Offense Conduct Sample Clauses

Offense Conduct. The parties stipulate that the following facts are true and correct. The parties recognize that the following facts do not represent the entirety of the government’s evidence against LL. Had the matter proceeded to trial, the United States would have proven the following facts beyond a reasonable doubt: At all times relevant to this matter, LL purchased flooring that contained oak harvested in Far East Russia. Certain LL employees were aware that purchasing oak harvested in Far East Russia posed a significant compliance risk. LL’s internal guidance listed “Russian oak” in the highest category of product risk; certain LL employees possessed NGO and governmental reports documenting illegal harvesting in Far East Russia; and an internal LL training from June 14, 2013, described Far East Russia as an area of high risk. Despite LL’s internal guidance and certain employees’ knowledge of the risk associated with Russian oak, LL increased its purchases of Russian oak until around the time of the government’s execution of search warrants at LL’s Virginia offices on September 26, 2013. See Graph of LL Purchases from Russia, Appx. at 1. In the first quarter of 2011, LL imported two purchase orders of flooring made of Russian oak. By the third quarter of 2013, LL was importing nearly 60 purchase orders of Russian oak.

Offense Conduct. The defendant stipulates and agrees that if this case proceeded to trial, the government would prove the following facts beyond a reasonable doubt: Since 2004, defendant Winefield has been licensed by the New Hampshire Real Estate Commission as a "real estate salesperson." During the course of his work in that field, he became acquainted with persons who, since about March 2005, were operating the scheme described in the Information. In or about the fall of 2006, defendant joined in conducting, aiding and abetting the conduct of that scheme, continuing to do so at least until the last transaction conducted as part of the scheme in October 2007. The scheme included two principal phases. First, participants in the scheme identified homeowners in New Hampshire who were having difficulty making their mortgage loan payments, some of whom were in danger of imminent foreclosure. They did so through mass marketing, including bulk mailings sent through the U.S. mails, and telemarketing. Once the scheme participants identified homeowners who were in jeopardy of losing their homes, scheme participants then enticed those homeowners to deed their properties to one of the participants or an entity controlled by them. The participants represented that they would take care of the mortgage payments for the homeowners, while the homeowners "got back on their feet" financially. During that time, the homeowners would remain in their homes as rent-paying tenants of the scheme participants, with the option to buy back the properties after two years at a set price that was substantially higher than the price at which they sold to the participants. Second, following such a sale by a homeowner in financial difficulty, rather than continuing to hold onto the property themselves, the participants engineered a sham sale to a person who agreed to act as a proxy for them, commonly referred to as a "straw" buyer or borrower. Initially, straws used by the participants in the scheme were their relatives and friends. Later the participants advertised in newspapers to obtain straws, whom they termed "investors." Typically, the participants would set a sale price for a sham transaction, and obtain an appraisal in the approximate range of the price. The straws' identities were then used to complete an application for a mortgage loan or a combination of a mortgage loan and a home equity line of credit ("HELOC"). Such a loan or combination loan/HELOC usually totaled close or equal to 100% of th...

Offense Conduct. Pursuant to Guideline Section 1B1.2(d), a conviction on a count charging a conspiracy to commit more than one offense shall be treated as if the defendant had been convicted on a separate count of conspiracy for each offense that the defendant conspired to commit.

Offense Conduct. The defendant stipulates and agrees that if this case proceeded to trial, the government would prove the following facts beyond a reasonable doubt: Xxxxxx Xxxxx, a legal permanent resident of the United States, is the owner of IOSE Limited ("IOSE"), a corporation organized under the laws of the Republic of Ireland, and Xxxxx Property, a nominee entity formed in Belize. From 2005 through 2008, Xxxxx was the beneficial owner of accounts held in the names of XXXX and Xxxxx Property at UBS AG in Switzerland. In each year, those accounts held over $10,000. Hoess deposited lOSE's business receipts into the account at UBS. He periodically transferred a portion of the profit made by XXXX into the Xxxxx Property account. Some of the funds in the Xxxxx Property account were used to pay Xxxxx's personal expenses. From 2005 through 2008, Xxxxx willfully failed to file FBARs with the Treasury reporting his beneficial ownership of the IOSE and Xxxxx Property accounts. Case 1:11-cr-00154-SM Document 44 Filed 11/10/11 Page 3 of 14

Offense Conduct. (1) Count One, Coercion and Enticement of a Child: