Factual Basis. Defendant is pleading guilty because defendant is in fact guilty. The defendant certifies that defendant does hereby admit that the facts set forth below are true, and were this case to go to trial, the United States would be able to prove those specific facts and others beyond a reasonable doubt: Defendant is the managing member of OM Global Investment Fund LLC (the “OM Global Fund”), an unregistered pooled investment vehicle fund formed in 2009. Defendant is also the principal owner and operator of OM Investment Management LLC, a formerly registered investment advisor. Defendant and the OM Global Fund were investment advisers within the meaning of Section 202(a)(11) of the Investment Advisers Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 80-b2(a)(11). Beginning in or about 2011, defendant began soliciting investments for the OM Global Fund by, among other methods, touting its access to pre-IPO shares of Facebook, Inc. By the end of 2012, defendant had secured investments exceeding $15 million for the OM Global Fund. As part of the investments for the OM Global Fund, defendant raised more than $9 million “side pocket” investments based on representations to approximately 130 investors that their investments in the OM Global Fund would be used exclusively for the purchase of shares of Facebook. Contrary to these representations and unbeknown to “side pocket” investors, defendant later sold Facebook shares and thereafter used certain of those funds designated exclusively for the purchase of Facebook shares for other investments. Defendant made material misrepresentations and omissions through OM Investment Management to investors in order to mislead investors about the nature and value of their investment in the OM Global Fund and to conceal from “side pocket” investors that he had used their money for investments other than Facebook. The OM Global Fund lost approximately $9 million before it went into receivership in September 2013.
Factual Basis. The Service shall at- tach a written statement that contains a summary of the basis for the Com- missioner’s determination to continue to detain the alien, including a descrip- tion of the evidence relied upon to reach the determination regarding the alien’s special dangerousness. The Service shall attach copies of all rel- evant documents used to reach its deci- sion to continue to detain the alien.
Factual Basis. 12. The Defendant is pleading guilty because it is guilty of the charges contained in the Information. The Defendant admits, agrees, and stipulates that the factual allegations set forth in the Information and the Statement of Facts are true and correct, that it is responsible for the acts of its officers, directors, employees, and agents described in the Information and the Statement of Facts, and that the Information and the Statement of Facts accurately reflect the Defendant’s criminal conduct.
Factual Basis. Defendant SSI KOREA is pleading guilty because it is guilty of the charges contained in Counts One through Four of the Information. Defendant SSI KOREA agrees and stipulates that the factual allegations set forth in the Information are true and correct and accurately reflect its criminal conduct. The parties further stipulate and agree to the Statement of Facts attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit 1.
Factual Basis. As a result of data gathering and an organizational framework, the factual basis of a plan in general is the information base for its goals and strategies. The factual basis for historic preservation in planning includes assembling existing information about the historical context, conditions within historic preservation, and potential threats to historic resources [8, 17]. The establishment of a historical context is the foundation for the identification, evaluation, registration, and treatment of historic properties [18]. Identifying the preservation condition and threats will support the best option for preservation strategies.
Factual Basis. Had the case against the defendant gone to trial, the Government would have presented the following facts, which were set forth in the PSR2 (sealed appendix): On March 13, 2008, agents with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (“ATF”) received information from a confidential informant (“CI”) that the CI had arranged to purchase approximately one ounce of cocaine base (“crack”) from an individual who was later identified as the defendant. PSR ¶ 8. ATF then equipped the CI with an audio/video recording device and provided the CI with $950 in ATF funds. PSR ¶ 8. The CI then proceeded, under surveillance, to the Farnum Court housing project in New Haven, Connecticut. PSR¶ 8. The CI met the defendant within the housing complex, and followed him to a residence located at 184 Hamilton Street, Apartment 504. PSR ¶ 9. Upon entering that residence, the defendant provided the CI with 21.5 grams of crack in exchange for $950. PSR ¶¶ 9, 11. On April 30, 2008, officers with the Connecticut State Police (“CSP”) utilized a cooperating witness (“CW”) to purchase an additional quantity of cocaine base from the 2 The Government will cite the PSR directly. defendant. PSR ¶ 13. In connection with that transaction, CSP provided the CW with $900 in CSP purchase funds. PSR ¶ 13. The CW traveled to the vicinity of Wallace and Walnut Streets in New Haven where he met with the defendant. PSR ¶ 14. The defendant provided the CW with eight individually wrapped chunks of crack, which had a total approximate weight of 24 grams. PSR ¶ 14.
Factual Basis. 6. Defendant will plead guilty because he is in fact guilty of the charge contained in the information. In pleading guilty, defendant admits the following facts and that those facts establish his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt: Defendant owned and operated several businesses, including Certifibre, LLC, Anderson International Global, LLC, which had an assumed name of Worldwide Paper Company, Inc., American Surplus Supply, Southernmost Exports, LLC, Southernmost Holdings, LTD; and Sea Consulting, LLC. Defendant operated these businesses from Cary, Illinois, and other locations, including Florida. Defendant represented and advertised that these companies were suppliers of wood pulp and other raw materials. Defendant admits that from at least April of 2009, through at least January of 2013, at Cary, in the Northern District of Illinois, Western Division, and elsewhere, he knowingly devised and engaged in a scheme to defraud certain manufacturers, raw materials brokers and suppliers, shipping and trucking companies, and freight forwarders, and to obtain money, funds, credit, and property belonging to these businesses by means of materially false and fraudulent pretenses, representations, and promises. As part of his scheme, defendant entered into contracts to sell wood pulp and other raw materials to certain manufacturers and raw materials brokers and suppliers. Usually, these businesses were located in foreign countries. The description, quantity, and quality of the materials defendant agreed to sell to the manufacturers and raw materials brokers and suppliers were reflected on Pro Forma Invoices that defendant created on the stationery of his businesses. Defendant also entered into agreements with shipping and trucking companies and freight forwarders for the transporting and overseas shipment of the materials he had agreed to sell to the manufacturers and raw materials brokers and suppliers. Defendant usually promised to pay the freight charges for the overseas shipments sent by his companies. Defendant admits that, instead of loading the shipping containers with the agreed upon wood pulp or other raw materials, he knowingly caused the shipping containers to be loaded with worthless scrap materials, or materials with a value substantially less than the wood pulp or other raw materials he had agreed to sell. On other occasions, instead of causing the shipping containers to be loaded with the agreed upon weight and volume of wood pulp or other raw materials, ...
Factual Basis. The Defendant states as the following factual basis for the plea:The defendant is a Certified Public Accountant. From July 2004 through September 2008, the defendant was employed by PETTERS GROUP WORLDWIDE LLC (“PGW”), a company owned by THOMAS JOSEPHPETTERS. From July 2004 through September 2007, defendant’s titlewas Executive Vice President - Tax at PGW. After September 2007, defendant’s title was changed to Executive Vice President - Finance, Tax and Treasury.As part of his duties with PGW, defendant oversaw the tax department for PGW and prepared tax filings for PGW and other business entities owned by THOMAS JOSEPH PETTERS, including PETTERS COMPANY, INC. (“PCI”). Defendant also prepared THOMAS JOSEPH PETTERS’s personal tax filings. Defendant was also responsible for the accounting of, and IRS filings relating to, payments made by PGW and its affiliates to third parties.While working for PGW, the defendant participated in a conspiracy to impede and impair the assessment and collection of taxes due and owing to the United States Department of the Treasury, involving THOMAS JOSEPH PETTERS, business entities owned by THOMAS JOSEPH PETTERS, and employees of businesses owned by THOMAS JOSEPH PETTERS. Defendant also aided and assisted in tax fraud in connection with THOMAS JOSEPH PETTERS’s personal income tax return. The tax loss attributable his criminal conduct is approximately $20 million.While working for PGW, the defendant conspired with THOMAS JOSEPH PETTERS and other employees of businesses owned by THOMAS JOSEPH PETTERS to under-report their income. In order to effect the objects of the conspiracy and in furtherance of the conspiracy, defendant and other members of the conspiracy committed and causedto be committed the following overt acts in the District of Minnesota and elsewhere: (1) falsely characterizing approximately$60 million in payments made to or on behalf of THOMAS JOSEPH PETTERS as “loans” when the payments should have been reported to the Internal Revenue Service as income and for which there were federal and state taxes due and owing; (2) falsely characterizing millions of dollars in payments made to employees of business entities owned by THOMAS JOSEPH PETTERS as “gifts” when the payments should have been reported to the Internal Revenue Service as income and for which there were federal and state taxes due and owing; (3) failing to report to the Internal Revenue Service millions of dollars of payments made to employees of business en...