Case 1:18-cr-00260-ABJ Document 38 Filed 04/08/19 Page 1 of 10

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
W. SAMUEL PATTEN,
Defendant.

:
: Criminal No.: 18-260 (ABJ)
:
: Sentencing: April 12, 2019
:
:
:

GOVERNMENT’S MEMORANDUM IN AID OF SENTENCING
AND MOTION FOR A DOWNWARD DEPARTURE
The United States of America, by and through undersigned counsel, submits this
memorandum in aid of sentencing. On August 31, 2018, Defendant W. Samuel Patten pleaded
guilty to one count of knowingly and willfully acting as an agent of a foreign principal without
registering with the Attorney General, in violation of the Foreign Agents Registration Act
(“FARA”), 22 U.S.C. §§ 612 and 618(a)(1). For this criminal violation, Patten faces a maximum
sentence of 5 year’s imprisonment, a fine of not more than $250,000, and a term of supervised
release of not more than 3 years.
There is no sentencing guideline applicable to FARA violations, nor is there any analogous
sentencing guideline under these specific circumstances. See Plea Agreement, United States v.
Patten, No. 18-cr-260 (D.D.C. Aug. 31, 2018) (ECF No. 6 at 2); Presentence Investigation Report
(“PSIR”), United States v. Patten, No. 18-cr-260 (D.D.C. Apr. 4, 2019) (ECF No. 35 at 6).
Therefore, the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553 should control Defendant’s sentence. See
United States Sentencing Guidelines (“U.S.S.G.”) § 2X5.1. While there is no advisory guideline
sentence in this instance, in accordance with the Plea Agreement (ECF No. 6 at 6), the government
concurrently moves for a downward departure pursuant to U.S.S.G. 5K1.1 because of Patten’s

 Case 1:18-cr-00260-ABJ Document 38 Filed 04/08/19 Page 2 of 10

cooperation and the substantial assistance he has provided to the government. See Sealed
Addendum to this Memorandum in Aid of Sentencing.
This case was originally investigated by the Special Counsel’s Office before being referred
to the U.S. Attorney’s Office. Consistent with the practice of the Special Counsel’s Office, the
government does not take a position with respect to a particular sentence to be imposed. Instead,
the government sets forth below its assessment of the relevant Section 3553 sentencing factors,
including the serious nature of the underlying offense, the characteristics of the defendant
(including his substantial assistance), and sentences received by similarly situated defendants.
I.

Analysis of Specific Statutory Factors Under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)
When weighing the § 3553(a) factors, the Court should consider not only the nature and

circumstances of the offense and the history and characteristics of the defendant, but also the
applicable sentencing objectives—that is, that the sentence: (1) reflect the seriousness of the
offense; (2) promote respect for the law; (3) provide just punishment; (4) afford adequate
deterrence; (5) protect the public; and (6) effectively provide the defendant with needed
educational or vocational training and medical care. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1), (2). In addition,
the sentence should reflect “the need to avoid unwarranted sentence disparities among defendants
with similar records who have been found guilty of similar conduct.” 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(6).
a.

Nature and Circumstances of the Offense and Other Admitted Conduct

The defendant’s offense is serious, and includes multiple violations of law. As described
more fully below, the defendant violated FARA, facilitated and concealed a foreign donation to
the Presidential inauguration, and provided false testimony to and withheld documents from the
United States Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (“SSCI”). See Statement of Offense, United
States v. Patten, No. 18-cr-260 (D.D.C. Aug. 31, 2018) (ECF No. 7) (“SOF”).

2

 Case 1:18-cr-00260-ABJ Document 38 Filed 04/08/19 Page 3 of 10

FARA plays a fundamental role in our democracy. The purpose of FARA is “to protect the
national defense, internal security, and foreign relations of the United States by requiring public
disclosure by persons engaging in propaganda activities and other activities for or on behalf of
foreign governments, foreign political parties, and other foreign principals so that the Government
and the people of the United States may be informed of the identity of such persons and may
appraise their statements and actions in the light of their associations and activities.” 22 U.S.C. §
611, note on Policy and Purpose, 56 Stat. 248-49 (1942). As this Court succinctly put it recently,
“If the people don’t have the facts, democracy can’t work.” See Transcript of Sentencing, United
States v. Manafort, No. 17-cr-201 (D.D.C. Mar. 19, 2019) (ECF No. 554) at 63:19-20. In short,
FARA protects the integrity of the American political system by enabling Americans to consider
the identity of foreign persons behind certain speech and activities as they evaluate the substance
of that speech and activity.
The specific circumstances of Patten’s offense go to the heart of these concerns. As
described in the SOF, the defendant worked for approximately four years to advance the interests
of a Ukrainian political party—the Opposition Bloc—before the United States Congress and in the
American media. 1 SOF at ¶ 1. The defendant performed these services through a U.S. company
that Pattern formed with a Russian national, and that received over $1,000,000 for its work, in part
through offshore bank accounts. Id. Patten’s services for the Opposition Bloc included
communicating with members and staff of Congress and the Executive Branch to set up meetings
with various foreign nationals. Id. at ¶ 2. Patten also drafted talking points for the foreign principal
to use in meetings he had set up, as well as talking points for Congressional staff to use with other

1

The Opposition Bloc, and its previous iteration—the Party of Regions—is the same
Ukrainian political party for which Paul Manafort also worked.
3

 Case 1:18-cr-00260-ABJ Document 38 Filed 04/08/19 Page 4 of 10

members and staff in an effort to arrange even more meetings. Id. Patten’s media outreach included
drafting op-ed pieces on behalf of a Ukrainian national associated with the Opposition Bloc and
getting those pieces placed in American media outlets. Id. ¶ 4.
In none of these instances did Patten identify that he was working on behalf of the
Opposition Bloc, as required under FARA. He did not discuss that fact with the Congressional
members or staffers or the members of the Executive Branch. Nor did he make that disclosure on
the op-ed pieces he drafted, as also required under FARA. Without those disclosures, U.S.
government officials and the American public could not effectively evaluate his representations.
Patten engaged in all of this activity knowing that he was required to register under FARA.
The defendant had previously registered with the Department of Justice’s FARA Unit on behalf of
a different client, and he even inquired of the Ukrainian national whether he and his company
should file for the conduct described. Id. ¶ 5.
Patten also admitted to other conduct for which he was not charged and that was related to
his work for the Opposition Bloc. Patten facilitated the purchase of $50,000 worth of tickets to
events associated with the Presidential inauguration in January 2017. Id. ¶ 6-7. Patten used a straw
purchaser to buy the tickets in order to conceal the fact that the money was provided by the
Ukrainian national to Patten’s company through an offshore bank account. Id. ¶ 7. Patten caused
the payment knowing that there was a restriction on foreign donations to the inauguration. Id. ¶ 6.
In January 2018, Patten gave voluntary testimony to the SSCI on topics that included his
representation of foreign principals in the United States and his actions in connection with
inaugural events. Id. ¶ 8-9. Patten intentionally withheld documents from SSCI relating to his
concealment of the foreign payment for inauguration tickets and also gave false and misleading
testimony that obscured his role in the purchase, as well as his FARA violations. Id. ¶ 9.

4

 Case 1:18-cr-00260-ABJ Document 38 Filed 04/08/19 Page 5 of 10

b.

History and Characteristics of the Defendant

Patten’s history and characteristics present a number of mitigating factors to be considered
by the Court in determining his sentence.
Patten is 47 years old, married, and has a son from a previous marriage. PSIR at 2, 8. He
graduated from Georgetown University in 1993, with a Bachelors of Arts degree in American
Government. Id. at 12. Until the pendency of this investigation and ultimate prosecution, Patten
has been regularly employed in a variety of professional jobs. Id. at 12-14. Among other things,
he has worked as a newspaper reporter, as a foreign policy and defense advisor for a member of
Congress, as an assistant to a presidential campaign, and as a senior advisor at the U.S. Department
of State. Id. Patten has also worked for non-governmental organizations (“NGOs”) that promote
human rights and democracy abroad, often times placing him in dangerous locations overseas. Id.
at 13-14. In short, in addition to various periods of self-employment as a political consultant, Patten
has a long record of public service, including employment with both the executive and legislative
branches of the U.S. government as well as employment with NGOs. Id. Prior to engaging in the
criminal conduct identified above on behalf of the Opposition Bloc, and his subsequent efforts to
conceal that conduct, Patten appears to have a led a helpful and exemplary professional life.
Currently, while unemployed, Patten has used some of his free time to volunteer with a
local nonprofit organization that focuses on helping children succeed in school by providing
tutoring, workshops designed to teach necessary skills to successfully navigate middle-school and
high-school and graduate on time, and with outdoor recreation opportunities. PSIR at 11. It is also
evident from reviewing the Presentence Report that Patten has the full support of his wife and
family, and that he has effectively used the time that he has been unemployed to seek help for and
address a number of personal issues that he has struggled with throughout his life. Id. at 10-12.

5

 Case 1:18-cr-00260-ABJ Document 38 Filed 04/08/19 Page 6 of 10

With regards to his conduct during the pendency of this investigation and prosecution,
Patten began cooperating with the Special Counsel’s Office shortly after being contacted by
investigators, and well before his guilty plea. Likewise, Patten deserves credit for accepting
responsibility and pleading guilty to a criminal information prior to indictment. Moreover, Patten
admitted to all of his criminal conduct, which was included in the Statement of Offense as part of
his guilty plea.
In addition, Patten provided substantial assistance to the government, and therefore the
government is contemporaneously moving for a downward departure pursuant to Section 5K1.1
of the Guidelines. Specifically, Patten was a potential witness in the case of United States v.
Manafort, No. 17-cr-201 (ABJ), and he was willing and able to testify about Paul Manafort’s work
in Ukraine for the Opposition Bloc and related matters. To prepare for his anticipated testimony,
Patten met with prosecutors before trial and he provided documentary evidence supporting his
expected testimony. Ultimately, because Manafort pled guilty in that case, Patten’s testimony was
not needed. In addition, due to his prior work and experience as a political consultant overseas,
Patten has served as a valuable resource for the government in a number of other criminal
investigations, providing helpful information about additional individuals and entities. In total,
Patten has met with government investigators, in person or by phone, a total of nine separate times
to answer numerous questions and explain various documents. In all of these sessions, Patten has
been honest and straightforward with government investigators. The government will also file an
Addendum to this Memorandum in Aid of Sentencing, where the government more fully describes
the nature of Patten’s cooperation and assistance to the government. 2

2

Because the Addendum includes sensitive information about other investigations and
persons who have not been (and may not be) charged with a crime, the government is seeking
permission from the Court to file the Addendum under seal.
6

 Case 1:18-cr-00260-ABJ Document 38 Filed 04/08/19 Page 7 of 10

As calculated by the United States Probation Office, the defendant has a criminal history
score of zero and no prior contacts with the criminal justice system. PSIR at 7. In addition, since
his guilty plea on August 31, 2018, Patten has been on release on his personal recognizance, and
he has complied with all of his release conditions, with the exception of missing a phone call
check-in on February 4, 2019, for which he received an oral warning. Id. at 3.
c.

The Need to Avoid Unwarranted Sentence Disparities

Although there have only been a handful of FARA criminal convictions over the last
twenty years, many of those convictions have resulted in terms of imprisonment. 3 The most recent
such cases include:
•

U.S. v. Paul J. Manafort, Jr. (D.D.C.) – In 2018, Manafort pleaded guilty to,
among other things, conspiracy to commit multiple offenses, including
violating FARA by failing to register and by providing false statements in a
document filed with FARA. Manafort failed to register under FARA as an agent
of the government of Ukraine, the Ukrainian Party of Regions, and former
Ukrainian President Yanukovych. Manafort was sentenced to the statutory
maximum 60 months for the conspiracy to violate FARA.

•

U.S. v. Prince Asiel Ben Israel (N.D. Ill.) – In 2014, Ben Israel pleaded guilty
to failure to register under FARA as an agent for a foreign government; namely,
lobbying on behalf of Zimbabwe for lifting sanctions on Robert Mugabe and
other top Zimbabwean government officials. Ben Israel was sentenced to seven
months in prison.

•

U.S. v. Mark Deli Siljander (W.D. Mo.) – In 2010, former U.S. Representative
Siljander pleaded guilty to obstruction of justice and acting as an agent of a
foreign principal without registering under FARA, relating to his work for the
Islamic American Relief Agency, an Islamic charity with ties to international
terrorism. Siljander was sentenced to one year and one day in federal prison
without parole. Siljander’s co-defendant, El-Siddig, received a probationary
sentence for conspiring to violate FARA.

3

Other cases prosecuted by the Special Counsel’s Office for making false statements—
which is one of the categories of other criminal conduct to which Patten admitted—resulted in
sentences that included brief terms of incarceration. See United States v. Papadopoulos, 17-cr-182
(D.D.C. Sept. 7, 2018) (14 days); United States v. van der Zwaan, 18-cr-31 (ABJ) (D.D.C. Apr. 3,
2018) (30 days).
7

 Case 1:18-cr-00260-ABJ Document 38 Filed 04/08/19 Page 8 of 10

•

U.S. v. Tongsun Park (S.D.N.Y.) – In 2007, Park was convicted at trial for
conspiracy to violate FARA, 18 U.S.C. § 951, and money laundering in
connection with a scheme to lobby for easing United States and United Nations
sanctions on Iraq and to corruptly influence the award and conditions of Oil for
Food contracts. Park was sentenced to 60 months’ imprisonment.

•

U.S. v. Nisar Chaudhry (D. Md.) – In April 2018, Chaudhry pled guilty to an
information charging a willful failure to register under FARA as an agent of the
Government of Pakistan. Although Chaudhry is pending sentencing, the
government agreed to allocate for a sentence of five years’ probation, with six
months of home confinement as a condition of probation.

While Patten also violated FARA, the government notes that his cooperation and substantial
assistance are critical distinguishing factors from the cases and sentences identified above. In the
above cases, none of the defendants successfully cooperated with the government, nor did any of
them receive from the government a recommendation for a downward departure pursuant to
U.S.S.G. 5K1.1 for providing substantial assistance. Here, as described above and in the
Addendum to this Memorandum in Aid of Sentencing, Patten’s cooperation was immediate, and
his assistance was substantial. Accordingly, Patten’s conduct is distinguishable from all of the
above-cited cases, and the Court should take that distinction into account when fashioning an
appropriate sentence.
II.

Motion for a Downward Departure
As described above, Patten cooperated with and provided substantial assistance to the

government warranting a downward departure. Pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1, upon motion of the
government, the Court may depart from a guideline sentence to reflect a defendant’s substantial
assistance in the investigation or prosecution of another person who has committed an offense.
While as stated previously there is no applicable guideline for Patten’s offense from which the
Court would depart in imposing a sentence in this case, the Court should take into account that, in
the government’s view, Patten has satisfied the criteria set forth in the guidelines for a departure.

8

 Case 1:18-cr-00260-ABJ Document 38 Filed 04/08/19 Page 9 of 10

Therefore, the government formally moves the Court for such a “departure” in this case so that the
Court’s ultimately sentence properly reflects Patten’s substantial assistance to the government.
III.

Conclusion
With no applicable guideline range for this offense, the Court has even broader discretion

in this case to fashion Patten’s sentence. For the foregoing reasons, the government asks that the
Court impose a sentence consistent with the severity of the offense, as well as defendant’s
characteristics and his early acceptance of responsibility and substantial assistance to the
government.
Respectfully submitted,
JESSIE K. LIU
United States Attorney
D.C. Bar No. 472845

By:

/s/
Fernando Campoamor-Sánchez
Assistant United States Attorney
D.C. Bar No. 451210
555 4th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20530
202-252-7698
fernando.campoamor-sanchez@usdoj.gov

By:

/s/
Scott A. Claffee
Trial Attorney
U.S. Department of Justice
National Security Division

9

 Case 1:18-cr-00260-ABJ Document 38 Filed 04/08/19 Page 10 of 10

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on April 8, 2019, a copy of the foregoing Government’s Memorandum
in Aid of Sentencing and Motion for a Downward Departure was sent via electronic mail to Stuart
A. Sears, Esquire.
/s/
Fernando Campoamor Sánchez
Assistant U.S. Attorney

10