Nelly Idowu was involved in a romance scam scheme orchestrated by a group known as the 'Yahoo Boys,' who used fake online personas to defraud victims in the United States. Idowu did not communicate directly with the victims but opened and controlled numerous U.S. bank accounts, including business accounts under a shell LLC and others under an alias, to receive hundreds of thousands of dollars from the fraud victims. She was convicted of conspiracy to commit money laundering and two counts of conducting monetary transactions with criminal proceeds. During her sentencing, the Probation Department calculated her base offense level under U.S.S.G. § 2S1.1(a)(1), which applies to direct money launderers, resulting in a guidelines range of 87 to 108 months. Idowu did not object to this calculation at her original sentencing or during a subsequent resentencing ordered to correct a mathematical error. She was sentenced to 72 months in prison and 36 months of supervised release. On this second appeal, Idowu argued she should have been sentenced under § 2S1.1(a)(2), which applies to third-party money launderers and would have resulted in a lower guidelines range.
The Tenth Circuit analyzed the distinction between direct and third-party money launderers under the Sentencing Guidelines. Section 2S1.1(a)(1) applies to defendants who committed the underlying offense or are accountable for it under the relevant-conduct guidelines, while § 2S1.1(a)(2) applies to those who launder proceeds without additional involvement in the underlying crime. Because Idowu failed to object to the application of § 2S1.1(a)(1) at sentencing, the court reviewed the claim for plain error, requiring her to show an error that is clear, affects substantial rights, and seriously affects the fairness of the proceedings. The court rejected Idowu's reliance on United States v. Diaz-Menera, noting that case addressed different facts and did not require express findings on the record when no objection is made. The court further found that the plain language of the Guidelines did not clearly mandate § 2S1.1(a)(2) application. Although the commentary suggests that laundering funds after the underlying offense without additional involvement does not establish accountability, the record showed Idowu provided the specific accounts necessary to 'complete the fraud.' The court concluded that it was at least plausible her conduct constituted 'additional involvement' in the wire fraud scheme, meaning the application of § 2S1.1(a)(1) was not 'clear or obvious' error.
The decision affirms Idowu's 72-month sentence and 36 months of supervised release. It clarifies that in the absence of a timely objection, a defendant challenging a money laundering guideline application must show the error was so clear that no reasonable dispute exists. The ruling suggests that providing bank accounts essential to the completion of a fraud scheme may be sufficient to establish 'additional involvement' under the relevant-conduct guidelines, even if the defendant did not directly communicate with the victims.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download