Case 1:19-cr-00480-RA Document 63 Filed 06/16/21 Page 1 of 5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BY ECF
`The Honorable Ronnie Abrams
`United States District Judge
`Southern District of New York
`40 Foley Square
`New York, New York 10007
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`June 16, 2021
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Re: United States v. Joseph Meli, 19 Cr. 480 (RA)
`
`
`
`Dear Judge Abrams:
`
`
`The defendant in this case, Joseph Meli (“Meli” or the “defendant”), is scheduled to be
`sentenced on Friday, June 25, 2021 at 9:00 am, having pleaded guilty pursuant to a plea agreement
`to one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud and securities fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. §
`371. The Government respectfully submits this letter in advance of the sentencing. Pursuant to a
`plea agreement between the parties, the defendant’s stipulated Guidelines range is 37 to 46 months’
`imprisonment (the “Stipulated Guidelines Range”). For the reasons set forth below, the
`Government submits that a sentence within the Stipulated Guidelines Range is warranted in this
`case.
`
`
`A. Background
`
`
`
`On January 26, 2017, in connection with a separate investigation in this District, Meli was
`charged by Complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York for his
`involvement in an extensive investment scheme in which he defrauded over 100 investors who
`invested a total of approximately $100 million in reliance upon Meli’s false representations that
`the investor funds would be used to purchase tickets to various live events for resale at a profit on
`the secondary market. See United States v. Meli, 17 Cr. 127 (KMW). In fact, Meli spent much of
`the investor funds on himself, purchasing a multi-million dollar home, watches, jewelry, and a
`Porsche, and using new investor funds to pay back old investors in a Ponzi-like manner. Meli
`ultimately pleaded guilty to committing this extensive fraud on or about October 31, 2017, and
`was later sentenced by the Honorable Kimba M. Wood to 78 months’ imprisonment on or about
`April 3, 2018. Long before Meli’s change of plea, soon after Meli’s arrest in January 2017, and
`while on pretrial release, Meli refashioned his fraud scheme to concoct a new stream of illicit
`income that could be concealed from the Court and the Government during the pendency of Meli’s
`case, while there was heightened scrutiny and supervision on his activities.
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cr-00480-RA Document 63 Filed 06/16/21 Page 2 of 5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Page 2
`
`Hon. Ronnie Abrams
`June 16, 2021
`Mere months after his arrest in connection with his first fraud case, Meli, along with several
`others, formed a new company, Indio Entertainment, LLC (“Indio”), in which Meli would be a
`silent partner. Although Meli had no formal title in the company, his involvement was extensive.
`Meli provided the CEO of Indio with the same contracts, templates, and other documents he had
`used in connection with his first fraud scheme, to be repurposed and used under the guise of this
`new company. Meli purported to have connections in the entertainment industry that would
`provide him access to bulk tickets at a discounted rate, and an existing inventory of such discounted
`tickets that could immediately be purchased by Indio from Meli and sold. Meli in fact recruited
`his cousin, Jamies Siniscalchi, to serve as the Chief Compliance Officer of Indio, and to
`incorporate companies that Meli would later use as front corporations to accept investor funds
`funneled through Indio, under the pretense that these companies would supply Indio with blocks
`of tickets to Broadway shows. As with the initial fraud scheme, Siniscalchi (signing on behalf of
`these corporations) executed false contracts with Indio pledging to provide certain bulk tickets for
`a certain price. Indio, in turn, executed contracts with investors, pledging to provide them with
`tickets in exchange for their investment. In this manner, Indio received investor funds, then
`transferred those same funds to bank accounts controlled by Siniscalchi. As with Meli’s initial
`fraud scheme, there were in fact no tickets.
`
`Siniscalchi used these investor funds to pay Meli’s personal expenses, often after cycling
`these funds through various other corporate accounts also controlled by Siniscalchi. By way of
`example, $500,000 was transferred to an individual completely unrelated to the ticket industry,
`who claimed that the funds were an investment in a marijuana grow farm. $18,000 was paid to
`Meli’s wife. $45,000 and $449,000, respectively, were paid to entities in which the defendant’s
`father was a principal, at least in part to repay credit card payments that Meli was charging on his
`father’s credit cards. $500,000 was withdrawn in cash or cashier’s checks. $150,000 was paid to
`a law firm that represented Meli in connection with Meli’s initial criminal case in United States v.
`Meli, 17 Cr. 127 (KMW). Over $220,000 was issued to a residential management company that
`managed an apartment Meli was leasing at the time.
`
`In short, Meli repurposed his original fraud scheme; in light of his arrest, and because Meli
`could no longer solicit investors funds or transact in large dollar amounts in his own name without
`detection, Meli instead used the façade of a new company, and others who served as Indio’s
`principalsto continue defrauding investors and pocketing their funds.
`
`Meli’s engagement in the instant offense continued well after his arrest in connection with
`his first fraud case. With respect to Indio, Meli continued the charade that he had purchased tickets,
`and would provide investor returns by an ever-evolving deadline, even after he was sentenced by
`Judge Wood for his initial fraud scheme. Meli coached his associates to placate investors
`throughout, all for the purpose of delaying discovery of his fraud. To that end, Meli would be blind
`carbon-copied on emails, and joined conference calls as a silent participant, railing in private
`against investors whom he deemed too demanding. His engagement in the instant conspiracy only
`ceased when Meli surrendered to serve his term of imprisonment in connection with the initial
`fraud case.
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cr-00480-RA Document 63 Filed 06/16/21 Page 3 of 5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Page 3
`
`Hon. Ronnie Abrams
`June 16, 2021
`
`
`B. Discussion
`
`1. Applicable Law
`
`
`
`
`
`The Guidelines still provide important guidance to the Court following United States v.
`Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), and United States v. Crosby, 397 F.3d 103 (2d Cir. 2005). Indeed,
`although Booker held that the Guidelines are no longer mandatory, it also held that they remain in
`place and that district courts must “consult” the Guidelines and “take them into account” when
`sentencing. Booker, 543 U.S. at 264. As the Supreme Court stated, “a district court should begin
`all sentencing proceedings by correctly calculating the applicable Guidelines range,” which
`“should be the starting point and the initial benchmark.” Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 49
`(2007).
`
`After that calculation, however, a sentencing judge must consider seven factors outlined in
`Title 18, United States Code, Section 3553(a): (1) “the nature and circumstances of the offense
`and the history and characteristics of the defendant”; (2) the four legitimate purposes of sentencing,
`as set forth below; (3) “the kinds of sentences available”; (4) the Guidelines range itself; (5) any
`relevant policy statement by the Sentencing Commission; (6) “the need to avoid unwarranted
`sentence disparities among defendants”; and (7) “the need to provide restitution to any victims,”
`18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1)-(7). See Gall, 552 U.S. at 50 & n.6.
`
`In determining the appropriate sentence, the statute directs judges to “impose a sentence
`sufficient, but not greater than necessary, to comply with the purposes” of sentencing, which are:
`
`(A)
`
`to reflect the seriousness of the offense, to promote respect for the law, and to
`provide just punishment for the offense;
`to afford adequate deterrence to criminal conduct;
`to protect the public from further crimes of the defendant; and
`to provide the defendant with needed educational or vocational training, medical
`care, or other correctional treatment in the most effective manner.
`
`(B)
`(C)
`(D)
`
`
`18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2).
`
`
`2. A Sentence Within the Guidelines Range Is Appropriate In This Case
`
` A
`
` Guidelines sentence is necessary here to reflect the seriousness of the offense, to promote
`respect for the law, to provide just punishment, to afford adequate deterrence to this defendant and
`other similarly situated individuals, and to protect the public from further crimes of the defendant.
`See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(A)-(C). All of these considerations weigh heavily in favor of a sentence
`within the Guidelines Range, notwithstanding the 78-months sentence that Meli previously
`received.
`
`
`First, a sentence within the Guidelines Range is necessary to reflect the seriousness of the
`offense, to promote respect for the law, and to provide just punishment. See 18 U.S.C.
`§ 3553(a)(2)(A). The offense conduct here was particularly egregious. The defendant deliberately
`constructed this fraud scheme to circumvent the oversight of the Court, his pretrial services officer,
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cr-00480-RA Document 63 Filed 06/16/21 Page 4 of 5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Page 4
`
`Hon. Ronnie Abrams
`June 16, 2021
`and the Government, using a new company and new individuals as a buffer between himself and
`investors. Meli did this not merely to hide from the Court, but to ensure that he did not scare away
`investors, and could continue to receive investor funds. At least one investor, despite not knowing
`Meli’s involvement, declined to invest in Indio because it too closely resembled Meli’s initial fraud
`scheme. Meli—knowing full well the criminality of his actions due to his recent arrest—
`nonetheless reinvented his initial fraud and continued to victimize others to sustain his lifestyle.
`The defendant’s conduct is particularly troubling given that there was little interruption between
`the first fraud scheme and this charged offense, and the parallels between each of these schemes.
`
`Second, a substantial sentence is necessary to afford adequate deterrence to the defendant
`and to others similarly situated, and to protect the public from further crimes of the defendant. See
`18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(B). For all the reasons enumerated above, there is an acute need for specific
`deterrence in this case. Meli seamlessly transitioned from his first fraud to the instant offense,
`with little interruption between the two schemes. In arguing for a time-served sentence, much of
`Meli’s sentencing submission is focused on the effect of his incarceration as a result of serving his
`sentence for his first fraud scheme. See Def. Subm. (ECF No. 62). Meli’s initial sentence,
`however, was ordered without any knowledge that the defendant was already knee-deep in a
`second fraud scheme, which he had initiated as a direct result of his arrest. In other words, the
`defendant’s initial prison sentence is insufficient deterrence for the defendant, given that the
`sentence was imposed for a completely separate crime. Meli’s argument that he voluntarily ceased
`the charged conspiracy at the time of his surrender in the summer of 2018 holds no weight
`whatsoever. See id. at 9. Meli deserves no credit for ceasing his crime, particularly as he did not
`at any point seek to return investor funds. He had no intention of making investors whole. Nor did
`Meli cease his criminal activity voluntarily. To that point, Meli had been orchestrating his second
`fraud, and lulling investors through Indio principals, using the encrypted communications app
`WhatsApp, and phone calls. Meli knew, upon surrendering, that his communications would be
`monitored and he would no longer be able to direct the conspiracy without being caught. The
`notion that Meli chose to end his criminal offense, and that this warrants leniency, is factually and
`legally wrong.
`
`Significantly, Meli’s sentencing submission is almost wholly devoted to his personal
`experiences while incarcerated, showing little remorse for his crimes, the victims of those crimes,
`or the Court. Meli’s attitude exemplifies how little consideration he has for his victims, or the
`consequences of his crimes.
`
`Further, there is a need for general deterrence. If Meli were to receive only a minimal
`sentence, the Court’s sentence will send the message to the public that the charged offense – during
`the course of which Meli misled not only the victim-investors but also the Court, by way of Pretrial
`Services – does not rise to the level of seriousness as Meli’s initial fraud scheme. A lenient
`sentence would hardly deter those considering engaging in a similar fraud, or in doing so while on
`pretrial supervision. A minimal sentence would send the signal to criminals that no serious
`consequences will follow for any crimes committed following arrest, and before surrender, even
`if such crimes were deliberately designed to circumvent oversight of the Court and law
`enforcement, for the purpose of continuing the same type of criminal activity. The Court should
`send a message here that such behavior is taken seriously.
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cr-00480-RA Document 63 Filed 06/16/21 Page 5 of 5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Hon. Ronnie Abrams
`June 16, 2021
`C. Conclusion
`
`For the reasons set forth above, the Government respectfully submits that a sentence within
`the Guidelines Range of 37 to 46 months’ imprisonment would be fair and appropriate in this case.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Page 5
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`AUDREY STRAUSS
`United States Attorney for the
`Southern District of New York
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`cc: Defense counsel (via ECF)
`
`
` By: ___/s/__________________________
`
`Sarah Mortazavi / Micah Fergenson
`
`Assistant United States Attorneys
`
`(212) 637-2520 / 2190
`
`
`
`
`
`