United States v. Gaye, No. 17-1347 (8th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this CaseA conspiracy to defraud financial institutions in the Minneapolis-St. Paul area involved cashing counterfeit checks. Participants, including 25 co-defendants, created the counterfeit checks using check-printing software and blank check stock. “Bank insiders” provided bank account information for use on counterfeit checks. "Runners" were enlisted to serve as payees and take the checks to the bank to cash or deposit. Conspiracy members acquired account information through various means. Using social media, participants searched the hashtag “#myfirstpaycheck” and found photographs of legitimate paychecks that unwitting victims had posted online. Bank insiders sometimes provided account information. Some conspirators used their own payroll or personal checks to be counterfeited. During the period between November 2007 and September 2013 alone, more than 500 runners negotiated over 1500 counterfeit or fraudulent checks. Gaye pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit bank fraud, 18 U.S.C. 1344 and 1349, 20 counts of aiding and abetting bank fraud, and two counts of aiding and abetting aggravated identity theft, 18 U.S.C. 1028A. Fillie pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit bank fraud and one count of aiding and abetting aggravated identity theft. Sumoso pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit bank fraud and four counts of aiding and abetting bank fraud. The Eighth Circuit affirmed sentences of (respectively) 144, 134, and 54 months’ imprisonment and restitution orders, rejecting arguments that the district court committed procedural error in applying the guidelines.
Court Description: Colloton, Author, with Smith, Chief Judge, and Murphy, Circuit Judge] Criminal case - Sentencing. This opinion is issued by Chief Judge Smith and Judge Colloton pursuant to 8th Cir. 47E. Under the terms of the plea agreement, the government could offer defendant Gaye's proffer interview at sentencing for the limited purpose of rebutting his denial of many of the facts in the Presentence Report; no error in increasing Gaye's offense level under Guidelines Sec. 3C1.1 for obstruction of justice; no error in denying Gaye the third point reduction for acceptance of responsibility; the district court properly calculated the loss amount for Gaye in this bank fraud scheme; no error in increasing Gaye's offense level under Guideline Sec. 3B1.1 for organizer of leader role in the offense; no error in increasing Gaye's offense level under Guideline Sec. 2B1.1(b)(10)(C) for use of sophisticated means; Gaye's 144-month sentence was not substantively unreasonable; no error in calculating the amount of loss for defendant Fillie; no error in increasing Fillie's offense level under Guidelines Sec. 2B1.1(b)(2)(A)(i) for ten or more victims of the offense; no error in imposing a manager of supervisor enhancement under Guidelines Sec. 3B1.1(b) for Fillie; no error in increasing Fillie's offense level for sophisticated means; Fillie's criminal history score was properly calculated; Fillie's sentence was not substantively unreasonable; Fillie's restitution order affirmed as it reflected the actual loss suffered by the victims of the scheme; the court was not bound by the amount agreed upon by the parties and Fillie, in any event, repudiated the agreement by arguing for a lower amount at sentencing; the district court correctly determined the amount of loss attributable to defendant Sumoso; without evidence that Sumoso affirmatively withdrew from this multi-year conspiracy, it remained foreseeable to him that his co-conspirators would continue the scheme without his assistance.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.