousands of
dollars. The seriousness of this conduct weighs strongly in favor of a Guidelines sentence.
The fact that Correia may well have hoped that Fraud Guarantee would someday be
successful, earning his clients—and himself—money, is belied by his own misappropriation of
victims’ funds and hardly excuses giving victims obviously and patently false information to cause
them to invest. Correia contends that he truly believed in Fraud Guarantee and claims that such a
belief makes him “unlike most criminal defendants who have pled guilty to fraud.” (Def. Ltr. 2).
The argument, however attractive on the surface, is belied by the brazenness of the defendant’s
conduct. The defendant—knowing full well that Fraud Guarantee did not have a marketable
product, did not have “millions” in investments, and knowing that he and Parnas had not personally
invested substantial sums of their own money—nonetheless duped victim after victim into making
substantial investments under false pretenses. His hope that the business may one day succeed—
which hardly differentiates him from any other fraudster—does not in any way mitigate or excuse
his egregious conduct.
Moreover, Correia’s conduct was not the result of a single, isolated lapse in judgement.
Rather, for more than seven years, Correia worked hand-in-hand with Parnas to identify, deceive,
and defraud their victims. Correia befriended his victims and used his charm and ability to
engender trust to bilk them of their money. Correia took advantage of his victims’ trust to solicit
funds by purposefully and intentionally telling lies about things that he knew to be false. He did
that because he knew that if he told the victims the truth—that Fraud Guarantee was not a real,
operating business and that the victims’ money was going not to business expenses, but to pay for
personal expenses—they would have never invested.
That Correia perpetrated this wire fraud in connection with a business called Fraud
Guarantee is more than an unfortunate irony. In preparing to launch the business, Correia did
research about fraud laws and consulted a former prosecutor about fraud offenses. When he sold
victims on an investment in the company, he claimed that he and Parnas had once been defrauded.
He told his victims that the financial impact of that fraud hurt him terribly and drove him to launch
a business to prevent that type of damage to other people. And while he was doing that—while he
was telling them how terrible it can be to be a victim of fraud—he was stealing their money. Some
of Correia’s victims have apparently forgiven him—although the fact that they appear more
concerned for Corriea’s reputation and well-being suggests that Correia has not come clean with
his victims and instead has continued to shade the truth to make himself look less culpable.
Nonetheless, each of his victims have lost hundreds of thousands of dollars that Correia has made
no effort to date to pay back. The brazenness of the scheme demands a sentence that reflects the
real-world consequences of his actions and its serious nature.
It also bears noting that the Guidelines here are driven not by the intended loss, but on the
actual loss caused to Correia’s and Parnas’s victims. The loss amount does not overstate the harm,
and to the contrary, directly reflects the harm that Correia’s lies and deceit caused on his victims.
None of the victims have gotten a penny of their money back, and given that Correia has remained
unemployed for the year and a half following his arrest, it appears unlikely that Correia will ever

February 1, 2021
be able to make his victims whole. And it also bears noting that the reason this fraud came to an
end was not because Correia had a change of heart, but as a result of his and Parnas’s arrest and
the Government’s investigation.
With respect to Correia’s conviction on Count Two, his conduct is also serious and also
merits a Guidelines sentence. Correia went to significant efforts to lie to and deceive an important
regulatory agency tasked with enforcing the campaign finance laws to ensure transparent elections,
the FEC, about the source of a substantial political contribution. He did so in direct response to
learning that the source of that donation was likely to be subject to inquiry and potential scrutiny.
Correia was not a minor participant in the scheme: he took the lead with respect to public relations;
he submitted his own false affidavit; and he asked an accountant to alter GEP’s financial records
to substantiate the lie that Correia, Parnas, and Fruman told about the source of the funds for the
GEP contribution. In particular, he knew that lie to be false because he was personally involved
in obtaining the source of funds for the GEP contribution. Correia has proffered no explanation
for his deceit, and the fact that he so willingly engaged in a different type of fraudulent conduct
while also engaging in a long-term wire fraud underscores the seriousness of his criminal conduct
and his lack of respect for the law.
2. The Need to Afford Adequate Deterrence
Second, the need to afford adequate deterrence weighs in favor of a sentence within the
Stipulated Guidelines Range. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 3553(a)(1), (2)(B).
Specific deterrence is necessary here. Correia has spent much of his adult working life
engaged in the fraud scheme to which he has now pled guilty. He has remained unemployed since
his arrest, and appears to have no imminent plans to make money to pay back his victims or support
himself legitimately. Correia has not spent a single day in prison, and has appeared before Your
Honor only once since his arrest, yet he asks for a non-incarceratory sentence: it is difficult to
imagine how several video conference calls with the Court could provide adequate deterrence
given the seriousness and scope of Correia’s conduct. Moreover, Correia’s sentencing submission
strongly suggests that Correia continues to downplay the seriousness of his conduct and continues
to have trouble accepting his role in the scheme. While the Government does not dispute that
Correia has met the requirements of U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1, Correia’s attempts to shift blame of Parnas
for his own conduct along with his repeated claims that he truly believed in a business he knew
full well was a far cry from the multi-million dollar operation he touted to investors—strongly
suggests that something more than a non-custodial sentence is needed to impart on this defendant
the magnitude of his crimes and to ensure he does not engage in further criminal conduct. . (See
Def. Ltr. at 2).
Correia’s lack of empathy for his victims also counsels in favor of the need for specific
deterrence. It is notable that in his eight-page letter to the Court, Correia does not mention his
victims—and the millions of dollars they lost as a result of his conduct—a single time. While
Correia devotes paragraphs to the harm that his family experienced after law enforcement agents
visited his home in an effort to find and arrest Correia (Def. Ltr. 11), and complains about the
difficulty he experienced seeing his face “plastered” on CNN (Correia Ltr. 6), he evinces none of
the same concern for the families of his victims, each of whom lost hundreds of thousands of
dollars because of Correia’s criminal conduct. Similarly, Correia expresses no regret and offers
no excuse for his decision to submit a false affidavit and attempt to deceive the FEC and by

February 1, 2021
extension the American public. His self-regard at the expense of his victims and the public is
troubling. (See Correia Ltr.). In sum, Correia’s justifications for his criminal conduct and lack of
consideration for his victims strongly suggest that Correia may recidivate and is in need of specific
deterrence.
General deterrence is also of particular importance in this case. It is important that those
who might choose to engage in brazen fraud of the sort that occurred here, particularly a fraud that
resulted in the loss of millions of dollars, be sent a clear message that such conduct will not be
tolerated and will result in stiff punishment. See, e.g., United States v. Heffernan, 43 F.3d 1144,
1149 (7th Cir. 1994) (“Considerations of (general) deterrence argue for punishing more heavily
those offenses that either are lucrative or are difficult to detect and punish, since both attributes go
to increase the expected benefits of a crime and hence the punishment required to deter it.”); United
States v. Martin, 455 F.3d 1227, 1240 (11th Cir. 2006) (“Because economic and fraud-based
crimes are more rational, cool, and calculated than sudden crimes of passion or opportunity, these
crimes are prime candidates for general deterrence.” (internal quotation marks omitted)).
Imposing a non-custodial sentence in this case—a significant downward departure from

the applicable Guidelines range—suggests that these kinds of white collar crimes are not as
important, or at least not as deserving of punishment, as other crimes. Imposing a term of
incarceration, by contrast, is critical to the goal of affording adequate general deterrence to future
crime of this nature. See United States v. Livesay, 587 F.3d 1274, 1279 (11th Cir. 2009) (“[I]t is
difficult to imagine a would-be white-collar criminal being deterred from stealing millions of
dollars from his company by the threat of a purely probationary sentence.”). Finally, with respect
to the conduct charged in Count Two, Correia’s efforts to deceive the FEC and by extension the
American public do not merit a mere slap on the wrist. Correia went to significant efforts to submit
a demonstrably false affidavit and falsify business records in service of those lies. A Guidelines
sentence adequately serves to deter both Correia and others who may be considering lying to and
deceiving the FEC in connection with its important mission.
Accordingly, a sentence within the Stipulated Guidelines Range would adequately balance
the relevant considerations under Section 3553(a) and achieve the statute’s stated objectives.
3. The Defendant’s Remaining Arguments Do Not Warrant a Non-Incarceratory

Sentence
Correia’s remaining arguments in support of a substantially below Guidelines, non-

incarceratory sentence are unpersuasive.
First, Correia points to his difficult childhood in support of his request for a non-
incarceratory sentence. However, it bears noting that Correia was not a man who was desperate
or had no prospects. He had some college education and experience working in the restaurant
industry, and was a talented golfer in his youth. While he had a difficult childhood, as is
unfortunately true for many defendants, by the time he reached adulthood he had a loving wife and
family and owned a home, and was in that respect much more fortunate than many defendants that
come before this Court for sentencing. Correia’s decision in the face of those circumstances to lie
and cheat his investors—whether the motivation was more money, more success, or something
else—is particularly troubling. See United States v. Stefonek, 179 F.3d 1030, 1038 (7th Cir. 1999)
(“Criminals who have the education and training that enables people to make a decent living

February 1, 2021
without resorting to crime are more rather than less culpable than their desperately poor and
deprived brethren in crime.”).
Second, Correia’s conduct since his arrest also weighs in favor of a Guidelines sentence.
Correia has taken no steps to repay his victims, and his sentencing submission evinces no concern
for those victims or the millions of dollars they lost. Correia has remained unemployed since
October 2019, and although he incorporated a business in 2020, it is not functional and Correia
appears to have made no effort to obtain any other employment. (PSR ¶ 93). Correia also does
not appear to have taken any steps to come clean with, or apologize to, his victims, maintaining
even in his instant submission that he genuinely believed in a company he knew had no viable
product and was instead a vehicle for a brazen fraud scheme.
Third, Correia cites to his familial responsibilities to justify a significantly below-

Guidelines sentence. (Def. Ltr. 10-12, 15). The Government is sympathetic to the strains a
custodial sentence will place on Correia’s family, and that is certainly a consideration to take into
account in sentencing Correia. But as the Second Circuit has observed, “[d]isruption of the
defendant’s life, and the concomitant difficulties for those who depend on the defendant, are
inherent in the punishment of incarceration,” but not a basis for a variance. United States v.
Johnson, 964 F.2d 124, 128 (2d Cir. 1992). Moreover, because Correia is not a sole caregiver nor
an actual source of financial support for his children, the substantial variance sought by the
defendant is not warranted here. Cf. United States v. Smith, 331 F.3d 292, 294 (2d Cir. 2003)
(finding that a downward departure based on family circumstances was not justified where the
defendant “was not the sole caregiver or financial supporter of his son” and noting that “[i]t is not
unusual…for a convicted defendant’s incarceration to cause some hardship in the family.”).
Fourth, Correia argues that certain health issues justify a non-incarceratory sentence. (Def.
Ltr. 12, 15-18). However, Correia fails to point to any health conditions that the Bureau of Prisons
cannot address. While the Government does not question that Correia suffers from these issues,
none of these conditions, even when considered together, are so severe that they warrant a non-
Guidelines sentence, and certainly not a sentence of probation or home confinement. As Probation
has correctly noted, the Bureau of Prisons operates several medical facilities that can readily
accommodate the defendant’s health issues. (PSR at 37). The Bureau of Prisons has similarly
affirmed that they can care for Correia’s health issues and accommodate his diet. (See Ex. B.
(Letter from Bureau of Prisons, unredacted version to be filed under seal due to personal medical
information)).
Finally, Correia devotes a substantial portion of his sentencing memorandum to arguing

that he should not be sentenced to a term of imprisonment because of the impact of COVID-19 on
the Bureau of Prisons’ inmate population. (Def. Ltr. 17-18). As an initial matter, the Government
notes that it was Correia (not the Government) who sought to move forward with sentencing at
this time. Indeed, the Government suggested to the defendant that adjourning sentencing might
be appropriate so as to allow for the possibility that if a term of incarceration was imposed, the
risks posed by COVID-19 might have abated. More important, to the extent the defendant is
concerned about the risks posed by COVID-19, the Government would have no objection to an
extended surrender date until such time as a vaccine is more widely available (particularly within
the prison population, where vaccination is currently underway). The current pandemic should
not require the Court to wholly abandon the Guidelines and the goals of sentencing articulated in
§ 3553.

February 1, 2021
E. Conclusion
For the reasons set forth above, the Government respectfully submits that a sentence within
the Stipulated Guidelines Range of 33 to 41 months’ imprisonment would be appropriate in this
case and would be sufficient but not greater than necessary to promote the legitimate ends of
sentencing. In addition, the Government submits that the Court should order forfeiture in the
amount of $43,650, and restitution in the amount of $2,322,500. The Court previously signed a
preliminary consent order of forfeiture (Dkt. 138), and the Government will submit a proposed
restitution order under separate cover within 90 days.
Respectfully submitted,
AUDREY STRAUSS
United States Attorney for the
By: /s/
Rebekah Donaleski
Aline R. Flodr
Nicolas Roos
Assistant United States Attorneys
Tel.: (212) 637-2423
cc: William Harrington, Esq. (via ECF)

Case 1:19-cr-00725-JPO Document 171-1 Filed 02/01/21 Page 1 of 29
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
2
8
Recorded Conversation
9
10
11
Date: September 18, 2018
12 Files: David Lev 9-18-18.m4a
13
14
15
Victim-7
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
USAO_00149924
Case 1:19-cr-00725-JPO Document 171-1 Filed 02/01/21 Page 2 of 29 1
1 CORREIA: (U/I)?
2 Victim-7 Yeah, David.
3 CORREIA: Hey. How are you?
4 Victim-7 Yeah, sorry, man.
5 CORREIA: (U/I).
6 Victim-7 It's just -- it's been one of those
7 crazy days, you know what I'm saying?
8 CORREIA: Oh, I know. I know all about it.
9 Hopefully not too bad.
10 Victim-7 Yeah, well it's -- you know, it's
11 towards the end so it's -- I mean, it's only 6 o'clock.
12 CORREIA: That's true. Hopefully it'll be
13 quieter. A lot of people will take the day off tomorrow so
14 --
15 Victim-7 Yeah. Well, it's, it's one of those
16 things. But anyway, listen, I, I have a couple questions,
17 David --
18 CORREIA: Of course.
19 Victim-7 -- and I'll give you my concerns.
20 And I spoke with, with one of my money guys because --
21 CORREIA: Sure.
22 Victim-7 -- you know, honestly, I read this
23 stuff and I, and I don't know what it says. I read the
24 convertible --
25 CORREIA: Oh, understood, man.
USAO_00149925
1 Victim-7 -- convertible promissory note. You
2 might as well be telling me that we're ordering egg, egg
3 rolls and spare ribs because this stuff makes no sense to
4 me, and I don't want it to make sense to me.
5 CORREIA: Understood.
6 Victim-7 This is not what I want to do, but -
7 - here's a couple questions that I have --
8 CORREIA: Sure.
9 Victim-7 This money is going to go for a
10 convertible promissory note that's going to be convertible
11 before a certain period of time extends once you have the
12 funding to the rest of the company. Is that it?
13 CORREIA: So the way it works is, is
14 traditionally -- and I'll break it down. So quite often a
15 company will give PPM, which you may be familiar with.
16 Victim-7 Mm-hm.
17 CORREIA: Are you familiar with a PPM?
18 Victim-7 I don't know what that means. What
19 is it?
20 CORREIA: Okay, yeah. So it's just a private
21 placement memorandum. So that's when somebody buys
22 directly into a company and buys either stock or membership
23 units directly. So there's no options. It's just straight
24 in to, like, okay, I like the company. I'm going to buy in
25 and I'm going to be a shareholder or member and just
USAO_00149926
1 straight, straight transaction.
2 Victim-7 Right.
3 CORREIA: So what we did at the beginning for
4 our shareholders and for our kind of friends and family,
5 which is I think a nicer, more flexible thing to do for
6 people, is to do a convertible note, and basically it's a
7 similar scenario but it, it gives you an option. So the
8 convertible just gives you an option to say at some point
9 if for any reason you didn't want to continue or convert
10 into equity, it would just -- it starts off as a loan and
11 then you can choose to either keep it as a loan and then at
12 the end of the term, at the end of two years, you get your
13 money back plus -- I think we put seven percent on it.
14 Victim-7 Right.
15 CORREIA: And there is one other, there is one
16 other trigger which we put in there. So as we raise
17 $5 million or more, that's another benchmark at which point
18 you can say I want, I want my money back, and then we would
19 buy you out at that -- pay the investment out, plus seven
20 percent annual (U/I).
21 Victim-7 Let me ask you a question.
22 CORREIA: However, if you --
23 Victim-7 Go ahead. I'm sorry. Go ahead.
24 You go.
25 CORREIA: Yeah, and it -- but the reason why --
USAO_00149927
1 I mean, most people -- you know, we have, I think, I could
2 be wrong, seven or eight of us, six or seven maybe, that
3 are members and have been since day one. So everyone --
4 you know, we offered the same thing, Lev and I, to these
5 other guys that are just close to us and everybody
6 converted right away. So we don't have any outstanding
7 notes. That was a few years ago. And then -- and now as
8 we're ready to move forward, we're just raising a certain
9 amount to be able to not only do the contract, which (U/I),
10 but also finalize a couple of things internally in terms of
11 the, the technology final build-out and we're ready to go.
12 Victim-7 If I, if I --
13 CORREIA: So (U/I) --
14 Victim-7 If I got this straight, at the
15 moment, you guys are trying to raise $1.7 million to give
16 to Attorney-1 for this things; is that correct?
17 CORREIA: That, that's what his contract is over
18 the year, but I mean, we don't -- we may or may not --
19 we're not going to raise that amount of money right now
20 because there's no reason to. It's broken up as an initial
21 payment and then a monthly retainer agreement.
22 Victim-7 Uh-huh.
23 CORREIA: Which, which we can cancel if we, if
24 we were unhappy with the work or whatever, but I'm sure
25 that's not going to be the case.
USAO_00149928
1 Victim-7 Okay. Yeah, right.
2 CORREIA: And then -- but basically we are just,
3 just raising a certain amount right now to be able to
4 engage in that contract, and then also to finalize the
5 build-out of the algorithm and the, and the finalized
6 website, which has a lot of functionality to it. So
7 basically that's what we're doing right now, and then
8 probably in about -- I don't want to get all over the place
9 because I want to give you the third option on the note,
10 but probably in a couple of months, we'll probably then
11 finalize -- or maybe even less, we'll go with our PPM. We
12 won't offer anyone else the convertible note option and
13 we'll just do a PPM at a higher valuation because, you
14 know, Attorney-1 will have been on board for a couple of
15 months at that point.
16 Victim-7 Right.
17 CORREIA: And then we will, you know, finalize
18 our site, and at that point we'll raise at a higher
19 valuation, but just people that want to come straight into
20 the company.
21 Victim-7 All right, that --
22 CORREIA: But --
23 Victim-7 Here, here, here's the other
24 question that goes along with that. What -- insofar as
25 units, what, what percentage, what percentage of the
USAO_00149929
1 company at the current valuation will $250,000 represent?
2 CORREIA: (U/I) valuation --
3 Victim-7 One percent?
4 CORREIA: -- (U/I) math equation, so I'm, I'm
5 driving right now, but yeah, it's about one percent, right?
6 So $200,000 would be exactly one percent.
7 Victim-7 One percent, right.
8 CORREIA: So 250 would be just a little bit
9 more.
10 Victim-7 I got it.
11 CORREIA: Whatever, whatever 250,000 divided by
12 20 million is.
13 Victim-7 And if I'm, and if I'm correct,
14 because you guys are looking at this thing going from a $20
15 million valuation to a $50 million valuation on the high
16 end, right?
17 CORREIA: No, not the high end. It'll probably
18 go the a $50 million valuation with him being signed on.
19 Victim-7 No, shit. Really?
20 CORREIA: Before we, before we do -- oh,
21 absolutely. And if -- yeah.
22 Victim-7 So are you, are you --
23 CORREIA: (U/I).
24 Victim-7 Is it --
25 CORREIA: (U/I) as soon as we raise --
USAO_00149930
1 Victim-7 Are you -- just a for instance, so
2 you're telling me that if I, if I put this money here and
3 then I
4 -- and then this becomes convertible to units at my request
5 or at yours or is there a specific date that I have to wait
6 for this to happen?
7 CORREIA: Sure. So that -- I want to give you
8 the third option. The third option is you can convert into
9 equity at any time.
10 Victim-7 Okay, okay.
11 CORREIA: So you don't have, you don't have to
12 keep that note open. The two triggers in which you can get
13 paid back are either at the end of the two years or once we
14 raise $5 million. At that point, we would say to you,
15 where -- we, we can buy back your note right now. Like,
16 you would have that choice to either exercise to convert
17 into equity --
18 Victim-7 Right.
19 CORREIA: -- or get your money back plus seven
20 percent. So, for example, in about -- you know, our PPM
21 paperwork, give or take, will be done in about two weeks,
22 and then we'll go out there probably, you know, in a month
23 or so and maybe -- don't hold me to that. It could be a
24 month; it could be 60 days. We'll go out there and say,
25 okay, what -- we'll decide what we're going to raise, you
USAO_00149931
1 know, for the next phase, and at that point it'll be a much
2 higher valuation and it'll be through the PPM, private
3 placement document, that people will just be buying stock.
4 Victim-7 Right.
5 CORREIA: If we raise $5 million, let's say, in
6 December or January, you know, for example, at that point,
7 we would turn to you and say you have a right to get your
8 money back and plus seven percent, or do you want to
9 convert (U/I). Most people would convert because if the
10 company's raising that kind of money at that valuation --
11 Victim-7 Hey, listen, no question. There's
12 no question.
13 CORREIA: -- (U/I). So those are your options.
14 Victim-7 Right.
15 CORREIA: Yeah. It just gives you the option to
16 get your money back plus interest if you didn't like the
17 direction of the company. And if we never raised any
18 money, at least it'd be sitting there at the end of two
19 years -- we -- you know, the company would be obligated to
20 pay back the note plus seven percent, but obviously (U/I).
21 Victim-7 And you, and you believe that
22 there's going to come a time when you're going to then
23 convert this into a regular -- a corporate status? Or is
24 it going to stay --
25 CORREIA: Well, it's already a corporate (U/I).
USAO_00149932
1 Victim-7 Well, no, I thought it was an LL --
2 I thought it was an LLC, wasn't it?
3 CORREIA: Oh, yeah, of course. Yeah. Like most
4 companies.
5 Victim-7 Yeah, because you're doing units
6 instead of, instead of shares. True?
7 CORREIA: Yeah, absolutely. Yep. So, I mean,
8 an LLC -- I mean, , but I mean in my, in my
9 experience -- I'm not quite a lawyer, but my lawyers tell
10 me I should have been.
11 Victim-7 Listen, I do, I do
12 bro. I don't --
13 CORREIA: (U/I). Yeah, exactly.
14 Victim-7 This is not my field, okay? You
15 understand?
16 CORREIA: No, no. I'm with you. I mean, but
17 there's, but there's benefits -- there's pros and cons to
18 both (U/I) structures, right?
19 Victim-7 Yeah.
20 CORREIA: So there's just a beneficial for the
21 first couple years of a company, generally, as a
22 pass-through directly to people tax wise, to the members.
23 And also -- excuse me. And it's also you avoid the double
24 taxation of a corporation. But, you know, if we decide to
25 go -- to take it public, which is a very, very strong
USAO_00149933
1 possibility, then we would convert immediately into an INC.
2 structure because you need to, you need to be an INC. to be
3 able to go into -- to do a public offering.
4 Victim-7 Let me, let me ask you another
5 question.
6 CORREIA: Sure.
7 Victim-7 How much money do you have from
8 people that are committed to this, to this venture? How
9 much money do you have that has been, like, pledged so to
10 speak at this point to come in?
11 CORREIA: That would -- to be honest with you, I
12 don't keep a ledger of that. I would say, if I added up
13 everyone who said that the second you get -- you're ready
14 to go we're in, I'd -- I don't even know. Tens of millions
15 of dollars. We don't, we don't keep a record of who is on
16 a list. Right now, we're just doing a smaller amount for a
17 couple of million dollars to be able to get, to get to the
18 next phase and (U/I) --
19 Victim-7 No, that's kind of more my question.
20 In other words, the people that are coming in on the
21 friends and family side of this, how much money do you have
22 scheduled to raise at the moment? That, that -- you know,
23 I'm not looking for an exact number. I'm looking to see
24 how many other people are taking, taking this ride.
25 CORREIA: Are you talking about for the
USAO_00149934
1 convertible note status?
2 Victim-7 Yes, yes. That's correct.
3 CORREIA: I probably won't -- I'd be lying to
4 you if I said I had a specific dollar amount committed. I
5 literally could tell you that probably -- I mean, if I
6 reached out to the people that have, have been along for
7 the ride in terms of waiting for us to raise money, and I
8 said to them, hey, (U/I), we want to go forward. I bet you
9 if we wanted to raise ten million we wouldn't have a
10 problem raising ten million at this valuation without,
11 without any effort.
12 Victim-7 Sounds, sounds (U/I).
13 CORREIA: But to say that we have money
14 committed today --
15 Victim-7 Yeah.
16 CORREIA: -- we're not raising that much, so
17 right now I've got the existing shareholders that are going
18 to put in money, so we have -- you know, we're bringing in
19 about $1 million from them right now, and then Lev will
20 probably throw in 250, and then if you're in, that's, you
21 know, your money, and then we really probably won't raise
22 any more than that before we go to a PPM. I mean, we'll
23 probably raise about a million before we go to a PPM, and a
24 PPM will then raise the valuation. The reason to do that
25 is that you don't want to dilute yourselves, right? So we
USAO_00149935
1 don't want to dilute ourselves any more than we need to,
2 and if you become a member, I don't want -- I have a
3 responsibility to not want to dilute you.
4 So I always want to bring in the least amount of
5 money that I possible can bring in at a low valuation and
6 hopefully use that money appropriately to raise the
7 valuation. So right now, we could actually raise, say, 750
8 or a million and then with Attorney-1 doing a (U/I)
9 announcement and strategically laying it out there, you
10 know, the valuation will go back to whomever is either
11 asked to be involved in the past first, of course, and then
12 we would, we would probably raise that in a 40, $50 million
13 valuation (U/I). And then we would bring in maybe whatever
14 we would need at that point. Let's call it -- let's say
15 $5 million. I don't know that we'd need that much at that
16 point, but let's say 5 million. So now, we just did
17 ourselves a huge favor. We just diluted ourselves less
18 than half as much because we went from a 20 million to a
19 50 million valuation. If I brought that same 5 million in
20 at 20 right now with the convertible note I'd be crazy
21 because I'm going to give up twice as much stock, right?
22 And everybody gets diluted (U/I).
23 Victim-7 All right. So I'm just going to
24 ask. This is going to sound like, this is going to sounds
25 like a really stupid question to you, all right?
USAO_00149936
1 CORREIA: (U/I).
2 Victim-7 And you're, you're probably going to
3 -- yeah, this is going to be a very stupid question, but
4 bear with me, okay? If I'm putting up $250,000 of you only
5 raising about $1 million, I'm getting one percent of a
6 company that's going to be coming from a $10 million, to
7 20 million to a $50 million, you know, valuation. Why is
8 it that my $250,000 is only getting one percent of the
9 units?
10 CORREIA: I'll digress and say it's not a stupid
11 question. It's a crazy question, but it's not a stupid
12 question.
13 Victim-7 Right.
14 CORREIA: And I'm smiling while I say that
15 (U/I).
16 Victim-7 Yeah, yeah, no. I hear you.
17 Listen, listen. I'm --
18 CORREIA: (U/I).
19 Victim-7 I'm going to give you all the
20 credibility that you need because Lev says you're okay.
21 All right? I just -- I'm going to tell you. This is what
22 I -- but it's a question that I have because it seems like
23 I'm putting up a quarter of a million dollars and getting
24 one percent of stock, but the only money you're raising now
25 is $1 million. I should be getting 25 percent of the
USAO_00149937
1 stock.
2 CORREIA: Oh, got you. No, I'm -- I understand
3 the question. I was truly joking when I said it was a
4 crazy question.
5 Victim-7 Oh, I know. So talk to me. How
6 does that work?
7 CORREIA: So we, we put millions of dollars into
8 the company. I've spent three-and-a-half years building
9 this product; sweat, tears, blood every single day. I've
10 spent thousands of hours. Literally, thousands of hours on
11 this product.
12 Victim-7 But, but not --
13 CORREIA: I've been (U/I).
14 Victim-7 But are you -- so are you telling
15 me, just so we're clear, are you telling me that you've got
16 millions of dollars of your actual money in this thing?
17 CORREIA: Of course. Not my money, but of money
18 -- some of my money. Lev has money in it. We have other
19 other (U/I) original shareholders, of course.
20 Victim-7 So how many shareholders --
21 CORREIA: (U/I).
22 Victim-7 How many shares are outstanding
23 right now, bro?
24 CORREIA: Just like I told you, we have like
25 seven -- six -- I want to say six or eight guys, so the
USAO_00149938
1 shares
2 -- as I said the other day, I think we initially did a ten
3 million unit distribution. So we have -- I think we have
4 ten million that's outstanding. So they're divvied up over
5 all the shareholders, and then obviously if anyone new
6 comes through, we dilute those people. Everyone gets
7 diluted at the same time, right, as we bring in new stuff
8 and thus the need to -- or desire to raise a higher
9 valuation to dilute as much as possible.
10 Victim-7 And how much --
11 CORREIA: (U/I).
12 Victim-7 And how much money is -- has been
13 invested in this company so far overall?
14 CORREIA: I'd have to go back to be honest with
15 you, Victim-7 . I'd say probably --
16 Victim-7 Well, I mean, are we talking
17 millions, hundreds of thousands, tens of millions?
18 CORREIA: Oh, yeah. No, no, no. I just said
19 millions, man. I don't misspeak. Four or $5 million
20 probably.
21 Victim-7 No, no. Okay. No, but I'm a little
22 dense, so you've got to deal with me.
23 CORREIA: No. Come on.
24 Victim-7 I'm telling you. Listen, if we were
25 talking, if we were talking about --
USAO_00149939
1 CORREIA: (U/I).
2 Victim-7 Listen, if we were talking about,
3 like, you know, I could
4 tell you all the intricacies, but --
5 CORREIA: That's what I mean. You're --
6 Victim-7 -- I -- but this --
7 CORREIA: -- a bright guy. (U/I) conversation.
8 Victim-7 But this is all -- this is new stuff
9 to me. That's why I'm asking stupid questions.
10 CORREIA: No. I don't -- no, there's no --
11 listen, I was joking when I said that, my friend.
12 Victim-7 No, I know, bro. Go ahead.
13 CORREIA: I'm not -- I have great respect for
14 what you're doing and what you do. I'm happy to answer any
15 question you have.
16 So the answer to your question is out of 250 if
17 we were only raising -- if we were a startup company and we
18 had an idea and we said, hey, we think that the valuation
19 for the company is $1 million and we have a good idea but
20 we don't have anything really in place, and we certainly
21 don't have a Attorney-1 We don't (U/I) business. We don't
22 have any direction. We don't have anything. Then somebody
23 putting up 250, absolutely, you're correct. They get 25
24 percent of the company at $1 million valuation. But the
25 fact that -- Attorney-1 is not signing on to an idea,
USAO_00149940
1 Attorney-1 is signing in -- on to the fact that we have built
2 underwriting and scoring systems and algorithms that have
3 blown their minds that insurance companies have decided to,
4 for the first time in history of the United States --
5 actually globally, ever decided to engage in covering fraud
6 in the investment world. So there's a tremendous amount of
7 work that's being done and, I mean, I can't even explain to
8 you. The -- it's a significant amount of time and effort.
9 You know, I've been through, gosh, I don't know how many --
10 probably a dozen or more insurance carriers. Probably been
11 the (U/I) -- I don't know how many times, you know, U.S.
12 carriers, London-based carriers -- you know, we've done an
13 awful lot of work to get to this point. So that's, that's
14 why.
15 So right now, you wouldn't normally figure out
16 what somebody's percentage is based on the current rates
17 because then -- let's say you came in -- let's use your
18 example and say that today we, we were just brand new and
19 we decided we're going to raise $1 million and the
20 valuation is one million, so (U/I) put in 250 each,
21 everyone has 25 percent. Now, if we were to go in and say,
22 okay, we're going to do another round of financing. Let's
23 say we used that money appropriately, we get the valuation
24 because we've, we've added valuation through either (U/I)
25 or whatever it may be, right, and we all of a sudden now
USAO_00149941
1 say, hey, the company is worth $5 million. Well, now, if
2 we go out at that point and raise $1 million and somebody
3 puts in $1 million at that point, then they're going to
4 say, well, you know, shouldn't I get x percentage of the
5 company, and then you would say no because (U/I). Let's
6 say we're at a $5 million valuation and we're raising
7 $2 million and he says, well, I'm putting up a million but
8 you're only raising two. I should get 50 percent of the
9 company. And you would say, well, no. I mean, we put the
10 original $1 million, so we took the most amount of risk.
11 We used that appropriately; we ran the company properly; we
12 raised the valuation from one million to five million. We
13 added all that value. So if you put in $1 million in a $5
14 million valuation, you'd get 20 percent of the company, you
15 wouldn't get half just because we're choosing to raise two
16 million right now. That doesn't make sense to the original
17 shareholders (U/I).
18 Victim-7 I got it. All right.
19 CORREIA: (U/I). That's kind of --
20 Victim-7 Listen, I got it.
21 CORREIA: That's kind of the rationale.
22 Victim-7 I got it.
23 CORREIA: (U/I).
24 Victim-7 Listen, I'm, I'm really leaning
25 towards taking this ride with you guys because I got a
USAO_00149942
1 feeling -- look, I'll be very straight with you. You know,
2 I really like Lev. You know, I know him since Israel and
3 he seems to be --
4 CORREIA: Oh, I know.
5 Victim-7 -- a real standup guy. You know, he
6 seems to be a real standup guy and I've done my due
7 diligence checking him out and I've come across a couple of
8 things that I like, a couple of things that are kind of
9 funny, and one or two things were not too funny. But, but
10 he seems to be a guy who knows what the hell he's doing.
11 And if --
12 CORREIA: Oh, for sure.
13 Victim-7 -- Attorney-1 wasn't part of this
14 thing, I probably wouldn't do it. You know what I'm
15 saying? But I think that if you're --
16 CORREIA: No (U/I).
17 Victim-7 If you're telling me that Attorney-1
18 is definitely on board with this thing and he's not going
19 to back out and I'm going to be standing here wishing that
20 I had never had this conversation, I'm good. So I'm
21 getting your assurance that Attorney-1 is definitely in with
22 this thing without a problem?
23 CORREIA: Absolutely, 100 percent. In fact, Lev
24 even told me that when he spoke to you, I mean, we
25 literally -- you know, we just consummated our final
USAO_00149943
1 agreement and did everything with him. So we actually are
2 planning on sending him a payment. So you, you can
3 literally send your, your money -- you have to fill out the
4 paperwork --
5 Victim-7 Right.
6 CORREIA: -- but you literally can send it
7 directly to Attorney-1 and it'd be -- all I would
8 request is that in the memo line you just put --
9 Victim-7 All right.
10 CORREIA: -- credited toward or to Fraud
11 Guarantee Holdings. So there's no, there's no, there's no
12 messing around here.
13 Victim-7 All right. Not a problem. Look --
14 CORREIA: And then once you're onboard, I'm
15 happy to have you -- you can have -- you know, (U/I).
16 Victim-7 Yeah. Listen, I, listen, I got to
17 tell you something. You know, look, I see this thing as,
18 as a baseline for much bigger things to come, and I
19 absolutely love Lev for wanting to include me in this
20 thing, because, you know, we just hit it off. I don't know
21 what happened between the two of us, but --
22 CORREIA: He, he said the same thing, yeah.
23 Victim-7 Yeah, we hit it off, and he was
24 trying to get me to come to Odessa with the jet and I, and
25 I'm like, listen, man, I can't go. I gotta get back home.
USAO_00149944
1 He's like, no, you don't understand. We have hotel. Igor
2 (ph.), Igor has hotel, big hotel on the water. I was like,
3 yeah, listen, I gotta go home Lev, man. The fuck is wrong
4 with you?
5 CORREIA: I know. He's -- there's something
6 wrong there. Let me tell you.
7 Victim-7 All right. And I'm gonna see you at
8 the (U/I) next week anyway. I understand his wife's in the
9 hospital now. She's waiting for --
10 CORREIA: Yeah.
11 Victim-7 -- waiting for the (U/I). I'll meet
12 you within a week or so.
13 CORREIA: (U/I).
14 Victim-7 So, listen -- so this convertible
15 note that I'm looking at has --
16 CORREIA: We met already, remember?
17 Victim-7 No, I don't. When did we meet?
18 CORREIA: Yeah. We met at the hotel. We met
19 (U/I).
20 Victim-7 Oh, yeah. You were at the hotel. I
21 knew you, I knew you were familiar. For crying out loud.
22 CORREIA: Yeah, yeah, man.
23 Victim-7 Okay. Now I know who you are.
24 CORREIA: Absolutely.
25 Victim-7 Please, please forgive me. It
USAO_00149945
1 didn't -- you know --
2 CORREIA: No. It's okay.
3 Victim-7 That day, that day I was --
4 CORREIA: We all may have been (U/I).
5 Victim-7 I was coming from
6 case
7 and I came there in the middle of the -- because I wanted
8 to see Lev and give him a hug and my head was where it
9 needed to be on my business at the time. So forgive me.
10 CORREIA: Oh, I'm with you. No, no problem at
11 all. No problem at all.
12 Victim-7 All right. So listen --
13 CORREIA: I enjoyed meeting you very much.
14 Victim-7 This is what I want you to do. The,
15 the -- whatever papers that I have to sign with all of the,
16 you know, the actual figures in it and everything else, I
17 need -- I'm going to -- I'm guessing you want to do this
18 with a wire transfer? I'm going to tell you something.
19 Listen, I did a wire transfer for, like, $20,000 a couple
20 of weeks ago and I got defrauded. It went to somebody
21 else's account, they stole my money, and the shit that I
22 had to go through to, to get this money --
23 CORREIA: Oh, my God.
24 Victim-7 Oh, you have no idea, man. Bad.
25 And I got --
USAO_00149946
1 CORREIA: Was it a bank mistake?
2 Victim-7 Listen, it was somebody who hacked
3 into the, the receivers email account and then sent me a
4 bogus email saying don't send me a check, send it to this
5 email address. I gave it to my lawyer who took it out of
6 his escrow account, sent it out, and then the guy calls me
7 up six days later and he goes, Victim-7 , what happened to
8 the check? I was like, you're kidding me, right? What
9 check are you talking about? You told me to send an email.
10 So but what happened was somebody --
12 Victim-7 Yeah, man. It's bad. I'm telling
13 you. I'm really afraid of wire transfers. So what
14 happened was, the bank, the bank who -- where the email
15 went to opened up a corporate account without corporate
16 papers. So we were able to get $15,000 back because the
17 same swindler was swindling somebody else and grabbed his
18 money, and I've got $5,000 that Wells Fargo is going to pay
19 me, otherwise I'm going to go down and strangle somebody.
20 And it's only 5,000, but listen, what if it was $1 million?
21 CORREIA: (U/I).
22 Victim-7 You know?
23 CORREIA: It's a lot of money, man. It's five
24 grand you worked for.
25 Victim-7 Yeah. Listen, man. Honest to God,
USAO_00149947
1 man, it was just, it was just --
2 CORREIA: (U/I) today's day and age, I agree
3 with you. In today's day and age with technology and the
4 things they can do cyber-wise, it's crazy. But --
5 Victim-7 Can, can -- let me ask you a
6 question.
7 CORREIA: -- I can pretty much assure you --
8 Victim-7 Can I, can I send a check instead of
9 a wire transfer?
10 CORREIA: You know, I could find out for you and
11 see if we could work that. I actually think we kind of
12 like --
13 Victim-7 I don't really care. Here's, here's
14 what you do. What you're going to do is --
15 CORREIA: (U/I) straight to (U/I).
16 Victim-7 -- get me to wire transfer -- the
17 wire transfer information. I don't see that. I see, I see
18 the note.
19 CORREIA: Okay.
20 Victim-7 I see the note. I see the packet
21 that they had given me, but I don't see --
22 CORREIA: It should have been --
23 Victim-7 -- the wire transfer information.
24 CORREIA: Okay.
25 Victim-7 So get, get that to me.
USAO_00149948
1 CORREIA: Yes, I will (U/I).
2 Victim-7 And I would like, I would like you
3 to fill out the rest of the note with the $250,000 amount
4 in it and --
5 CORREIA: Okay.
6 Victim-7 -- and I'll -- give it to me, send
7 it to me tomorrow, I'll sign it and send it back and I'll
8 get the money out and let's, let's go make some money,
9 brother.
10 CORREIA: I'm very glad to have you on board,
11 buddy.
12 Victim-7 Yeah, me too.
13 CORREIA: I'm very glad Lev thought to invite
14 you. Any (U/I). I mean, literally, I'm here available
15 24/7. So any time you just even think of an idea as a
16 member, you know -- once you learn more about the product,
17 just -- I'm available 24/7.
18 Victim-7 Did, did you see that movie Blow?
19 CORREIA: You know, I didn't but I heard about
20 it.
21 Victim-7 You gotta see it. There's a part
22 there where --
23 CORREIA: (U/I) told me to watch that.
24 Victim-7 -- basically, there's this part
25 there where they got this new pilot and the pilot's going
USAO_00149949
1 to be flying in this thing and the guy looks at him and he
2 goes, listen, he goes, there's no dealing without your
3 kids' pictures. Where do they go to school?
4 CORREIA: Oh, geez.
5 Victim-7 And the guy's looking at him and he
6 goes, hey, Mr. Joseph, don't forget the pictures of your
7 kids.
9 Victim-7 All right, brother.
10 CORREIA: That's great. I will have to watch
11 that.
12 Victim-7 Listen, so send that to me and I'm
13 going tomorrow --
14 CORREIA: (U/I).
15 Victim-7 I'm going to the synagogue in the
16 morning, in the morning, so I want to tell you that if this
17 things is not good, I'm going to put the power of the
18 Messiah on you.
19 CORREIA: Oh, my God. Please. No worries, my
20 friend.
21 Victim-7 All right, brother. I'll talk --
22 CORREIA: So I will -- but they should -- my
23 apologies if there weren't. There should have been four
24 attachments. There should have been the note, there should
25 have been the promissory note, and there should have been
USAO_00149950
1 the packet I gave you, which is very proprietary so keep
2 that with you, and then the -- there should have been wire
3 instructions. But I will resend it all to you.
4 Victim-7 All right, great. And, and --
5 CORREIA: (U/I).
6 Victim-7 -- but do me a favor, just, just
7 send that convertible promissory note that's I'm signing
8 with the amount --
9 CORREIA: Yeah.
10 Victim-7 -- already in it so I don't have to
11 like fill in anything with my hands --
12 CORREIA: I will, I will.
13 Victim-7 -- or whatever.
14 CORREIA: Yep. And just sign them up.
15 Victim-7 All right, bro. Listen --
16 CORREIA: And I'll send you the wire stuff, and
17 then you and I can chat tomorrow and make sure if you need
18 any questions and then I can just confirm with Attorney-1
19 that they got everything and I'll make sure you get the
20 confirmation so you're not worried.
21 Victim-7 All right. Fabulous, man. Best of
22 luck to all of us.
23 CORREIA: (U/I) best.
24 Victim-7 All right, man.
25 CORREIA: Thank you so much, buddy.
USAO_00149951
1 Victim-7 My pleasure.
2 CORREIA: Pleasure. Welcome aboard.
3 Victim-7 Thanks, man. Bye bye.
4 CORREIA: Thanks, buddy. Bye.
5 (End of recording.)
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
USAO_00149952
U.S. Department of Justice
Federal Bureau of Prisons
Northeast Regional Office

VIA E-MAIL
U.S. Custom House

2nd & Chestnut Streets, 7th Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19106
February 1, 2021
Rebekah Donaleski, Esquire

Assistant United States Attorney
United States Attorney's Office
One St. Andrew’s Plaza
New York, NY 10007
Re: United States v. David Correia

Case No. 19-CR-725(JPO)
Dear Ms. Donaleski:
Thank you for your recent inquiry concerning the Federal Bureau
of Prisons’ (BOP) ability to provide adequate health care for federal
prisoners with significant, acute, or chronic medical conditions.
Specifically, you have asked whether, based on the available
information, the BOP can provide the necessary and appropriate care
for Mr. Correia should he be incarcerated in a federal correctional
facility.
I am aware of Mr. Correia’s medical conditions as detailed in
defense counsel’s sentencing memorandum. Reportedly, Mr. Correia has
As the BOP provides extensive medical services, a defendant’s

medical condition generally will not preclude a sentence to BOP
custody. The BOP has implemented a Medical Care Level Classification
system. The Care Level Classification system is intended to enhance
the BOP’s ability to manage inmate health care effectively by matching
inmates with those institutions that can best meet their medical
needs, while at the same time achieving optimal use of the BOP’s
health care resources. The BOP’s goal in implementing the Care Level
system is to assign inmates with greater medical needs to those
facilities with more comprehensive on-site medical resources, and to
provide more effective and efficient access to health care for each
inmate.
Ms. Rebekah Donaleski, Esquire
United States v. Correia
The official BOP designation process is typically initiated after

the BOP's Designation and Sentence Computation Center (DSCC) receives
an electronic request from the United States Marshal Service (USMS)
with the necessary documents Judgment and Commitment Order and the
Presentence Report). Initial designation cases involving complex
medical conditions are referred to the BOP’s Office of Medical
Designations and Transportation (OMDT) for review and determination as
to the appropriate facility, either a Federal Medical Center (FMC) or
a general population institution in which to designate the prisoner.
In this case, if committed to the custody of the BOP, Mr. Correia
would likely be reviewed for designation by the OMDT. At that time, a
determination would be made as to the appropriate facility, either an
FMC or a general population institution, in which to designate Mr.
Correia.
FMCs are prisons that provide in-patient care to seriously ill
inmates. The BOP has seven (7) of these centers throughout the United
States. Besides providing chronic care for seriously ill inmates,
these medical centers also provide specialty services such as
chemotherapy, pain management clinics, physical therapy and hospice
care for terminally ill inmates. Each medical center also has a long-
term unit for inmates requiring 24-hour nursing care. Further, all of
the FMCs utilize contract physicians to provide in-house specialty
services. Additionally, three (3) of BOP’s FMCs have in-house Nursing
Care Center Units (NCCs) that provide additional medical attention
beyond hospitalization that cannot be provided in the ambulatory
setting. Inmates at FMCs are primarily Care Level 4 inmates.
Each BOP institution contracts with medical centers in the local
vicinity to provide specialized medical treatment. These medical
centers offer the BOP a wide range of trained specialists and
diagnostic tools such as MRIs and CT Scans. If needed, the BOP would
be able to provide Mr. Correia with medical specialists through the
BOP’s contractual agreements. While it is true many of these
specialists are not located inside non-FMC institutions, the BOP has
procedures in place to transport inmates to and from local hospitals
and contracted medical centers so that inmates can receive appropriate
and necessary care. Further, when medical emergencies and the need for
surgical procedures arise, each institution has procedures in place
that instruct health services and/or correctional staff on how to
contact local emergency medical services for transportation to a local
medical center.
Every general population institution runs a number of Chronic
Care Clinics designed to provide routinely scheduled quality care to
medically ill inmates, as well as to stay abreast of any changes in
medical conditions that may arise. If Mr. Correia is designated to a
general population institution, it is likely he would be assigned to
Inmates enrolled in Chronic
Care Clinics are seen as often as medically necessary. Additionally,
Page 2 of 3
Ms. Rebekah Donaleski, Esquire
United States v. Correia
the BOP has published guidance describing the medical classification

process and levels that it considers for inmates. 1
With respect to diet, the National Food Menu is considered a
heart-healthy menu. Diet modifications can be made as medically
necessary and in consultation with the inmate’s treating physician.
Exercise is also encouraged for inmates to increase overall wellness
and as a means of dealing with stress.
The Bureau has an extensive National Formulary of medications
approved for inmate use. The primary goal of BOP Formulary management
is to optimize therapeutic outcomes, optimize cost-effectiveness of
medications, and ensure drug usage is appropriate within the
correctional environment. The medications he has been prescribed, or
their equivalents, are included on the BOP’s formulary index. If Mr.
Correia requires medications that are not explicitly on the Formulary,
substantially similar equivalents may be prescribed. Finally, if a
substantially similar equivalent is not available for a medication he
needs, a non-formulary request can be made by his treating clinician
to the Bureau of Prisons Central Office in Washington, D.C. Non-
formulary requests can usually be accomplished within 36-48 hours of
the clinician’s request.
Additionally, the Bureau continues to follow CDC guidelines in
dealing with the Covid-19 pandemic. The most up to date modified
operations plan, vaccine distribution information and Covid-19 case
and testing information for each facility may be found on www.bop.gov
on the Covid-19 resource page.
Based on the information provided to me and my knowledge of the
BOP’s medical resources, the BOP will be able to provide appropriate
care for Mr. Correia should he be sentenced to a term of incarceration
and committed to the custody of the BOP. If I can offer any further
information in this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
Gerard R. Travers
Health Services Administrator
Northeast Region
1
Federal Bureau of Prisons, Clinical Practice Guideline, Care Level
Classification for Medical and Mental Health Conditions or Disabilities,
https://www.bop.gov/resources/pdfs/care_level_classification_guide.pdf
Page 3 of 3

DOJ Sentencing Memo Re David Correia - Feb 1 2021

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

DOJ Sentencing Memo Re David Correia - Feb 1 2021

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 1:19-cr-00725-JPO Document 171 Filed 02/01/21 Page 1 of 14

U.S. Department of Justice

United States Attorney

The Silvio J. Mollo Building

The Honorable J. Paul Oetken

Re: United States v. David Correia, S1 19 Cr. 725 (JPO)

Dear Judge Oetken:

Hon. J. Paul Oetken Page 2

Hon. J. Paul Oetken Page 3

Hon. J. Paul Oetken Page 4

Hon. J. Paul Oetken Page 5

Hon. J. Paul Oetken Page 6

2. Correia’s False Statements to the FEC

Hon. J. Paul Oetken Page 7

Hon. J. Paul Oetken Page 8

C. Presentence Investigation Report

Hon. J. Paul Oetken Page 9

1. The Nature and Circumstances of the Offense

Hon. J. Paul Oetken Page 10

Hon. J. Paul Oetken Page 11

2. The Need to Afford Adequate Deterrence

Hon. J. Paul Oetken Page 12

Imposing a non-custodial sentence in this case—a significant downward departure from

3. The Defendant’s Remaining Arguments Do Not Warrant a Non-Incarceratory

Correia’s remaining arguments in support of a substantially below Guidelines, non-

Hon. J. Paul Oetken Page 13

Third, Correia cites to his familial responsibilities to justify a significantly below-

Finally, Correia devotes a substantial portion of his sentencing memorandum to arguing

Hon. J. Paul Oetken Page 14

cc: William Harrington, Esq. (via ECF)

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2 Victim-7 Yeah, David.

3 CORREIA: Hey. How are you?

4 Victim-7 Yeah, sorry, man.

6 Victim-7 It's just -- it's been one of those

7 crazy days, you know what I'm saying?

8 CORREIA: Oh, I know. I know all about it.

9 Hopefully not too bad.

10 Victim-7 Yeah, well it's -- you know, it's

11 towards the end so it's -- I mean, it's only 6 o'clock.

12 CORREIA: That's true. Hopefully it'll be

13 quieter. A lot of people will take the day off tomorrow so

15 Victim-7 Yeah. Well, it's, it's one of those

16 things. But anyway, listen, I, I have a couple questions,

19 Victim-7 -- and I'll give you my concerns.

20 And I spoke with, with one of my money guys because --

22 Victim-7 -- you know, honestly, I read this

23 stuff and I, and I don't know what it says. I read the

25 CORREIA: Oh, understood, man.

1 Victim-7 -- convertible promissory note. You

2 might as well be telling me that we're ordering egg, egg

3 rolls and spare ribs because this stuff makes no sense to

4 me, and I don't want it to make sense to me.

6 Victim-7 This is not what I want to do, but -

7 - here's a couple questions that I have --

9 Victim-7 This money is going to go for a

10 convertible promissory note that's going to be convertible

11 before a certain period of time extends once you have the

12 funding to the rest of the company. Is that it?

13 CORREIA: So the way it works is, is

14 traditionally -- and I'll break it down. So quite often a

15 company will give PPM, which you may be familiar with.

17 CORREIA: Are you familiar with a PPM?