United States v. Oghenevwakpo Igboba
964 F.3d 501
| 6th Cir. | 2020Background
- Igboba was convicted after trial of a multi-count scheme to file fraudulent federal tax returns using others’ PII (conspiracy, wire fraud, false claims, aggravated identity theft).
- The scheme used VPNs, Tor/dark‑web sources for PII, multiple email aliases, shell LLCs, cryptocurrency, and multiple bank accounts; some co‑conspirators lived abroad.
- The PSR attributed approximately $4.1M in intended loss to Igboba, producing an 18‑level increase under U.S.S.G. §2B1.1(b)(1)(J); additional enhancements included +2 for ten or more victims and +2 under §2B1.1(b)(10) for sophisticated means.
- At sentencing the government presented testimony and a loss spreadsheet compiled by a Treasury agent tying individual refunds to Igboba by bank deposits, possession of transcripts, emails, or ‘‘work done’’ lists; Igboba objected to loss attribution and the sophisticated‑means enhancement.
- The district court overruled objections, found $4.1M attributable to Igboba and that the offense involved sophisticated means, and sentenced him to 162 months’ imprisonment; the Sixth Circuit affirmed on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Amount of loss attributable under U.S.S.G. §2B1.1(b)(1) / §1B1.3 | Gov: spreadsheet and agent testimony reasonably tied $4.1M in refunds to Igboba (preponderance). | Igboba: losses reflect entire conspiracy, not his individual conduct; email access ambiguous; lack of subjective intent. | Affirmed — court could attribute $4.1M to Igboba; defendant failed to preserve joint‑activity argument (plain‑error standard), and evidence supported individual attribution. |
| Sophisticated‑means enhancement (§2B1.1(b)(10)(C)) | Gov: use of VPN, Tor/dark web, foreign brokers, shell entities, multiple aliases/accounts shows especially complex/concealing conduct. | Igboba: techniques are publicly available and not inherently sophisticated; refunds/accounts traceable to him. | Affirmed — under clear‑error review, the district court reasonably found sophisticated means (technology + shell companies + aliases). |
| Sentencing facts not found by jury / victim count for §2B1.1(b)(2)(A)(i) | Gov: sentencing may rely on facts proven by preponderance; victims include anyone whose means of ID was used. | Igboba (pro se): court relied on facts not jury‑found; included reimbursed victims. | Affirmed — Booker permits judge‑found facts for Guidelines; reimbursed individuals may still qualify as victims; claims reviewed for plain error and fail. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Donadeo, 910 F.3d 886 (6th Cir. 2018) (explaining relevant‑conduct loss attribution under U.S.S.G. §1B1.3)
- United States v. Ellis, 938 F.3d 757 (6th Cir. 2019) (district court need only make reasonable loss estimate by preponderance)
- United States v. Wendlandt, 714 F.3d 388 (6th Cir. 2013) (loss estimation standard in fraud cases)
- United States v. Ealy, [citation="682 F. App'x 432"] (6th Cir. 2017) (applying sophisticated‑means enhancement where defendant used VPN and anonymous black‑market brokers)
- United States v. Crosgrove, 637 F.3d 646 (6th Cir. 2011) (use of fictitious identities can support sophisticated‑means enhancement)
- United States v. Kraig, 99 F.3d 1361 (6th Cir. 1996) (standard of review for guideline enhancements)
- United States v. Pierce, [citation="643 F. App'x 500"] (6th Cir. 2016) (sophisticated‑means may apply even when defendant’s identity is traceable)
- United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005) (district courts may find sentencing facts by a preponderance so long as Guidelines not treated as mandatory)