Case 1:19-cr-00480-RA Document 72 Filed 09/10/21 Page 1 of 26
`
`
`
`-against-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`19 Cr. 480 (RA)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
`-------------------------------------------------------------- X
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`JAMES SINISCALCHI,
`
` Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`-------------------------------------------------------------- X
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`SENTENCING MEMORANDUM OF JAMES SINISCALCHI
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` MORVILLO LLP
`
`
`
`90 Broad Street
`New York, NY 10004
`Tel: (646) 831-1531
`
`LAW OFFICES OF DIANE FERRONE PLLC
`
`1740 Broadway, 15th Fl.
`New York, NY 10019
`Tel: (646) 337-9010
`
`
`Attorneys for Defendant James Siniscalchi
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cr-00480-RA Document 72 Filed 09/10/21 Page 2 of 26
`
`
`
`I.
`
`PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
`
`James “J” Siniscalchi (hereinafter “J” or “Mr. Siniscalchi”) respectfully submits this
`
`memorandum in advance of his sentencing. Mr. Siniscalchi submits that when the Court
`
`considers all of the relevant facts—including his lack of a criminal record, the aberrational nature
`
`of his conduct, his role in the offense and his post-offense rehabilitation—it should impose a
`
`non-incarceratory sentence. A sentence, in the range of time served or home confinement, will
`
`serve the goals set forth in 18 U.S.C. Section 3553(a).
`
`J Siniscalchi is a fundamentally good man who exercised poor judgment at a time he
`
`sought to remake his life after a career set back and a failed marriage. Before his arrest, he had
`
`never before been in trouble with the law. Even the Probation Department noted that his conduct
`
`in the instant case is aberrational. See Presentence Investigation Report (“PSR”), dated August
`
`20, 2021 at 25. The conduct at issue is not the sum total of Mr. Siniscalchi’s life and it is unlikely
`
`to repeat itself in the future. In addition, Mr. Siniscalchi has accepted responsibility for his
`
`conduct and has tried to move on from his errors.
`
`In 2017, Mr. Siniscalchi joined his cousin, Joe Meli, in the latter’s secondary market,
`
`ticket sales business. Mr. Siniscalchi agreed to work with his cousin for two reasons: first, after
`
`his separation from his long-time wife and inability to secure a spot in a PhD program, J needed
`
`work. He agreed to join his cousin in what he thought was an opportunity to rebuild his life in
`
`New York City. Second, Mr. Siniscalchi understood that Meli, who had already been charged
`
`with a crime, needed the money that this new business could generate to help support his wife
`
`and children. Thus, despite knowing nothing about the ticket sales business, J agreed to work
`
`with his cousin.
`
`At the outset, Mr. Siniscalchi believed that he had joined a legitimate business. He knew
`
`his cousin had previously worked in the ticket sales industry and was under the impression that
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cr-00480-RA Document 72 Filed 09/10/21 Page 3 of 26
`
`
`
`his cousin was the sole rights holder to numerous Broadway show and concert tickets. However,
`
`over time, J noticed certain red flags in relation to the business. This is where he made his
`
`greatest error in judgment. Rather than asking questions or working to extricate himself from an
`
`increasingly uncomfortable situation, Mr. Siniscalchi chose to stay the course. J realized too late
`
`that he made the wrong choice. As a result of his failures, investors lost money, Mr. Siniscalchi
`
`was arrested and pleaded guilty to a crime and now submits this memorandum to the Court for
`
`sentencing full of regret, remorse and embarrassment.
`
`The facts as they relate to Mr. Siniscalchi suggest that he is a good man who exercised
`
`poor judgment at the wrong time. The letters submitted by Mr. Siniscalchi’s family and friends
`
`paint the picture of a decent , kind, family-oriented man who has learned his lesson and will not
`
`commit any future crimes. As such, Mr. Siniscalchi respectfully requests that the Court impose a
`
`sentence that incorporates the maximum amount of leniency possible – only then will the result
`
`be “sufficient but not greater than necessary,” to meet all of the sentencing goals embodied in 18
`
`U.S.C. § 3553(a).
`
`II.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`
`
`A. Mr. Siniscalchi’s Personal History
`
`J Siniscalchi grew up in a working middle-class family. His parents divorced when J was
`
`three-years old. While J initially maintained some relationship with his father, after he remarried
`
`and had additional children, their contact markedly decreased. His mother, Josephine, however,
`
`also remarried and J formed a close relationship with his step-father, John Radice. J lived with
`
`his mother and stepfather. John and J became so close that eventually, when J was 25 years old,
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cr-00480-RA Document 72 Filed 09/10/21 Page 4 of 26
`
`
`
`John suggested that he formally adopt J. While J believed it to be “superfluous,” he agreed and
`
`the two formalized the relationship. See John and Josephine Letter at 6.1
`
`For many of his formative years, J lived across the street from his cousin, Joe Meli. The
`
`cousins grew up together more like brothers than cousins. See Letter of Anna and Richard Meli,
`
`Exhibit A at 5 (J and Joe Meli’s “relationship has been much more like that of brothers than
`
`cousins. They were raised together every day, during the early years of their lives and have
`
`remained close always….”); Letter of John and Josephine Radice at 7 (“J and Joe were more
`
`than cousins. They were “brothers.”); see also Letter of John Woolf at 12.
`
`Upon graduating from City Honors High School, in Buffalo, J enrolled at the Naval
`
`Academy Preparatory School. J came to believe that he would not flourish long-term in the
`
`Navy, having initially struggled, and was honorably discharged. In approximately 1995, J
`
`married his “high school sweetheart,” Heather Markwart.
`
`J and Heather lived in Buffalo. He worked as a sale representative for a
`
`telecommunications company; she worked in accounting in hotels and later a metal refinery. As
`
`time went on, J became frustrated in the marriage because there were disagreements over his
`
`wife’s overspending but concomitant fear of accruing debt, whether to have children, and the
`
`overall direction of the relationship. In addition, J did not wish to work in the
`
`telecommunications business forever. He eventually concluded that he wanted to teach high
`
`school history. To accomplish this goal, he needed a college degree. Thus, in approximately
`
`2012, while working full-time, J attended SUNY Buffalo State College.
`
`
`1 All of the letters of support are annexed hereto as Exhibit A. The page numbers listed in the
`citations reflect where within the exhibit the Court can find the specific reference.
`4
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cr-00480-RA Document 72 Filed 09/10/21 Page 5 of 26
`
`
`
`J worked diligently and graduated summa cum laude. Upon graduation, he decided to
`
`continue his studies. In 2015, he left his job to attend graduate school at the University of
`
`Toronto. J loved graduate school and the academic world. He came to believe that he had talent
`
`and acumen for research and studying history and decided to try to teach at a higher level than
`
`high school. This caused J to apply to PhD programs. Unfortunately, J did not gain acceptance
`
`into any PhD programs. He ended his studies in 2015 with a Master of Arts degree in History.
`
`While J went to Toronto to study, Heather stayed in Buffalo to work. Before J left there
`
`was strain on the marriage. While they lived apart the stressors increased. As J felt the acute
`
`disappointment of not getting into PhD programs Heather became less and less sympathetic of
`
`his situation and more and more demanding that he return to their old life.
`
`Things really started to unravel in spring 2015. Heather planned a trip to Ireland, deeming
`
`it a win/win, J could do research and she could travel internationally. During this trip, J felt that
`
`they had traveled together but that they were living separate lives. He came to believe that
`
`Heather resented the fact that J had gone back to school. This drove a wedge between the couple.
`
`After the vacation, J felt relief getting to go back to Toronto and his studies away from his wife’s
`
`discontent and complaints. As his program finished and J prepared to return to Buffalo and his
`
`old life, J felt more stress than he had before and felt like his life was not heading in the right
`
`direction.
`
`At the same time, J received a request to come to San Diego to help his cousin. J’s
`
`cousin’s significant other contacted J and Meli to ask them to visit their cousin John because
`
`John was struggling with the couple’s recent move to the west coast. J, as is his nature, agreed to
`
`go to San Diego to try to help. J now understands that while he wanted to support his cousin, he
`
`also wanted to avoid returning to Buffalo and his wife.
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cr-00480-RA Document 72 Filed 09/10/21 Page 6 of 26
`
`
`
`Before departing for California, J traveled to New York City to spend some time with
`
`Meli, who was also supposed to come to San Diego as well. During this visit J and Meli
`
`discussed J’s increasing discomfort in his marriage. As a result of those conversations, J
`
`concluded that it was time for a separation.
`
`At the same time Meli “recruited”2 J into the instant offense. Meli pitched J on joining
`
`the secondary market ticket sale business, working together, learning a new trade, and gaining
`
`financial independence. After numerous conversations, J decided to join Meli in the pursuit of
`
`the new business.
`
`While J traveled to visit his cousin in San Diego, Heather forced the issue on the
`
`marriage. The couple had a difficult but honest telephone conversation where they decided to
`
`separate from one another. Thereafter, J did not return to the home he owned with Heather.
`
`Instead, when he returned to Buffalo, J lived with his parents until he could relocate to New
`
`York City to work with Meli.
`
`At around this time, J learned that the government had charged Meli with a crime related
`
`to his previous ticket sales business. Meli, however, assured J that the case was overcharged and
`
`that his only real issue was tax related. In other words, when Meli and J discussed the new ticket
`
`sale business J believed that Meli’s criminal problems were due to Meli’s failure to pay
`
`appropriate taxes on tickets sales and had nothing to do with fraudulent ticket sales or purchases.
`
`To be clear, J wanted to be a part of this business. First, he needed a job and new
`
`direction for his life after his failed marriage and inability to secure a professorship. Second, as
`
`the letters make clear, he saw his “brother” and his “brother’s family” in trouble and wanted to
`
`
`2 The government uses the word “recruited” in describing Mr. Siniscalchi’s role in the offense in
`its sentencing memorandum as to Meli. See ECF # 63 at p. 2.
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cr-00480-RA Document 72 Filed 09/10/21 Page 7 of 26
`
`
`
`help. J believed he would be able to assist his cousin and help provide for the Meli family,
`
`despite Meli’s pending legal problems. J went into the business venture with no expectations that
`
`it was anything but a legitimate business opportunity.
`
`During the course of the underlying conduct, J emptied his 401(k) account and cashed in
`
`a life insurance policy and gave Meli the money. Meli told J that when the business generated
`
`money Meli would repay J the 401(k) and insurance policy monies. J believed that investor
`
`money would come in and profits would flow in short order and, as such, he made this quasi-
`
`bridge loan to Meli.3 Meli never returned any of the money to J.
`
`In 2019, the government indicted J and Meli related to the ticket resale business. J
`
`received bail and set out to satisfy the conditions. Chief among the conditions was for J to secure
`
`employment. In August 2019, J succeeded. Wistar Productions/Cipriani USA, Inc. hired J as a
`
`production sales manager and venue director. See PSR. at ¶ 72. While his work came to a
`
`standstill during the COVID-19 pandemic, J now works full-time. He is responsible for
`
`numerous largescale events, including non-profit galas, fashion shows and multi-media events,
`
`held at the Cunard Building, a New York City landmark located at 25 Broadway.
`
`B.
`
`The Offense Conduct
`
`
`
`
`
`In 2017, J Siniscalchi agreed with his cousin Joseph Meli to participate in a business that
`
`resold Broadway show, concert and sporting events tickets. Mr. Siniscalchi learned that the
`
`foundation of the new business included his cousin’s two business partners, Peter Bennett and
`
`Philmore Anderson. Bennett and Anderson, as Mr. Siniscalchi understood it, were going to raise
`
`money from investors to purchase tickets to Broadway shows, concerts and sporting events. Meli
`
`was to provide access to the original ticket holders (some tickets of which he claimed to have
`
`
`3 At Meli’s direction, some of J’s withdrawn money went to J for his own living expenses.
`7
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cr-00480-RA Document 72 Filed 09/10/21 Page 8 of 26
`
`
`
`already paid for the rights to) and had the connections to resell them. Mr. Siniscalchi would be
`
`the middle-man between them so the investors remained unaware of Meli’s participation, due to
`
`his pending criminal case.4 Meli also declared that he wanted his cousin to learn the business so
`
`that he could keep it afloat in the unlikely scenario that Meli received an incarceratory sentence
`
`for his “tax offense.”
`
`Mr. Siniscalchi, who had no prior experience in the ticket sales business, took direction
`
`from Meli. Upon instruction, Mr. Siniscalchi opened bank accounts, incorporated a company in
`
`his own name, and tried to learn the ropes from Meli. Mr. Siniscalchi attended business
`
`meetings, met some of Meli’s business associates, and heard all about their “proprietary
`
`software.”5
`
`Meli claimed that he had relationships that permitted him access to hard-to-come-by
`
`Broadway show, concert and sporting events tickets. Meli informed Mr. Siniscalchi that before
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4 Meli led J to believe that Bennett, Anderson and Meli discussed this set up with an attorney and
`that it was deemed permissible. J was not involved in that meeting.
`
` The proprietary software was to be a big deal for the fledgling business. Meli led J to believe
`that Meli had developed a method of listing tickets for sale on multiple secondary market ticket
`platforms at the same time. The software then, supposedly, compared prices from the different
`platforms so that the tickets Meli listed would find the optimal sales price. In addition, the
`software supposedly removed the tickets from all platforms once they were sold on one, to avoid
`overselling tickets to events. J understood that this would give their company a significant
`advantage in the marketplace, and it was another indication to him that the business was
`legitimate.
`
`
` 5
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cr-00480-RA Document 72 Filed 09/10/21 Page 9 of 26
`
`
`
`they started the business, Meli had already purchased the rights to tickets to certain events.6
`
`Thus, when investor monies flowed into the business, Meli claimed that the money belonged to
`
`him because he, Meli, was selling to the investors the rights to tickets that Meli already bought
`
`and paid for and that together the business would resell those tickets and split the proceeds
`
`among all participants.
`
`Mr. Siniscalchi believed his cousin. As money came into the business account, Meli
`
`directed Mr. Siniscalchi to wire it to various accounts. Mr. Siniscalchi did as directed without
`
`question. Mr. Siniscalchi never saw a significant return on any supposed ticket sales. When
`
`pressed by anyone, Meli always had an excuse or explanation that Mr. Siniscalchi accepted as
`
`true.
`
`Mr. Siniscalchi staunchly believed in and defended Meli and the business to the business
`
`partners who did not see the promised returns. However, over time, red flags appeared that Mr.
`
`Siniscalchi should not have ignored and yet he chose to do so. Mr. Siniscalchi now understands
`
`that these red flags should have caused him to question whether any tickets, in fact, existed, and
`
`whether the transfers of investor money to Meli was appropriate. Nevertheless, Mr. Siniscalchi
`
`did not, mostly because he did not want to believe that his cousin had involved him in something
`
`illegal and because he still wanted to do what he could to help provide for Meli’s family.
`
`
`6 This is an important detail in understanding why Mr. Siniscalchi transferred money to Meli
`upon request. Meli convinced his cousin that, before the business even started, Meli already
`owned the rights to certain Broadway show tickets. Even though shows like Harry Potter and the
`Cursed Child had not yet opened on Broadway, Meli convinced Mr. Siniscalchi that Meli had
`pre-negotiated for the rights with the ticket owners and had pre-paid for the seats with Meli’s
`personal money. Thus, when money started to come into the business from investors and Meli
`instructed Mr. Siniscalchi to send Meli certain amounts, Mr. Siniscalchi did it believing that it
`was payment in exchange for Meli providing the rights to the future seats to the investors.
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cr-00480-RA Document 72 Filed 09/10/21 Page 10 of 26
`
`
`
`
`
`In the end, however, Mr. Siniscalchi never saw any tickets. He never met Meli’s contacts
`
`in the ticket sales world. He never saw the huge profits that were supposed to be delivered to the
`
`investors. He never saw the above described revolutionary and proprietary software. Over the
`
`course of Mr. Siniscalchi’s involvement in the business, Meli directed Mr. Siniscalchi to send
`
`most of the investor money to Meli. Investors received very little returns on their investment, and
`
`there were no tangible ticket sales. As a result, investors lost money.
`
`III. ARGUMENT
`
`A.
`
`The Applicable Legal Standard
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Section 3553(a) of Title 18 of the United States Code provides that “[t]he court shall
`
`impose a sentence sufficient, but not greater than necessary, to comply with the purposes [of
`
`sentencing].” 18 U.S.C. §3553(a). As the Court well knows, it has “very wide latitude to decide
`
`the proper degree of punishment for an individual offender and a particular crime.” United States
`
`v. Genao, 869 F.3d 136, 146 (2d Cir. 2017). “The Guidelines are guidelines—that is, they are
`
`truly advisory” and “a district court may not presume that a Guidelines sentence is reasonable.”
`
`United States v. Cavera, 550 F.3d 180, 189 (2d Cir. 2008). After considering all of the §3553(a)
`
`factors, the Court should decide whether to “impose . . . a sentence within the applicable
`
`Guidelines range or within permissible departure authority,” or “to impose a non-Guidelines
`
`sentence.” United States v. Crosby, 397 F.3d 103, 113 (2d Cir. 2005), abrogated on other
`
`grounds by United States v. Fagans, 406 F.3d 138 (2d Cir. 2005). It is thus appropriate for courts
`
`to sentence defendants below the Guidelines range when such a sentence satisfies the purposes of
`
`18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cr-00480-RA Document 72 Filed 09/10/21 Page 11 of 26
`
`
`
`B.
`
`The Section 3553(a) Factors
`
`In Rita v. United States, the Supreme Court summarized the § 3553(a) factors that a
`
`sentencing court should consider: the “(1) offense and offender characteristics; (2) the need for a
`
`sentence to reflect the basic aims of sentencing, namely (a) just punishment (retribution),
`
`(b) deterrence, (c) incapacitation, (d) rehabilitation; (3) the sentences legally available; (4) the
`
`Sentencing Guidelines; (5) Sentencing Commission policy statements; (6) the need to avoid
`
`unwarranted disparities; and (7) the need for restitution.” 551 U.S. 338, 347–48 (2007).
`
`It is a principle of sentencing that courts must consider every “convicted person as an
`
`individual and every case as a unique study in the human failings that sometimes mitigate,
`
`sometimes magnify, the crime and the punishment to ensue.” Pepper v. United States, 562 U.S.
`
`476, 487 (2011) (quoting Koon v. United States, 518 U.S. 81, 113 (1996)). “Underlying this
`
`tradition is the principle that the punishment should fit the offender and not merely the crime.”
`
`Pepper, 562 U.S. at 487–88 (internal quotations and citation omitted); see also Genao, 869 F.3d
`
`at 146; United States v. Jones, 531 F.3d 163, 170 (2d Cir. 2008) (en banc).
`
`Section 3553 (a)(2)(A) provides that the Court should consider the need for the sentence
`
`it imposes “to reflect the seriousness of the offense, to promote respect for the law, and to
`
`provide just punishment for the offense.” 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(A). This section of the Code
`
`essentially asks the Court to consider the defendant and his actions holistically, and to “provide
`
`just punishment” in light of all the facts known to the Court. Id. There is no question that a
`
`sentence of time served or home detention in this case would be sufficient to satisfy all of the
`
`goals of sentencing, particularly when combined with a substantial forfeiture obligation that the
`
`Court will impose upon Mr. Siniscalchi. Such a sentence will certainly promote respect for the
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cr-00480-RA Document 72 Filed 09/10/21 Page 12 of 26
`
`
`
`law and provide just punishment. Cf. Gall v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 586, 595-96 (2007) (noting
`
`a probationary sentence imposes a significant restraint on the liberty of a defendant).
`
`Mr. Siniscalchi respectfully requests that the Court consider the following facts in
`
`determining a just and fair sentence. They are: (1) that his conduct is aberrational; (2) that the
`
`Guidelines overstate the seriousness of Mr. Siniscalchi’s participation in the offense; (3) Mr.
`
`Siniscalchi’s role in the offense; (4) Mr. Siniscalchi’s good deeds and acts; (5) Mr. Siniscalchi’s
`
`post-offense rehabilitation; and (6) the need for deterrence.
`
`1.
`
`Mr. Siniscalchi’s Conduct is Aberrational
`
`
`The conduct that brings Mr. Siniscalchi’s before the Court is aberrational in nature. Mr.
`
`Siniscalchi has always led a law-abiding life. He has never been in trouble with the law prior to
`
`this incident and he asserts that he will never have such troubles again.7
`
`The fairest view of the circumstances of this case supports the characterization of
`
`Mr. Siniscalchi’s conduct as aberrant in the “uncharacteristic” meaning of the word. In
`
`recommending a sentence in a high-profile case in this courthouse, the court found that the
`
`“instant offenses were aberrant behavior—not aberrant as defined by the Sentencing Guidelines,
`
`but rather as defined by Merriam-Webster: . . . atypical.” United States v. Gupta, 904 F. Supp. 2d
`
`349, 354 (S.D.N.Y. 2012).
`
`Mr. Siniscalchi submits the same is true here. Mr. Siniscalchi did not seek out this
`
`business opportunity. His cousin “recruited” him to join the scheme when Mr. Siniscalchi was
`
`vulnerable. The truth about Mr. Siniscalchi is that he is a man who has worked hard to find his
`
`
`7 As noted above, even the Probation Department, in the PSR, called the conduct aberrational.
`“[W]e note that Siniscalchi is a first-time offender who appears to have otherwise been a law-
`abiding and contributing member of society, thereby evincing that his participation in this crime
`truly represents aberrant behavior.” PSR at 25.
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cr-00480-RA Document 72 Filed 09/10/21 Page 13 of 26
`
`
`
`way to be a contributing member of society. He served in the Navy. After that, he got married
`
`and became a salesman in Buffalo. As he matured, he decided education was the best way to
`
`improve his life. He went to college (while working a full-time job) and ultimately graduate
`
`school to pursue his goal to teach history. At no point did he have any legal troubles.
`
`Mr. Siniscalchi’s decision strained on his marriage. Ultimately it did not survive the
`
`distance and his desire to pursue his academic dreams. After his marriage fell apart, Meli
`
`convinced Mr. Siniscalchi to relocate to New York City to start anew and work with Meli’s
`
`rebooted business. Mr. Siniscalchi did not know at that time that this decision would lead him to
`
`this sentencing proceeding.
`
`
`
`There is no question that this conduct was “atypical” in light of Mr. Siniscalchi’s history
`
`of hard work and accomplishments. Until the instant case, he has had an unblemished career. The
`
`Court thus should not consider the conduct associated with this case to be the sum total of Mr.
`
`Siniscalchi’s life—it is the J Siniscalchi from his childhood through today who the Court should
`
`weigh and measure. Mr. Siniscalchi is “so much more than just the black dot” of his conviction;
`
`“there [is] an entire page full of white unblemished by any mark.” United States v. Kimelman,
`
`No. 10-cr-56, Oct. 10, 2011 Sentencing Tr. at 10:1-19. Accordingly, Mr. Siniscalchi respectfully
`
`suggests that the Court consider his otherwise unblemished and law-abiding life when fashioning
`
`a just and appropriate sentence.
`
`2.
`
`The Guidelines Overstate the Seriousness of the Offense As it Relates
`to Mr. Siniscalchi’s Conduct
`
`
`Mr. Siniscalchi respectfully submits that the Guidelines overstate the seriousness of his
`
`
`
`participation in the offense. The loss amount in this matter primarily drives Mr. Siniscalchi’s
`
`Guidelines calculation. The loss of between $1.5 and $3 million, sets the Guidelines at 30-37
`
`months incarceration.
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cr-00480-RA Document 72 Filed 09/10/21 Page 14 of 26
`
`
`
`To be sure, Mr. Siniscalchi agreed to this loss amount for the purpose of calculating the
`
`Guidelines as part of his plea agreement and is not seeking to undermine the Guidelines
`
`calculation itself. But there are aspects of the loss amount’s importance to the Guidelines
`
`calculation that should be considered and, as a result, the Court should not impose a sentence
`
`near the recommended Guidelines range.
`
`In Mr. Siniscalchi’s case, the Guidelines measure only money without differentiating
`
`culpability among defendants who caused the loss. Courts have agreed that, in financial fraud
`
`cases, the Guidelines place an “inordinate emphasis” on “putatively measurable quantities, such
`
`as . . . the amount of financial loss in fraud cases, without, however, explaining why it is
`
`appropriate to accord such huge weight to such factors.” United States v. Adelson, 441 F. Supp.
`
`2d 506, 509 (S.D.N.Y. 2006). The Guidelines’ “arithmetic approach” is particularly ill-suited in
`
`cases where the calculated loss is often arbitrary and attenuated from the defendant’s actual
`
`conduct. Id. at 512. Indeed, judges in this court have described the loss calculation as a “clumsy
`
`tool for measuring […] the seriousness of the crime.” United States v. Contorinis, 09cr-1083
`
`(S.D.N.Y. 2010), Sentencing Tr. at 58:1-6; see also United States v. Whitman, 12-cr-125
`
`(S.D.N.Y. 2012), Sentencing Tr. at 9:9-18 (“the guidelines . . . place too much emphasis,
`
`irrational emphasis on the monetary portion of the determination of sentence . . . [t]he guidelines
`
`are skewed irrationally in this respect.”).
`
`
`
`The reliance on loss amount in the Guidelines calculation could lead to sentences that
`
`unfairly magnify a defendant’s actual conduct. For instance, bribery, personal profiteering, and
`
`systematic corruption are factors that the loss amount ignores. Similarly, large loss amounts
`
`ignore smaller roles in offenses. Attaching a defendant’s sentence to the size of profits or scale of
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cr-00480-RA Document 72 Filed 09/10/21 Page 15 of 26
`
`
`
`losses could lead to egregious conduct being punished less severely than aberrant or minimal
`
`conduct from a qualitative perspective.
`
`
`
`In the instant case, Mr. Siniscalchi allocuted to failing to act upon red flags and to
`
`faithfully believing in the lies his cousin told him. He did not set out to hurt anyone. He did not
`
`solicit money from investors based on known untruths. He did not take the money and pay for a
`
`lavish lifestyle for himself. He was not already under indictment when he participated in this
`
`venture. However, despite the absence of truly aggravating factors, as in Meli’s case, the loss
`
`amount is calculated in a manner that puts Mr. Siniscalchi on par with the far more culpable
`
`Meli, and well over the punishment that will befall those who were complicit but not charged.
`
`
`
`While Mr. Siniscalchi agreed to the loss amount for Guidelines purposes here, the
`
`emphasis on loss amount in driving the Guidelines calculation should be viewed with some
`
`skepticism considering all the § 3553(a) factors. As one court in this District observed in another
`
`financial fraud case, “the guidelines fetish with the calculation of loss poorly fits this situation.”
`
`United States v. Fleishman, No. 10-cr-752, Dec. 20, 2011 Sentencing Tr. at 4:18-20. Thus, Mr.
`
`Siniscalchi respectfully requests that the Court contemplate, when determining a fair and
`
`appropriate sentence, the fact that the Guidelines overstate the seriousness of his participation in
`
`the relevant offense.
`
`3.
`
`
`Mr. Siniscalchi’s Role in the Offense and Unwarranted
`Sentencing Disparities
`
`Mr. Siniscalchi has accepted responsibility for his actions. However, this does not mean
`
`that all participants in the scheme are equally culpable. In the totality of the conspiracy, Mr.
`
`Siniscalchi played a relatively minor role.
`
`Mr. Siniscalchi never set out to harm or defraud anyone. He believed he joined a lawful
`
`venture. Although it turned out not to be what he expected, he did not mastermind the fraud. He
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cr-00480-RA Document 72 Filed 09/10/21 Page 16 of 26
`
`
`
`did not the lead the fraud. Mr. Siniscalchi did not exercise decision-making authority. He did not
`
`seek money from investors. He did not knowingly lie to investors about tickets or lure them into
`
`providing money to the business venture. He mostly acted as a middleman between those who
`
`secured money from investors and Meli. In other words, Mr. Siniscalchi played a smaller role,
`
`certainly than Meli and in some ways, the other business partners too.
`
`Mr. Siniscalchi is not suggesting to the Court that he qualifies for a minor role reduction
`
`under the Guidelines. Nor is he suggesting that he did nothing to further the conduct that led
`
`investors to lose money. To be sure, he was involved in telephone calls and communications,
`
`wire transfers and more. Much of this conduct was at a time he believed the business to be
`
`legitimate, while some came after he started to ignore the previously discussed red flags.
`
`However, his relative culpability is far lesser than Meli’s, for sure, and it is arguable certain
`
`uncharged participants, as well. He also notes that at sentencing, courts are permitted to weigh a
`
`defendant’s role against that of his co-defendants. See United States v. Carpenter, 252 F.3d 230,
`
`234–35 (2d Cir. 2001), as amended (July 19, 2001). Here, Mr. Siniscalchi is clearly less culpable
`
`than Meli.
`
`Meli concocted and executed the scheme. He recruited Mr. Siniscalchi into the
`
`conspiracy. Meli promised money, access to a new career, and a better future. Meli directed Mr.
`
`Siniscalchi to transfer funds to Meli by convincing his cousin that the money was to reimburse
`
`Meli for tickets he had already purchased. Meli, obviously skilled at deception, convinced
`
`numerous people he owned tickets that he never produced. In contrast, Mr. Siniscalchi did not
`
`solicit money from investors. Nor was he the primary contact with the investors who hid Meli’s
`
`existence from them. This was done by other participants.
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cr-00480-RA Document 72 Filed 09/10/21 Page 17 of 26
`
`
`
`Mr. Siniscalchi failed to see the situation for what it was. In part, he was blinded by his
`
`trust in Meli. He knew Meli since childhood, believed him to be a “brother,” and never imagined
`
`that his “brother” would expose him to criminal conduct. Moreover, Mr. Siniscalchi witnessed
`
`what he believed were real interactions for the purchase of tickets to popular shows and sporting
`
`events. He even recalls listening in on a call between Meli and someone who purported to have
`
`access to tickets to the Harry Potter Broadway show.
`
`In many ways Mr. Siniscalchi is even less culpable than individuals who were not
`
`charged in this matter. Mr. Siniscalchi understood that Meli’s business