Case Document 471 Filed in TXSD on 11/13/17 Page 1 of 24 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. CRIMINAL NO. MITESHKUMAR PATEL, a.k.a. Mitesh Defendant. PLEA AGREEMENT The United States of America, by and through its attorneys, Abe Martinez, Acting United States Attorney for the Southern District of Texas, and Kenneth A. Blanco, Acting Assistant Attorney General for the Department of Justice, Criminal Division, the defendant, MITESHKUMAR PATEL a/k/a Mitesh (?Defendant?), and Defendant?s counsel, pursuant to Rule and (B) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, state that they have entered into an agreement, the terms and conditions of which are as follows: Defendant?s Agreement 1. Defendant agrees to plead guilty to Count Three of the Superseding Indictment in Criminal Case No. 4:16-cr-385-S, which charges Defendant with a violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1956(h) (Money Laundering Conspiracy). The defendant, by entering this plea, agrees that he is waiving any right to have the facts that the law makes essential to the punishment either charged in the indictment, proven to a jury, or proven beyond a reasonable doubt Case Document 471 Filed in TXSD on 11/13/17 Page 2 of 24 Punishment Range 2. The statutogy maximum penalty for a violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1956(h), is imprisonment of not more than 20 years and a ?ne of not more than $500,000 or twice the value of the property involved in the transaction, whichever is greater. Additionally, Defendant may receive a term of supervised release after imprisonment of up to three years. See Title 18, United States Code, sections 3559(a)(3) and 35 Defendant acknowledges and understands that if he should violate the conditions of any period of supervised release which may be imposed as part of his sentence, then Defendant may be imprisoned for the entire term of supervised release, without credit for time already served on the term of supervised release prior to such violation. See. Title 18, United Stated Code, sections 3559(a)(3) and 3583(e)(3). Defendant understands that he cannot have the imposition or execution of the sentence suspended, nor is he eligible for parole. Mandatory Special Assessment 3. Pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 3013(a)(2)(A), immediately after sentencing, Defendant will pay to the Clerk of the United States District Court a special assessment in the amount of one hundred dollars ($100.00) per count of conviction. The payment will be by cashier?s check or money order, payable to the Clerk of the United States District Court, c/o District Clerk?s Of?ce, PO. Box 61010, Houston, Texas 77208, Attention: Finance. Immigration Consequences 4. Defendant recognizes that pleading guilty may have consequences with respect to his immigration status if he is not a citizen of the United States. Defendant understands that if he is not a citizen of the United States, by pleading guilty he may be removed from the United States, Case Document 471 Filed in TXSD on 11/13/17 Page 3 of 24 denied citizenship, and denied admission to the United States in the future. Defendant?s attorney has advised Defendant of the potential immigration consequences resulting from Defendant?s plea of guilty. Cooperation 5. If requested by the United States, but only if so requested, Defendant agrees to cooperate with the United States. The parties understand this agreement carries the potential for a motion for departure under Section 5K1.1 of the Sentencing Guidelines. Defendant understands and agrees that Whether such a motion is ?led will be determined solely by the United States through the Acting United States Attorney for the Southern District of Texas and the Acting Assistant Attorney General for the Department of Justice, Criminal Division. Should Defendant?s cooperation, in the sole judgment and discretion of the United States, amount to ?substantial assistance,? the United States reserves the sole right to ?le a motion for departure pursuant to Section 5K1.1 of the United States Sentencing Guidelines. Defendant further agrees to persist in that plea through sentencing, fully cooperate with the United States, and not oppose the forfeiture of assets contemplated in this agreement. Defendant understands and agrees that the United States will request that sentencing be deferred until that cooperation is complete. 6. Defendant understands and agrees that ?fully cooperate,? as that term is used herein, includes providing all information relating to a_n\_7 criminal activity known to Defendant, including but not limited to conspiracy, wire fraud, postal fraud, identity theft, money laundering, immigration violations, and passport fraud. Defendant understands that such information includes both state and federal offenses arising therefrom. In that regard: Defendant agrees that this plea agreement binds only the Acting United States Attorney for the Southern District of Texas, the Acting Assistant Attorney 3 Case Document 471 Filed in TXSD on 11/13/17 Page 4 of 24 General for the Department of Justice, Criminal Division and Defendant; it does not bind any other United States Attorney or any other unit of the Department of Justice; Defendant agrees to testify truthfully as a witness before a grand jury or in any other judicial or administrative proceeding when called upon to do so by the United States. Defendant further agrees to waive his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination for the purpose of this agreement; Defendant agrees to voluntarily attend any interviews and conferences as the United States may request; . Defendant agrees to provide truthful, complete and accurate information and testimony and understands any false statements made by the defendant to the Grand Jury or at any court proceeding (criminal or civil), or to a government agent or attorney, can and will be prosecuted under the appropriate perjury, false statement, or obstruction statutes; Defendant agrees to provide to the United States all documents in his possession or under his control relating to all areas of inquiry and investigation; Should the recommended departure, if any, not meet Defendant? expectations, the Defendant understands that he remains bound by the terms of this agreement and cannot, for that reason alone, withdraw his plea; and Defendant agrees that his obligation under this section is a continuing one, and will continue after sentencing until all investigations and/or prosecutions to which the Defendant?s cooperation may be relevant have been completed. Waiver of Appeal and Collateral Review 7. Defendant is aware that Title 28, United States Code, Section 1291, and Title 18, United States Code, Section 3742, afford a defendant the right to appeal the conviction and sentence imposed. Defendant is also aware that Title 28, United States Code, Section 2255, affords the right to contest or ?collaterally attack? a conviction or sentence after the judgment of conviction and sentence has become final. Defendant knowingly and voluntarily waives the right to appeal or ?collaterally attack? the conviction and sentence, as well as any ?nes, restitution, and Case Document 471 Filed in TXSD on 11/13/17 Page 5 of 24 forfeiture orders, the court might impose except that Defendant does not waive the right to raise a claim ?of ineffective assistance of counsel on direct appeal, if otherwise permitted, or on collateral review in a motion under Title 28, United States Code, Section 2255. In the event Defendant files a notice of appeal following the imposition of the sentence or later collaterally attacks his conviction or sentence, the United States will assert its rights under this agreement and seek speci?c performance of these waivers. 8. In agreeing to these waivers, Defendant is aware that a sentence has not yet been determined by the Court. Defendant is also aware that any estimate of the possible sentencing range under the Sentencing Guidelines that he may have received from his counsel, the United States or the Probation Of?ce, is a prediction and not a promise, did not induce his guilty plea, and is not binding on the United States, the Probation Office or the Court. The United States does not make any promise or representation concerning what sentence Defendant will receive. Defendant further understands and agrees that the United States Sentencing Guidelines are ?effectively advisory? to the Court. See United States v. Booker, 543 US 220 (2005). Accordingly, Defendant understands that, although the Court must consult the Sentencing Guidelines and must take them into account when sentencing Defendant, the Court is not bound to follow the Sentencing Guidelines nor sentence Defendant Within the calculated guideline range. 9. Defendant understands and agrees that each and all waivers contained in the Agreement are made in exchange for the concessions made by the United States in this plea agreement. The United States? Agreements 10. The United States agrees to each of the following: Case Document 471 Filed in TXSD on 11/13/17 Page 6 of 24 If Defendant pleads guilty to Count Three of the Superseding Indictment in Criminal Case No. 85-S, persists in that plea through sentencing, and if the Court accepts this plea agreement, the United States will move to dismiss any remaining counts of the Superseding Indictment in Criminal No. 4:16-cr-385-S at the time of sentencing; At the time of sentencing, the United States agrees not to oppose Defendant?s anticipated request to the Court and the United States Probation Of?ce that he receive a two (2) level downward adjustment pursuant to section 3E1.1(a) of the United States Sentencing Guidelines, should Defendant accept responsibility as contemplated by the Sentencing Guidelines; If Defendant quali?es for an adjustment under section 3El.1(a) of the United States Sentencing Guidelines, the United States agrees not to oppose Defendant?s request for an additional one?level departure based on the timeliness of the plea or the expeditious manner in which Defendant provided complete information regarding his role in the offense (if Defendant?s offense level is 16 or greater); At the time of sentencing, the United States agrees not to oppose Defendant?s position that for purposes of calculating the advisory United States Sentencing Guidelines range (A) the base offense level should be calculated under section and (B) the foreseeable loss attributable to him is in excess of $9.5 million but did not exceed $25 million, understanding that the Court is not bound by such agreements or recommendations; and If the Defendant provides substantial assistance as determined by the United States, in its sole discretion, a motion for downward departure may be ?led; Agreement Binding - Southern District of Texas I and Department of Justice, Criminal Division Only 11. The United States Attomey?s Of?ces for the Southern District of Texas and the Department of Justice, Criminal Division agree that they will not further criminally prosecute Defendant for offenses arising from conduct charged in the indictments. This plea agreement binds only the United States Attorney?s Of?ce fOr the Southern District of Texas, the Department of Justice, Criminal Division, and Defendant. It does not bind any other United States Attorney?s Of?ce or division of the Department of Justice. The United States Attorney?s Of?ce for the Case Document 471 Filed in TXSD on 11/13/17 Page 7 of 24 Southern District of Texas and the Department of Justice, Criminal Division will bring this plea agreement and the full extent of Defendant?s cooperation to the attention of other prosecuting of?ces, if requested. United States? Non-Waiver of Appeal 12. The United States reserves the right to carry out its responsibilities under Guidelines sentencing. Speci?cally, the United States reserves the right: to bring its version of the facts of this case, including its evidence ?le and any investigative ?les, to the attention of the Probation Of?ce in connection with that of?ce?s preparation of a presentence report; to set forth or dispute sentencing factors or facts material to sentencing; to seek resolution of such factors or facts in conference with Defendant?s counsel and the Probation Of?ce; to ?le a pleading relating to these issues, in accordance with section .2 of the United States Sentencing Guidelines and Title 18, United States Code, section 3553(a); and to appeal the sentence imposed or the manner in which it was determined. Sentence Determination 13. Defendant is aware that the sentence will be imposed after consideration of the United States Sentencing Guidelines and Policy Statements, which are only advisory, as well as the provisibns of Title 18, United States Code, Section 3553(a). Defendant nonetheless acknowledges and agrees that the Court has authority to impose any sentence up to and including the statutory maximum set for the offense(s) to which Defendant pleads guilty, and that the sentence to be imposed is within the sole discretion of the sentencing judge after the Court has consulted the applicable Sentencing Guidelines. Defendant understands and agrees that the parties? positions regarding the application of the Sentencing Guidelines do not bind the Court and 7 Case Document 471 Filed in TXSD on 11/13/17 Page 8 of 24 that the sentence imposed is within the discretion of the sentencing judge. If the Court should impose any sentence up to the maximum established by statute, or should the Court order any or all of the sentences imposed to run consecutively, Defendant cannot, for that reason alone, Withdraw a guilty plea, and will remain bound to ful?ll all of the obligations under this plea agreement. Rights at Trial 14. Defendant understands that by entering into this agreement, he surrenders certain rights as provided in this plea agreement. Defendant understands that the rights of a defendant include the following: If Defendant persisted in a plea of not guilty to the charges, Defendant would have the right to a speedy jury trial with the assistance of counsel. The trial may be conducted by a judge sitting without a jury if Defendant, the United States, and the Court all agree. At a trial, the United States?would be required to present witnesses and other evidence against Defendant. Defendant would have the opportunity to confront those witnesses and his/her attorney would be allowed to cross-examine them. In turn, Defendant could, but would not be required to, present witnesses and other evidence on his own behalf. If the witnesses for Defendant would not appear voluntarily, he could require their attendance through the subpoena power of the Court; and At a trial, Defendant could rely on a privilege against self-incrimination and decline to testify, and no inference of guilt could be drawn from such refusal to testify. However, if Defendant desired to do so, he could testify on his own behalf. Factual Basis for Guilty Plea 15. Defendant is pleading guilty because he is in fact-guilty of the charges contained in Count Three of the Superseding Indictment. If this case were to proceed to trial, the United States could prove each element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. The following facts, among others would be offered to establish Defendant?s guilt: 8 Case Document 471 Filed in TXSD on 11/13/17 Page 9 of 24 a. Beginning in 2011, agents with Homeland Security Investigations, the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration, the Department of Homeland Security?Inspector General, and others, began investigating and ultimately identi?ed a complex fraud and money laundering scheme in which individuals from call centers located in Ahmedabad, India impersonated government tax and immigration of?cials, and others, and called potential victims located in the United States to defraud them out of money, often threatening them with arrest, imprisonment, ?nes, or deportation if they did not pay alleged taxes or penalties to the government. The scam callers convinced the victims to pay or transfer often large amounts of money to the scammers through various methods, per their speci?c instructions. In order to liquidate the proceeds derived from victims of this scheme, numerous U.S.-based individuals (also known as ?runners?) operating in various geographic locations were employed by the India-based call center conspirators. The conspirators liquidated the victims? funds in various ways and in a closely coordinated fashion between the call centers, runners, and associates via email, text and instant messaging services such as WhatsApp. In a typical scenario, call centers directed runners to purchase general purpose reloadable (GPR) cards and transmit the unique card number to India? based conspirators who registered the cards online or via telephone using the misappropriated personal identifying information (PII) of U.S. citizens. The India?based conspirators then loaded these GPR cards with funds obtained from numerous victims. The runners used the GPR cards in their possession, loaded with victims? funds, to purchase money orders they deposited into the bank account of another person, as directed. This fraud activity often occurred on the same day, usually within hours; too quickly for the victim to report the fraud to law enforcement and/0r ?nancial institutions in an effort to successfully freeze and recover their funds. For their services, Case 4:16-cr-00385? Document 471 Filed in szo on 11/13/17 Page 10 of 24 the runners would earn a speci?c fee or a percentage. In addition to laundering victims? funds using GPR cards, runners also received Victims? funds Via MoneyGram and Western Union wire transfers using ?ctitious identities/false identi?cation documents, direct bank deposits by victims into the accounts of witting and unwitting bank account holders, and iTunes or other gift cards that victims purchased. b. During the course of the investigation, agents identi?ed defendant MITESHKUMAR PATEL ?Mitesh? (PATEL), as a runner and domestic manager of a crew of runners based primarily out of Illinois. MITESH PATEL and the crew he managed liquidated funds at the direction of and for conspirators from India-based call center and organizational co? defendant HGLOBAL. HGLOBAL was owned and operated by organizers and leaders of the conspiracy and scheme, including co-defendants Hitesh Patel, Janak Sharma, and others. Defendant PATEL, and the crew of U.S.?based conspirators whom he managed included, among others, co-defendants RAJUBHAI PATEL, ASHVINBHAI CHAUDHARI, FAHAD ALI, JAGDISHKUMAR CHAUDHARI, BHARATKUMAR PATEL, and conspirator DIPAKKUMAR PATEL, liquidated victim scam funds in Illinois, Nevada, the Southern District of Texas, and elsewhere in the United States at the direction of Indian based leaders and organizers of the scheme. In exchange for his work in liquidating'the funds for India-based leaders and organizers, MITESH PATEL obtained ?nancial bene?t by extracting a percentage commission. 0. Defendant MITESHKUMAR PATEL is an Indian national with United States citizenship. d. From in or around 2013 and continuing through on or about the date of the Superseding Indictment, in the Southern District of Texas and elsewhere, within the jurisdiction 10 Case 4:16-cr-00385 Document 471 Filed in TXSD on 11/13/17 Page 11 of 24 of this Court, defendant MITESHKUMAR PATEL, along with other co-defendants in Criminal Case No. 4: 6-cr-385-S and others, knowingly combined, conspired, confederated and agreed with each other to commit an offense against the United States in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1956(h) (Money Laundering Conspiracy): to knowingly conduct and attempt to conduct ?nancial transactions affecting interstate commerce and foreign commerce, which transactions involved the proceeds of speci?ed unlawful activity, that is, the scheme to commit wire fraud in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1343, knowing that the transactions were designed in whole or in part to conceal and disguise the nature, location, source, ownership, and control of the proceeds of speci?ed unlawful activity, and that while conducting and attempting to conduct such ?nancial transactions, knew that the property involved in the ?nancial transactions represented the proceeds of some form of unlawful activity, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section e. During the course of his involvement in the conspiracy, defendant MITESHKUMAR PATEL engaged in various activities in furtherance of the conspiracy, including but not limited to: Communicating extensively with conspirators via email, text and WhatsApp messaging service, including his domestic crew members and India?based co? defendants and leaders/organizers ANAK SHARMA, KUSHAL SHAH, HITESH PATEL, and RAJPAL SHAH, to receive instructions, communicate GPR card information to India-based conspirators for subsequent registration, and at the direction of India-based conspirators, he managed and supervised the liquidation of victims? funds loaded to the GPR cards; '11 Case 4:16-cr-00385 Document 471 Filed in TXSD on 11/13/17 Page 12 of 24 0 Purchasing reloadable GPR cards that were registered using the misappropriated PII of unsuspecting victims that were later used to receive Victims? funds; 0 Using Ireloadable GPR cards containing victims? funds to purchase money orders and then deposit those money orders into bank accounts, as directed, while keeping a portion of the scam proceeds for himself as pro?t; 0 Training his co-defendant runners about how to liquidate victim funds that had been loaded onto GPR cards by India-based conspirators; 0 Operating at the direction of organizers of the India?based call centers, he coordinated the liquidation of scam funds domestically by directing the activities of numerous Illinois-based co-defendant runners, paying for their business expenses such as food and lodging, and paying them in cash or via other means for their assistance; 0 Providing his co?defendant runners with vehicles, including two Honda sedans, for their use in driving to various retail stores and banks, including across state lines, in order to purchase GPR cards from various locations so as not to alert attention, liquidate those GPR cards by purchasing money orders once they were loaded with scam proceeds, and deposit money orders into various bank accounts; 0 Directing and paying co-defendant BHARATKUMAR PATEL to open numerous bank accounts and Limited Liability Companies in BHARATKUMAR name for use in the conspiracy; Facilitating the liquidation of GPR cards containing victim scam funds at an Exxon Mobile gas station that he owned in Racine, Wisconsin; 12' Case 4:16-cr-00385 Document 471 Filed in TXSD on 11/13/17 Page 13 of 24 - Possessing and using equipment at his apartment to make fraudulent identi?cation documents used by co-defendant runners in his crew to receive wire transfers directly from scam victims and to make bank deposits in furtherance of the conspiracy, funds which would ultimately be sent to India?based conspirators and leader/organizers of the scheme f. Defendant MITESHKUMAR PATEL kept information in his email account, mitesh37@gmail.com, and on his personal cell phones and electronic devices, associated with the scam and his money laundering activities, including contact information for his India-based conspirators and domestic co-defendants and other conspirators, images of bank deposit receipts, images of checks in the name of conspirators, images of GPR cards funded by known telefraud scam victims, screen captures of Green Dot account information for GPR cards registered in other persons? identities and used in the scheme by conspirators, instant messages and text messages with conspirators about the operation of the scheme including GPR card numbers information and deposit instructions, money orders, shipping labels, Target gift cards, iTunes cards, screen captures of instant message conversations, photos of conspirators, and images of counterfeit Illinois drivers licenses depicting conspirators under false names that received wire transfers funded by scam victims, social security cards and Lawful Permanent Residence (LPR) cards. g. Speci?cally, on or about October 29 and 30, 2013, HGLOBAL Callers telephonically extorted victim Mamta S., a resident of San Francisco, CA, of $43,000 by fraudulently purporting to be state and federal agents, demanding payment for alleged immigration and tax violations. On or about the same date, HGLOBAL Callers directed victim Mamta S. to purchase 86 prepaid Green Dot MoneyPak cards with the stored value of $43,000 and transmit the 13 Case 4:16-cr-00385 Document 471 Filed in TXSD on 11/13/17 Page 14 of 24 PINs associated with those MoneyPaks to the Callers. Between October 28, 2013 and October 30, 2013, defendant MITESHKUMAR PATEL electronically transmitted 20 of the 27 GPR card numbers to a conspirator to be registered. HGLOBAL conspirators registered all 27 GPR cards with misappropriated PII. On or about October 29 and 30, 2013, HGLOBAL conspirators transferred victim Mamta S.?s extorted $43,000 from 86 MoneyPak cards to 27 GPR cards. The 713 Magic Jack accessed 24 of the 27 GPR cards and transferred the funds from 19 of victim Mamta S.?s MoneyPaks to 17 of the GPR cards. Co-defendant JANAK SHARMA, using his Indian cell phone number, transferred the funds from one of victim Mamta S.?s MoneyPaks to one of the GPR cards. On or about the same dates, a conspirator sent emails to co-defendant ANAK SHARMA at hgloba101@gmai1.com containing MoneyPak PINS purchased by victim Mamta S., to which JANAK reSponded ?Approved?. ?Approved? was an indication that the stored value card funds had been successfully transferred to reloadable GPR cards. An HGLOBAL conspirator registered at least seven of the 27 GPR cards containing Mamta S.?s money using the misappropriated P11 of Amanda B. On or about October 29, 2013 and continuing through October 30, 2013, defendant MITESH electronically communicated all seven of those GPR card numbers to conspirators. On or about October 29, 2013, defendant MITESHKUMAR PATEL and co- defendant ASMITABEN PATEL purchased money orders in a grocery store in Illinois using two of the GPR cards containing victim Mamta S.?s money. Both of these GPR cards were registered with Amanda B.?s misappropriated P11. Between on or about October 29 and 31, 2013, defendant MITESI-IKUMAR PATEL sent instructions via messaging to co?defendants ASMITABEN PATEL and RAJUBHAI PATEL to deposit Mamta S.?s money into at least ten separate bank, accounts. On or about October 30, 2013, a conspirator electronically messaged defendant 14 Case 4:16-Cr-00385 Document 471 Filed in TXSD on 11/13/17 Page 15 of 24 MITESHKUMAR PATEL instructing him to make a $5,000 deposit into a speci?c Bank of America (BOA) account. On that same day, co-defendant BHARATKUMAR PATEL deposited $5,000,a portion of which was victim Mamta S.?s money, into the BOA account. Scam proceeds from Mamta S. were deposited into 13 different bank accounts, including accounts belonging to co-defendant BHARATKUMAR PATEL. h. On or about January 23, 2014, defendant MITESHKUMAR PATEL sent an instant message to co?defendant RAJUBHAI PATEL instructing him to deposit $2,200 into a bank account associated with Dart Data, a lead aggregator. On or about February 10, 2014, defendant MITESHKUMAR PATEL sent an instant message to co-defendant ASMITABEN PATEL instructing her to deposit $2,200 into a bank account associated with Dart Data, which she did in cash. Bank records and deposit photos from BOA show co-defendant RAJ UBHAI PATEL making a deposit into the Dart Data account on January 23, 2014 while in Las Vegas, NV. i. On or about August 9, 2014, victim Melissa B., from Sacramento, CA, was extorted out of $4,850 dollars, which she provided via Blackhawk Reloadit cards to a person claiming to be from the IRS. Transaction records indicated that Melissa B.?s extorted funds were transferred to three separate GPR cards, including one card purchased in Bolingbrook, IL. Surveillance footage from a Meijer store in Bolingbrook, IL from August 7, 2014, shows co- defendant RAJUBHAI PATEL and defendant MITESHKUMAR PATEL purchasing ?ve GPR cards, one of which eventually received $1,050 of Melissa BPS funds. That card was liquidated at an Exxon gas station owned by defendant MITESHKUMAR PATEL. 15 Case 4:16-cr-00385 Document 471 Filed in TXSD on 11/13/17 Page 16 of 24 j. Defendant MITESHKUMAR PATEL knew that the GPR cards that he and his conspirators used to launder victim funds were registered with the identities of unsuspecting persons, and that the funds on the cards were derived from fraudulent criminal activity. Green Dot Seizure k. The primary method in which the Defendant and his co-conspirators received the fraud proceeds was via the aforementioned GPR cards. In particular, the scammers typically requested that victims obtain Green Dot MoneyPaks, Blackhawk Network Reloadit packs-or similar products that could be used to facilitate the transfer of funds to the scammers. The MoneyPak or Reloadit pack is a paper card that can be purchased and loaded .with cash at retail locations. MoneyPak or Reloadit packs have a scratch off PIN that the scammers obtained from the victims over the telephone. Using the PIN information, the scammers transferred the entire balance on the paper cards to the corresponding GPR cards of various types held by runners in the conspiracy. i 1. In order to use the Green Dot Debit Card, cardholders must complete a registration process intended to verify the user?s identity. The cardholder must provide their complete name, address, date of birth, social security number, and telephone number, in order to register the card. Once Green Dot verifies that the registration information is valid, the cardholder is able to use the debit card like any other bank debit card to make purchases and withdraw cash. Once the debit card is registered, it can receive money transfers from Green Dot MoneyPak cards online or by phone. In this case, Defendant, his co-defendants, and co-conspirators in India registered the Green Dot debit cards using the P11 of identity theft victims. l6 Case 4:16-cr-00385 Document 471 Filed in TXSD on 11/13/17 Page 17 of 24' m. During the course of the offense, victims purchased thousands of MoneyPak cards to facilitate the transfer of funds from the victims to the Defendant and his co-conspirators. The Defendant and his-conspirators then had the funds transferred from the MoneyPak cards to Green Dot Debit Cards using Green Dot?s automated telephone service. n. Agents analyzed approximately seventy email accounts, information stored on electronic devices, records provided by Green Dot, and the transaction activity of thousands of Green Dot cards, to trace proceeds of the offense to approximately 227 Green Dot cards. Defendant stipulates that the funds seized from Green Dot on or about October 27, 2014, which total $241,302.45, are fraud proceeds and funds involved in or traceable to the offense for which he is pleading guilty. This stipulation does not attempt to set forth every aspect of the Defendant?s involvement in the case, but rather to set forth those facts necessary to serve as a factual basis for the Defendant?s guilty plea in this case. Breach of Plea Agreement 16. If Defendant should fail in any way to ful?ll completely all of the obligations under this plea agreement, the United States will be released from its obligations under the plea agreement, and Defendant?s plea and sentence will stand. If at any time Defendant retains, conceals, or disposes of assets in violation of this plea agreement, or if Defendant knowingly withholds evidence or is otherwise not completely truthful with the United States, then the United States may move the Court to set aside the guilty plea and reinstate prosecution. Any information 17 Case 4:16-cr-00385 Document 471 Filed in TXSD on 11/13/17 Page 18 of 24 and documents that have been disclosed by Defendant, whether prior to or subsequent to this plea agreement, and all leads derived therefrom, will be used against Defendant in any prosecution. Restitution, Forfeiture, and Fines Generally 17. This Plea Agreement is being entered into by the United States on the basis of Defendant?s express representation that he will make a full and complete disclosure of all assets over which he exercises direct or indirect control, or in which he has any ?nancial interest. Defendant agrees not to dispose of any assets or take any action that would effect a transfer of property in which he has an interest, unless Defendant obtains the prior written permission of the United States. 18. Defendant agrees to make complete ?nancial disclosure by truthfully executing a sworn ?nancial statement (Form OED-500 or similar form) within 14 days of signing this plea agreement. Defendant agrees to authorize the release of all ?nancial information requested by the United States, including, but not limited to, executing authorization forms permitting the United States to obtain tax information, bank account records, credit hiStories, and social security information. Defendant agrees to discuss and answer any questions by the United States relating to Defendant?s complete ?nancial disclosure. 19. 7 Defendant agrees to take all steps necessary to pass clear title to forfeitable assets to the United States and to assist fully in the collection of restitution and ?nes, including, but not limited to, surrendering title, executing a warranty deed, signing a consent decree, stipulating to facts regarding the transfer of title and the basis for the forfeiture, and signing any other documents necessary to effectuate such transfer. Defendant also agrees to direct any banks which have custody of his assets to deliver all funds and records of such assets to the United States. 18 Case 4:16-cr-00385 Document 471 Filed in TXSD on 11/13/17 Page 19 of 24 20. Defendant understands that forfeiture, restitution, and ?nes are separate components of sentencing and are separate obligations. Restitution 21. Defendant agrees to pay full restitution to the victim(s) regardless of the count(s) of conviction. Defendant understands and agrees that the Court will determine the amount of restitution to fully compensate the Victim(s). Defendant agrees that restitution imposed by the Court willbe due and payable immediately and that Defendant will not attempt to avoid or delay payment. Subject to the provisions of paragraph 7 above, Defendant waives the right to challenge in any manner, including by direct appeal or in a collateral proceeding, the restitution order imposed by the Court. Forfeiture 22. Defendant stipulates and agrees that any property, real or personal, involved in or traceable to the offense of conviction, as listed in the Superseding Indictment?s Notice of Forfeiture (and in any supplemental Notices), is subject to forfeiture, and Defendant agrees to the forfeiture of that property. That property includes, but is not limited to: Apple iPhone 5, serial number Apple iPhone 7, IMEI 0359207072419482, MSISDN (708) 250-3145 Gold Bars (25 EA) Silver Bars (6 EA) Miscellaneous Silver Coins (2 EA) US Currency totaling $4,095 US Currency OUT OF CIRCULATION, 208 total bills iTunes Gift Cards seized from Black Honda Accord Seizure of $241,302.45 from Green Dot Corporation on or about October 27, 2014 For purposes of entering said order of forfeiture, Defendant acknowledges that a nexus exists between the assets listed above and the criminal offense to which Defendant is pleading guilty. l9 Case 4:16-cr-00385 Document 471 Filed in TXSD on 11/13/17 Page 20 of 24 Further, the monies realized by the United States from the forfeiture of these assets will be credited towards satisfaction of the in personam money judgment for proceeds entered against Defendant, as described in paragraph 23. 23. The parties agree that the amount of property involved in the money laundering conspiracy to which the Defendant is pleading guilty, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1956(h), that he handled but did not retain is $24,000,000. in speci?ed unlawful activity proceeds. The parties further agree that, as to this amount, the defendant acted as an intermediary who handled but did not retain the speci?ed unlawful activity proceeds. The parties further agree that the Defendant, in committing the conspiracy, conducted three or more separate transactions involving a total of $100,000 or more in any twelve month period. Defendant stipulates and agrees to the entry of an order for substitute assets against him and in favor of the United States of America at the time of sentencing. Defendant stipulates and admits that one or more of the conditions set forth in Title 21, United States Code, Section 853(p), exists. Speci?cally, the parties agree that the proceeds the Defendant did not retain have been transferred, sold to, or deposited with a third party, have been placed beyond the jurisdiction of the court, and have been commingled with other property which cannot be divided without dif?culty, as a result of the Defendant?s own acts or omissions. Defendant agrees to forfeit any of his property, or his interest in property, up to the value of any unpaid portion of the forfeiture order, until the order is fully satis?ed. 24. Defendant agrees to forfeit and abandon all of the defendant's interest in all items seized by law enforcement of?cials during the course of their investigation. Defendant agrees to waive any and all interest in any asset which is the subject of a related administrative or judicial forfeiture proceeding, whether criminal or civil, federal or state. With regard to all forfeitable 20 Case 4:16-cr-00385 Document 471 Filed in TXSD on 11/13/17 Page 21 of 24 assets, the defendant agrees to take all steps necessary to ensure that the prOperty is not hidden, sold, wasted, destroyed, or otherwise made unavailable for forfeiture. In addition, the defendant agrees not to ?le a Statement of Interest, Offer in Compromise, Answer, claim, or petition for remission for such asset in any administrative or judicial proceeding that may be initiated or that has been initiated. To the extent that the defendant has ?led a Statement of Interest, Offer in Compromise, Answer, claim, or petition for remission for any such asset, the defendant hereby immediately withdraws that ?ling. 25. Defendant consents to the order of forfeiture becoming ?nal as to Defendant immediately following this guilty plea, pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 26. Subject to the provisions of paragraph 7 above, Defendant waives any and all constitutional, statutory, and equitable challenges in any manner (including direct appeal, habeas corpus, or any other means) to any disposal of such property carried out in accordance with this Plea Agreement on any grounds. The defendant acknowledges that assets (listed or unlisted in this agreement) may have been forfeited administratively prior to the execution of this agreement, and the defendant hereby waives any interest in such assets; all constitutional, legal, and equitable claims to such assets; and all defenses to the forfeiture of such assets in any proceeding, including proper notice, timeliness of the notice, innocent ownership, defenses arising in connection with any provisionof 983, or excessive ?nes or punishment. The defendant also waives the requirements of Fed. R. Crim. P. 43(a) with respect to the imposition of any forfeiture sanction carried out in accordance with this Plea Agreement. The defendant further agrees to hold the United States, its agents and employees harmless from any claims whatsoever in connection with 21 Case 4:16-cr-00385 Document 471 Filed in TXSD on 11/13/17 Page 22 of 24 29. A?ation of this plea agreement must be in writing and signed by all parties. Fileda ,Texas,on kij- lg OM ?aw Die/fendant Subscribed and sworn to before me on Y3: 20 DAVID J. BRADLEY, Clerk UNITED STATES DISTRICT CLERK By: 239:? on . Deputy United States District Clerk APPROVED: Abe Martinez Actin [Jnited Stat tto ey By: . . Reed Craig M. eaze Attorney for Defendant Assistant ed States Attorney Southern District of Texas Kenneth A. Blanco Acting Assistant Attorney General Trial Att rneys US. Department of Justice Criminal Division Human Rights and Special Prosecutions 23 Case 4:16-cr-00385 Document 471 Filed in TXSD on 11/13/17 Page 23 of 24 Amanda Schlager Wick Trial Attorney US. Department of Justice Criminal Division Money Laundering and Asset Recovery Section 24 Case 4:16-cr-00385 Document 471 Filed in TXSD on 11/13/17 Page 24 of 24 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS Defendant. HOUSTON DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. CRIMINAL NO. 4:16-cr-385-S MITESHKUMAR PATEL, a.k.a. Mitesh PLEA AGREEMENT -- ADDENDUM I have fully explained to Defendant his rights with respect to the pending indictments. I have reviewed the provisions of the United States Sentencing Commission?s Guidelines Manual and Policy Statements and I have fully and carefully explained to Defendant the provisions of those Guidelines which may apply in this case. I have also explained to Defendant that the Sentencing Guidelines are only advisory and the court may sentence Defendant up to the maximum allowed by statute per count of conviction. Further, I have carefully reviewed every part of this plea agreement with Defendant. To my knowledge, Defendant?s decision to enter into this agreemen and voluntary one. (?35m - #434 7 7? AWefgid/ant Date 1 have consulted with my attorney and fully understand all my rights with respect to the indictment pending against me. My attorney has fully explained, and I understand, all my rights with respect to the provisions of the United States Sentencing Commission?s Guidelines Manual which may apply in my case. I have read and carefully reviewed every part of this plea agreement with my a?oWerstand this agreement and I V0117t rily agree tpfits terms. /3 VI Defendant Date 25