letter-to-ausa-tillotson-restitution.docx

1035-00001 · Client 1035 · Correspondence

letter-to-ausa-tillotson-restitution.docx DOCUMENT M&A / Corporate

1 / 12 → ✕

CALDERWOOD & HARKNESS LLP Attorneys at Law 2029 Century Park East, Suite 3300 Los Angeles, California 90067 Telephone: (310) 556-7200 Facsimile: (310) 556-7201 www.calderwoodharkness.com

January 20, 2026

VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL AND U.S. MAIL

Assistant United States Attorney Brenda K. Tillotson Major Frauds Section United States Attorney's Office Central District of California 312 North Spring Street Los Angeles, California 90012

Re: United States v. Marguerite D. Fonseca Case No. 2:24-cr-00583-CMD Hon. Catherine M. Driscoll, presiding Subject: Restitution — Proposed Amount and Payment Schedule

Dear AUSA Tillotson:

I. Introduction and Purpose

I write on behalf of my client, Marguerite D. Fonseca, in connection with the above-captioned matter. As you are aware, Ms. Fonseca's sentencing hearing is currently scheduled for March 6, 2026, before the Honorable Catherine M. Driscoll. The purpose of this letter is to propose, in advance of that hearing, an agreed-upon restitution amount and a realistic payment schedule under the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act ("MVRA"), 18 U.S.C. § 3663A, so that the parties may present a cooperative framework to the Court that serves the interests of judicial efficiency and, most importantly, promotes meaningful recovery for the identified victims.

As the Court's docket reflects, Ms. Fonseca was convicted on September 18, 2025, following a jury trial, on four counts of wire fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343 (Counts 1 through 4), two counts of money laundering in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(1)(B)(i) (Counts 5 and 6), and one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1371 (Count 7). The defense does not dispute that mandatory restitution is required under the MVRA for the offenses of conviction and has no intention of seeking to evade that obligation. Rather, the defense seeks to ensure that the restitution amount accurately reflects the actual losses suffered by victims—neither more nor less—and that the payment schedule is structured to maximize recovery in a manner consistent with Ms. Fonseca's demonstrated financial capacity.

It is our strong preference to reach consensus with your office on the restitution framework prior to sentencing. A jointly presented restitution recommendation would streamline the sentencing proceedings, provide clarity and certainty to the victims, and conserve the Court's resources. To that end, we set forth below our position on the proper restitution amount, the identified victims and the proposed allocation methodology, Ms. Fonseca's current financial circumstances and asset profile, and a proposed payment schedule.

We note at the outset that the defense simultaneously filed its Objections to the Presentence Investigation Report ("PSR") on January 10, 2026. Several of those objections bear directly on the proper calculation of the restitution figure, and we incorporate them here by reference to the extent relevant. We believe a candid exchange between the parties on these issues can narrow—if not eliminate—our points of disagreement before the sentencing hearing.

II. The Defense Position on the Proper Restitution Amount

A. Overview of the Government's Loss Figure and the Defense Objection

The government has requested restitution in the total amount of $14,700,000, which is consistent with the total alleged loss figure reflected in the PSR. As we understand it, this figure is composed of three discrete components:

1. Budget Inflation Diversions: $6,100,000 in alleged inflated budget allocations diverted across five Aurelia Pictures productions;

2. Fraudulently Obtained Tax Credits: $2,800,000 in California Film Commission tax credits that were allegedly obtained through fraudulent representations on three productions; and

3. Diverted Investor Funds: $5,800,000 in investor funds that the government alleges were diverted from their intended purposes.

The defense respectfully submits that the government's $14.7 million figure materially overstates the actual and intended loss attributable to the offenses of conviction. This overstatement arises from two principal sources: (1) a significant double-counting problem that inflates the restitution calculation by approximately $4.3 million, and (2) a failure to credit approximately $2.1 million in funds that were reinvested into legitimate production activities. We address each issue in turn below.

B. The $4.3 Million Double-Counting Problem

A careful examination of the government's loss calculation reveals a substantial overlap between the "diverted investor funds" category ($5.8 million) and the "budget inflation diversions" category ($6.1 million). Specifically, certain funds that the government has classified as diverted investor capital—because they originated from investor contributions to specific Aurelia Pictures projects—are the very same dollars that the government separately counts as inflated budget allocations on those same projects. In other words, the government's methodology counts the same loss-producing conduct twice: once when the investor's capital was received and allegedly misapplied, and again when the production budget was allegedly inflated to conceal the diversion.

This double-counting is impermissible under the MVRA. Section 3663A requires the court to order restitution for the "actual loss" sustained by each victim. See 18 U.S.C. § 3663A(b)(1); see also United States v. Papagno, 639 F.3d 1093, 1100 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (restitution must correspond to actual losses, not a theoretical aggregation of harm). The same dollars cannot properly be counted twice—once as an inflated budget line item and again as a diverted investor contribution—when both categories describe the same underlying transfer of funds.

Our preliminary analysis identifies approximately $4,300,000 in overlap between these two categories. Correcting for this double-counting reduces the aggregate loss figure from $14,700,000 to $10,400,000.

In support of this position, the defense has retained Dr. Priya Chandrasekaran of the Department of Economics at Westbridge University to conduct a comprehensive forensic analysis of the loss calculations. Dr. Chandrasekaran has been provided with the government's financial exhibits, the underlying Aurelia Pictures financial records produced in discovery, and the bank records obtained pursuant to the grand jury subpoenas. Her forthcoming expert report, which we anticipate will be finalized and produced to the government no later than February 14, 2026, will provide a detailed, transaction-by-transaction accounting demonstrating the specific instances of overlap and the resulting inflation of the loss figure. We are confident that Dr. Chandrasekaran's analysis will confirm that the $4.3 million overlap figure is, if anything, conservative.

C. The $2.1 Million in Reinvested Production Funds

In addition to the double-counting issue, the government's loss figure fails to account for a substantial category of funds that were, in fact, reinvested into legitimate production activities. Of the funds that the government characterizes broadly as "diverted," approximately $2,100,000 was demonstrably channeled back into legitimate production costs—including post-production expenses, marketing and distribution expenditures, and talent compensation—that directly benefited the very productions from which the funds were originally drawn.

These reinvested funds reduced the actual harm suffered by victims. To the extent that investor capital was used for legitimate production costs on the projects to which those investors had contributed, the investors received some measure of the benefit they bargained for. The MVRA mandates restitution for actual losses, not gross misappropriations without regard to offsetting value received. See United States v. Maynard, 743 F.3d 374, 380 (2d Cir. 2014) (restitution under MVRA must reflect actual loss, crediting value returned or benefits conferred on victims). Including these reinvested amounts in the restitution total would overcompensate victims at the expense of accuracy.

Adjusting the $10,400,000 corrected figure (after elimination of the $4.3 million double count) by the $2,100,000 in reinvested production funds yields an intended loss figure of $8,300,000.

D. Proposed Restitution Amount

Based on the foregoing analysis, the defense proposes that the parties agree to a total restitution amount of $8,300,000. We submit that this figure accurately reflects the actual and intended loss to all identified victims of the offenses of conviction.

We note that the $8.3 million figure falls within the $6,500,001 to $9,500,000 loss range under U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(1)(I), which corresponds to a 16-level enhancement under the Sentencing Guidelines' loss table. Although the Guidelines loss calculation and the MVRA restitution calculation are distinct inquiries, the consistency between the two provides additional support for the reasonableness of the defense's proposed restitution amount. Conversely, the government's $14.7 million figure would implicate a higher loss tier under § 2B1.1(b)(1) and would, we respectfully submit, overstate the restitution owed to victims.

The defense wishes to emphasize that it fully acknowledges the mandatory nature of restitution under 18 U.S.C. § 3663A. Ms. Fonseca does not seek to evade her obligation to make victims whole. Rather, we are seeking to ensure that the restitution order entered by the Court reflects the actual losses suffered—a requirement that serves not only the defendant's interests but also the integrity of the restitution process and the legitimate expectations of the victims.

III. Identified Victims and Allocation of Restitution

A. Brindoval Investors Group LP

Brindoval Investors Group LP ("Brindoval") is the single largest investor in Aurelia Pictures productions relevant to this case. Brindoval invested a total of $8,200,000 across three Aurelia Pictures projects: Meridian, The Cartographer's Daughter, and Blue Signal. Brindoval's Managing Partner is Theodore R. Blackwell, and its principal office is located at 150 North Wacker Drive, Suite 2200, Chicago, Illinois 60606. Brindoval is represented by counsel in these proceedings: Susan R. Aldrich of Aldrich & McBride LLP, 70 West Madison Street, Suite 1400, Chicago, Illinois 60602.

Brindoval has filed a victim impact statement with the United States Probation Office in which it seeks full restitution of its $8,200,000 investment, plus an additional $3,100,000 in claimed lost profits, for a total claimed restitution of $11,300,000.

The defense respectfully submits that Brindoval's claim for $3.1 million in lost profits is not properly included in the restitution calculation. The MVRA limits restitution for property offenses to the "value of the property" lost by victims less the "value of any part of the property that is returned." 18 U.S.C. § 3663A(b)(1)(B). Speculative lost profits—particularly in the inherently uncertain film production industry where the profitability of any given project is far from assured—do not constitute "actual losses" recoverable under the MVRA. See Hughey v. United States, 495 U.S. 411, 416 (1990) (restitution is limited to actual losses caused by the offense of conviction); United States v. Bane, 720 F.3d 818, 826 (9th Cir. 2013) (noting that restitution must be tied to actual, proven losses). Brindoval's restitution share must therefore be calculated based on the corrected total loss figure of $8.3 million and Brindoval's proportionate share of the actual, documented investor losses—not on the basis of a speculative profits claim.

B. Lakeshore Capital Partners LLC

Lakeshore Capital Partners LLC ("Lakeshore") invested a total of $3,900,000 in two Aurelia Pictures projects: Glass Meridian and The Understory. Lakeshore's Managing Member is Diana Caruso, and its principal office is located at 2300 Main Street, Suite 510, Irvine, California 92614. Lakeshore has filed a victim impact statement with the Probation Office in which it claims a total loss of its invested capital.

The defense does not dispute that Lakeshore is an identified victim entitled to restitution under the MVRA. However, Lakeshore's restitution share should be calculated on a proportionate basis, reflecting its actual losses relative to the corrected total restitution figure of $8.3 million.

C. California Film Commission

The government's loss figure includes $2,800,000 in California Film Commission tax credits that were allegedly obtained through fraudulent representations across three Aurelia Pictures productions. The California Film Commission has been notified of the criminal proceedings and, as we understand it, is separately pursuing civil recovery of these amounts through its own administrative and legal channels.

The defense does not contest that the $2.8 million in improperly obtained tax credits is properly included in the restitution total. However, the defense respectfully requests that any restitution order entered by the Court provide that any amounts recovered by the California Film Commission through its civil or administrative proceedings be credited against the criminal restitution obligation. This credit mechanism is essential to avoid double recovery, which would be inequitable and inconsistent with the purposes of the MVRA. See United States v. Dupre, 462 F.3d 131, 140 (2d Cir. 2006) (recognizing that restitution orders should account for amounts recovered through other proceedings to prevent double recovery).

D. Individual Investors

In addition to the institutional investors identified above, five individual investors made combined investments of approximately $2,600,000 across various Aurelia Pictures projects. To our knowledge, none of these individual investors has retained separate counsel in connection with the criminal proceedings. Each has been contacted by the Probation Office in connection with the preparation of the PSR.

The defense's position is that each individual investor's share of the restitution amount should be calculated on a pro rata basis, reflecting each investor's documented investment and actual losses relative to the total. We are prepared to work with the government and the Probation Office to confirm the individual investment amounts and to ensure that each individual investor receives an equitable allocation.

E. Proposed Allocation Methodology

The defense proposes that the total restitution amount of $8,300,000 be allocated pro rata among all identified victims—Brindoval Investors Group LP, Lakeshore Capital Partners LLC, the California Film Commission, and the five individual investors—based on each victim's documented actual losses as a proportion of the aggregate actual loss.

We respectfully request that the government work with victims' counsel, including Susan R. Aldrich of Aldrich & McBride LLP (who represents Brindoval and, as we understand it, has also been consulted by Lakeshore), to confirm the individual loss figures attributable to each victim. This cooperative approach will ensure that the allocation presented to the Court at sentencing is accurate and that no victim is either over- or under-compensated.

Additionally, the defense proposes that the restitution order include a provision stating that any amounts recovered through the Aurelia Pictures receivership proceeding (discussed in detail below) that are distributed to identified victims shall be credited against the outstanding restitution balance. This is consistent with standard practice in cases involving parallel receivership and criminal proceedings and serves the dual purpose of promoting victim recovery while avoiding duplicative payments.

IV. Ms. Fonseca's Financial Capacity and Proposed Payment Schedule

A. Current Identifiable Assets

The defense has conducted a comprehensive review of Ms. Fonseca's financial circumstances in order to provide the Court and the government with an accurate picture of her ability to satisfy a restitution obligation. Ms. Fonseca's identifiable assets, as of the date of this letter, are as follows:

Residence. Ms. Fonseca owns a single-family residence located at 1847 Mulholland Terrace, Los Angeles, California 90068. The property was appraised in November 2025 at a fair market value of approximately $3,200,000. The property is encumbered by an outstanding mortgage held by Pacific Meridian Bank, N.A., with a current balance of approximately $1,850,000. Accordingly, Ms. Fonseca's net equity in the property is approximately $1,350,000. The residence is currently the primary home for Ms. Fonseca, her two minor children, and her elderly mother.

Equity Interest in Aurelia Pictures, Inc. Ms. Fonseca holds an equity interest in Aurelia Pictures, Inc. That entity is currently the subject of a receivership proceeding in the Los Angeles Superior Court, Case No. 25STCV08312, under court-appointed receiver Nathaniel W. Prescott of Ridgeway Advisory Group LLC. The receiver's most recent interim report, filed on December 15, 2025, estimates the remaining gross asset value of Aurelia Pictures at approximately $6,300,000, inclusive of film libraries, distribution agreements, trademarks, intellectual property, and residual income streams. However, Pacific Meridian Bank, N.A. holds a secured claim against the entity in the approximate amount of $6,800,000, representing the outstanding balance on a $10,000,000 revolving credit facility. Additional creditor claims are pending against the receivership estate. Given the secured creditor's priority position and the magnitude of the outstanding obligations, the estimated net value of Ms. Fonseca's equity interest in Aurelia Pictures, after satisfaction of all creditor claims, ranges from $0 to approximately $400,000. This estimate is necessarily uncertain and depends on the receiver's ability to realize value from the remaining assets and the ultimate resolution of competing creditor claims.

Frozen Personal Savings and Brokerage Accounts. Ms. Fonseca maintains personal savings and brokerage accounts with an aggregate current value of approximately $287,000. These accounts are currently frozen pursuant to government order and remain under the jurisdiction of this Court.

Vehicle. Ms. Fonseca owns a 2022 Mercedes-Benz GLE 450, which has an estimated current market value of approximately $42,000. There is no outstanding lien on the vehicle.

Summary of Identifiable Assets. Based on the foregoing, Ms. Fonseca's total identifiable assets are estimated as follows:

The defense acknowledges that these assets represent only a fraction of the proposed $8.3 million restitution amount. We address the resulting "restitution gap" below.

B. Receivership Recoveries

As noted above, the court-appointed receiver, Nathaniel W. Prescott of Ridgeway Advisory Group LLC, is currently managing the remaining assets of Aurelia Pictures, Inc. pursuant to the Los Angeles Superior Court's order of receivership. The receivership estate includes the company's film libraries (encompassing completed and partially completed productions), existing distribution agreements with domestic and international distributors, trademarks and other intellectual property, residual income streams from prior releases, and miscellaneous production equipment and office furnishings.

The receiver's most recent interim report estimates the gross remaining asset value at approximately $6,300,000. However, as noted, Pacific Meridian Bank, N.A. holds a secured claim of approximately $6,800,000 under its revolving credit facility, which is senior to all unsecured claims and equity interests. Additional creditor claims—including claims by vendors, talent agencies, post-production houses, and other service providers—are pending against the receivership estate and have not yet been fully adjudicated. As a result, the net recoveries available for distribution to investors and, ultimately, for the defendant's equity interest remain highly uncertain.

Notwithstanding this uncertainty, the defense proposes that any amounts recovered through the receivership and distributed directly to identified victims of the offenses of conviction should be credited against Ms. Fonseca's restitution obligation. This approach is consistent with the principle that victims are entitled to be made whole but not to receive a windfall, and it ensures that the restitution order reflects the net amount that victims have actually lost after accounting for all available sources of recovery.

C. Proposed Payment Structure

With the foregoing asset profile in mind, the defense proposes the following payment structure for the satisfaction of the restitution obligation:

1. Initial Lump-Sum Payment at Sentencing. Ms. Fonseca proposes to make an immediate lump-sum payment at or promptly following sentencing from her currently available liquid assets. Specifically, this initial payment would be composed of the $287,000 in frozen savings and brokerage accounts (which Ms. Fonseca consents to have released for restitution purposes upon entry of the sentencing judgment) and the proceeds from the liquidation of her 2022 Mercedes-Benz GLE 450, estimated at approximately $42,000. The total initial lump-sum payment would therefore be approximately $329,000. Ms. Fonseca is prepared to authorize the release of the frozen accounts and the sale of the vehicle promptly upon entry of the judgment and restitution order.

2. Sale of Residence. Ms. Fonseca is prepared to discuss the orderly sale of her residence at 1847 Mulholland Terrace, Los Angeles, California 90068, with the net equity of approximately $1,350,000 to be applied to the restitution obligation upon completion of the sale. However, we respectfully request that the Court allow a reasonable timeline—we propose twelve to eighteen months from the date of sentencing—to effectuate an orderly sale that will maximize the realized value and, accordingly, the recovery available to victims.

We bring to the Court's and the government's attention that the Mulholland Terrace residence is currently the primary home for Ms. Fonseca's two minor children: Elena Fonseca, age 17, and Marco Fonseca, age 14. The residence is also home to Ms. Fonseca's elderly mother, Corazon Fonseca, age 79, who was diagnosed with early-stage Alzheimer's disease in 2024 and for whom Ms. Fonseca serves as the primary caregiver. The defense respectfully submits that the Court should take these family circumstances into account in setting the timeline for the sale of the residence, consistent with its equitable discretion under the MVRA. An orderly sale process that allows sufficient time for Ms. Fonseca's family to secure alternative housing will not only serve humanitarian considerations but will also maximize the sale price—and therefore the recovery available to victims—by avoiding the discount associated with a forced or distressed sale.

3. Receivership Distributions. As discussed above, any distributions from the Aurelia Pictures receivership to Ms. Fonseca personally, or any distributions made directly to identified victims of the offenses of conviction, should be credited against the outstanding restitution balance. The defense is prepared to consent to a provision in the restitution order requiring Ms. Fonseca to promptly remit to the Clerk of Court any receivership distributions she receives, for application to the restitution obligation.

4. Monthly Installment Payments During Supervised Release. Following any period of imprisonment imposed by the Court and during any term of supervised release, Ms. Fonseca proposes to make monthly installment payments toward the outstanding restitution balance from her earned income. The specific monthly amount should be determined by the Court based on Ms. Fonseca's actual earning capacity and necessary living expenses at the time such payments commence, consistent with 18 U.S.C. § 3664(f)(2).

The defense acknowledges that Ms. Fonseca's earning capacity will be significantly diminished as a result of her conviction. She has spent the entirety of her professional career in the entertainment industry, and the reputational consequences of this case will substantially limit her future opportunities. Nevertheless, Ms. Fonseca anticipates that she may be able to obtain consulting or advisory work in the entertainment industry or in related fields, and she is committed to applying a meaningful portion of any future earned income toward the satisfaction of her restitution obligation. We propose that the Court set the installment payment amount as a condition of supervised release, to be determined at the outset of the supervised release term based on Ms. Fonseca's demonstrated income and documented necessary living expenses at that time.

5. Summary of Total Immediate and Near-Term Recoveries. Based on the foregoing, the total immediate and near-term recoveries available to victims from Ms. Fonseca's identifiable personal assets are approximately $1,679,000 (low estimate, assuming $0 recovery from the Aurelia Pictures equity interest) to approximately $2,079,000 (high estimate, assuming $400,000 from the Aurelia equity interest). These figures do not include any additional amounts that may be recovered through the receivership and distributed directly to victims, nor any monthly installment payments from future earned income.

D. Acknowledgment of the Restitution Gap

The defense forthrightly acknowledges that the proposed restitution amount of $8,300,000 substantially exceeds Ms. Fonseca's identifiable assets, which total approximately $1.68 million to $2.08 million as set forth above. The resulting "restitution gap" of approximately $6.2 million to $6.6 million is significant, and the defense does not attempt to minimize it.

We recognize that the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act requires the imposition of restitution in the full amount of each victim's actual losses, regardless of the defendant's ability to pay. See 18 U.S.C. § 3664(f)(1)(A). The defense does not challenge this statutory mandate. However, the Act also provides that the court "shall" specify a payment schedule that accounts for the defendant's "financial resources and other assets" and "projected earnings and other income." 18 U.S.C. § 3664(f)(2). The payment schedule should therefore be realistic and reflect Ms. Fonseca's actual financial capacity—imposing installment obligations that she has no ability to meet would serve no practical purpose and would not advance the interests of victims.

We also respectfully note that a sentence structured to permit Ms. Fonseca to return to productive employment sooner rather than later would enhance her ability to generate income for restitution payments over the long term. This is not merely a sentencing consideration under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)—it is directly relevant to maximizing victim recovery under the MVRA. A defendant who is incarcerated for an extended period generates no income and therefore makes no restitution payments; a defendant who is released to supervised release and permitted to work can make meaningful monthly contributions toward satisfying the restitution obligation. The defense intends to address this consideration more fully in its sentencing memorandum, which will be filed in accordance with the Court's scheduling order.

V. Request for Meet-and-Confer

The defense respectfully requests that the government agree to a meet-and-confer at the earliest mutually convenient date to discuss the restitution framework outlined in this letter. We believe that a productive discussion between the parties could narrow—and potentially resolve—the areas of disagreement on the restitution issue, to the benefit of the Court and the victims alike.

The topics we propose for discussion include the following:

1. The proper total restitution amount: the defense's proposed figure of $8,300,000 versus the government's requested figure of $14,700,000, including the double-counting issue and the reinvested production funds credit;

2. The allocation of the agreed-upon restitution amount among the identified victims, including the pro rata methodology;

3. The proposed payment schedule, including the timing and mechanics of the initial lump-sum payment, the sale of the residence, and the monthly installment payments during supervised release;

4. Credits for receivership recoveries and any amounts recovered by the California Film Commission through its civil or administrative proceedings; and

5. The treatment of Brindoval Investors Group LP's claimed lost profits of $3,100,000, which the defense maintains are not properly included in restitution under the MVRA.

We suggest that the meet-and-confer take place no later than February 7, 2026, in order to allow sufficient time for any agreed-upon framework to be reduced to a written stipulation and presented to the Court in advance of the March 6, 2026 sentencing hearing. This timeline would also allow the defense to finalize and produce Dr. Chandrasekaran's expert report in support of the corrected loss figure.

The defense is also prepared to include victims' counsel in these discussions if the government deems it appropriate. Given the significant sums at issue and the institutional victims' active participation in the proceedings to date, a collaborative discussion that includes Ms. Aldrich and any other victims' representatives could be productive.

I am available to meet at the United States Attorney's Office, at Calderwood & Harkness's offices at 2029 Century Park East, or by videoconference, at whatever time and in whatever format is most convenient for your office. My associate, Victoria Chambers, who has been working closely with me on the restitution issues in this case, will also be available to participate.

VI. Reservation of Rights

This letter is submitted without prejudice to Ms. Fonseca's right to contest the restitution amount at the sentencing hearing before Judge Driscoll. Nothing in this proposal, or in any subsequent discussions between the parties, constitutes an admission by the defense regarding the proper loss calculation, the scope of restitution, or any other issue relevant to sentencing. The defense expressly reserves all rights to present argument and evidence on these issues at the sentencing hearing, including the expert testimony of Dr. Priya Chandrasekaran, should the parties be unable to reach agreement on a restitution framework.

The defense further reserves the right to supplement or modify the proposed payment schedule based on any changes in Ms. Fonseca's financial circumstances, including but not limited to developments in the Aurelia Pictures receivership proceeding, changes in real estate market conditions affecting the value of the Mulholland Terrace residence, and any other material changes that may occur between the date of this letter and the date of sentencing.

VII. Closing

We are hopeful that the parties can work cooperatively on the restitution issue. A jointly recommended restitution framework would serve the interests of judicial efficiency, provide certainty and clarity to the victims, and demonstrate to the Court that both sides have engaged in a good-faith effort to resolve a complex financial issue in advance of sentencing. We believe that the proposal set forth in this letter represents a fair and legally supportable starting point for that discussion.

Copies of this letter are being provided contemporaneously to co-counsel AUSA Derek R. Huang and to United States Probation Officer Michael T. Brennan, who is preparing the final PSR for the March 6 sentencing hearing. We want to ensure that all relevant parties are apprised of the defense's position on restitution at the earliest possible date.

Please do not hesitate to contact me or my associate Victoria Chambers at (310) 556-7200 with any questions, or to schedule the requested meet-and-confer at your earliest convenience. We look forward to hearing from you.

Respectfully submitted,

CALDERWOOD & HARKNESS LLP

By: ________

Conrad Ashby Partner, White Collar & Investigations Calderwood & Harkness LLP 2029 Century Park East, Suite 3300 Los Angeles, California 90067 Telephone: (310) 556-7200

Email: cashby@calderwoodharkness.com

cc: AUSA Derek R. Huang, United States Attorney's Office, Central District of California cc: Michael T. Brennan, United States Probation Officer, Central District of California cc: Victoria Chambers, Calderwood & Harkness LLP cc: Lisa Morrow, Calderwood & Harkness LLP

Asset	Estimated Value
Residence (net equity)	$1,350,000
Aurelia Pictures equity interest (net)	$0 – $400,000
Frozen savings/brokerage accounts	$287,000
Vehicle	$42,000
Total	$1,679,000 – $2,079,000

CALDERWOOD & HARKNESS LLP Attorneys at Law 2029 Century Park East, Suite 3300 Los Angeles, California 90067 Telephone: (310) 556-7200 Facsimile: (310) 556-7201 www.calderwoodharkness.com
January 20, 2026
VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL AND U.S. MAIL
Assistant United States Attorney Brenda K. Tillotson Major Frauds Section United States Attorney's Office Central District of California 312 North Spring Street Los Angeles, California 90012
Re: United States v. Marguerite D. Fonseca Case No. 2:24-cr-00583-CMD Hon. Catherine M. Driscoll, presiding Subject: Restitution — Proposed Amount and Payment Schedule
Dear AUSA Tillotson:
I. Introduction and Purpose
I write on behalf of my client, Marguerite D. Fonseca, in connection with the above-captioned matter. As you are aware, Ms. Fonseca's sentencing hearing is currently scheduled for March 6, 2026, before the Honorable Catherine M. Driscoll. The purpose of this letter is to propose, in advance of that hearing, an agreed-upon restitution amount and a realistic payment schedule under the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act ("MVRA"), 18 U.S.C. § 3663A, so that the parties may present a cooperative framework to the Court that serves the interests of judicial efficiency and, most importantly, promotes meaningful recovery for the identified victims.
As the Court's docket reflects, Ms. Fonseca was convicted on September 18, 2025, following a jury trial, on four counts of wire fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343 (Counts 1 through 4), two counts of money laundering in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(1)(B)(i) (Counts 5 and 6), and one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1371 (Count 7). The defense does not dispute that mandatory restitution is required under the MVRA for the offenses of conviction and has no intention of seeking to evade that obligation. Rather, the defense seeks to ensure that the restitution amount accurately reflects the actual losses suffered by victims—neither more nor less—and that the payment schedule is structured to maximize recovery in a manner consistent with Ms. Fonseca's demonstrated financial capacity.
It is our strong preference to reach consensus with your office on the restitution framework prior to sentencing. A jointly presented restitution recommendation would streamline the sentencing proceedings, provide clarity and certainty to the victims, and conserve the Court's resources. To that end, we set forth below our position on the proper restitution amount, the identified victims and the proposed allocation methodology, Ms. Fonseca's current financial circumstances and asset profile, and a proposed payment schedule.
We note at the outset that the defense simultaneously filed its Objections to the Presentence Investigation Report ("PSR") on January 10, 2026. Several of those objections bear directly on the proper calculation of the restitution figure, and we incorporate them here by reference to the extent relevant. We believe a candid exchange between the parties on these issues can narrow—if not eliminate—our points of disagreement before the sentencing hearing.
II. The Defense Position on the Proper Restitution Amount
A. Overview of the Government's Loss Figure and the Defense Objection
The government has requested restitution in the total amount of $14,700,000, which is consistent with the total alleged loss figure reflected in the PSR. As we understand it, this figure is composed of three discrete components:
1. Budget Inflation Diversions: $6,100,000 in alleged inflated budget allocations diverted across five Aurelia Pictures productions;
2. Fraudulently Obtained Tax Credits: $2,800,000 in California Film Commission tax credits that were allegedly obtained through fraudulent representations on three productions; and
3. Diverted Investor Funds: $5,800,000 in investor funds that the government alleges were diverted from their intended purposes.
The defense respectfully submits that the government's $14.7 million figure materially overstates the actual and intended loss attributable to the offenses of conviction. This overstatement arises from two principal sources: (1) a significant double-counting problem that inflates the restitution calculation by approximately $4.3 million, and (2) a failure to credit approximately $2.1 million in funds that were reinvested into legitimate production activities. We address each issue in turn below.
B. The $4.3 Million Double-Counting Problem
A careful examination of the government's loss calculation reveals a substantial overlap between the "diverted investor funds" category ($5.8 million) and the "budget inflation diversions" category ($6.1 million). Specifically, certain funds that the government has classified as diverted investor capital—because they originated from investor contributions to specific Aurelia Pictures projects—are the very same dollars that the government separately counts as inflated budget allocations on those same projects. In other words, the government's methodology counts the same loss-producing conduct twice: once when the investor's capital was received and allegedly misapplied, and again when the production budget was allegedly inflated to conceal the diversion.
This double-counting is impermissible under the MVRA. Section 3663A requires the court to order restitution for the "actual loss" sustained by each victim. See 18 U.S.C. § 3663A(b)(1); see also United States v. Papagno, 639 F.3d 1093, 1100 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (restitution must correspond to actual losses, not a theoretical aggregation of harm). The same dollars cannot properly be counted twice—once as an inflated budget line item and again as a diverted investor contribution—when both categories describe the same underlying transfer of funds.
Our preliminary analysis identifies approximately $4,300,000 in overlap between these two categories. Correcting for this double-counting reduces the aggregate loss figure from $14,700,000 to $10,400,000.
In support of this position, the defense has retained Dr. Priya Chandrasekaran of the Department of Economics at Westbridge University to conduct a comprehensive forensic analysis of the loss calculations. Dr. Chandrasekaran has been provided with the government's financial exhibits, the underlying Aurelia Pictures financial records produced in discovery, and the bank records obtained pursuant to the grand jury subpoenas. Her forthcoming expert report, which we anticipate will be finalized and produced to the government no later than February 14, 2026, will provide a detailed, transaction-by-transaction accounting demonstrating the specific instances of overlap and the resulting inflation of the loss figure. We are confident that Dr. Chandrasekaran's analysis will confirm that the $4.3 million overlap figure is, if anything, conservative.
C. The $2.1 Million in Reinvested Production Funds
In addition to the double-counting issue, the government's loss figure fails to account for a substantial category of funds that were, in fact, reinvested into legitimate production activities. Of the funds that the government characterizes broadly as "diverted," approximately $2,100,000 was demonstrably channeled back into legitimate production costs—including post-production expenses, marketing and distribution expenditures, and talent compensation—that directly benefited the very productions from which the funds were originally drawn.
These reinvested funds reduced the actual harm suffered by victims. To the extent that investor capital was used for legitimate production costs on the projects to which those investors had contributed, the investors received some measure of the benefit they bargained for. The MVRA mandates restitution for actual losses, not gross misappropriations without regard to offsetting value received. See United States v. Maynard, 743 F.3d 374, 380 (2d Cir. 2014) (restitution under MVRA must reflect actual loss, crediting value returned or benefits conferred on victims). Including these reinvested amounts in the restitution total would overcompensate victims at the expense of accuracy.
Adjusting the $10,400,000 corrected figure (after elimination of the $4.3 million double count) by the $2,100,000 in reinvested production funds yields an intended loss figure of $8,300,000.
D. Proposed Restitution Amount
Based on the foregoing analysis, the defense proposes that the parties agree to a total restitution amount of $8,300,000. We submit that this figure accurately reflects the actual and intended loss to all identified victims of the offenses of conviction.
We note that the $8.3 million figure falls within the $6,500,001 to $9,500,000 loss range under U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(1)(I), which corresponds to a 16-level enhancement under the Sentencing Guidelines' loss table. Although the Guidelines loss calculation and the MVRA restitution calculation are distinct inquiries, the consistency between the two provides additional support for the reasonableness of the defense's proposed restitution amount. Conversely, the government's $14.7 million figure would implicate a higher loss tier under § 2B1.1(b)(1) and would, we respectfully submit, overstate the restitution owed to victims.
The defense wishes to emphasize that it fully acknowledges the mandatory nature of restitution under 18 U.S.C. § 3663A. Ms. Fonseca does not seek to evade her obligation to make victims whole. Rather, we are seeking to ensure that the restitution order entered by the Court reflects the actual losses suffered—a requirement that serves not only the defendant's interests but also the integrity of the restitution process and the legitimate expectations of the victims.
III. Identified Victims and Allocation of Restitution
A. Brindoval Investors Group LP
Brindoval Investors Group LP ("Brindoval") is the single largest investor in Aurelia Pictures productions relevant to this case. Brindoval invested a total of $8,200,000 across three Aurelia Pictures projects: Meridian, The Cartographer's Daughter, and Blue Signal. Brindoval's Managing Partner is Theodore R. Blackwell, and its principal office is located at 150 North Wacker Drive, Suite 2200, Chicago, Illinois 60606. Brindoval is represented by counsel in these proceedings: Susan R. Aldrich of Aldrich & McBride LLP, 70 West Madison Street, Suite 1400, Chicago, Illinois 60602.
Brindoval has filed a victim impact statement with the United States Probation Office in which it seeks full restitution of its $8,200,000 investment, plus an additional $3,100,000 in claimed lost profits, for a total claimed restitution of $11,300,000.
The defense respectfully submits that Brindoval's claim for $3.1 million in lost profits is not properly included in the restitution calculation. The MVRA limits restitution for property offenses to the "value of the property" lost by victims less the "value of any part of the property that is returned." 18 U.S.C. § 3663A(b)(1)(B). Speculative lost profits—particularly in the inherently uncertain film production industry where the profitability of any given project is far from assured—do not constitute "actual losses" recoverable under the MVRA. See Hughey v. United States, 495 U.S. 411, 416 (1990) (restitution is limited to actual losses caused by the offense of conviction); United States v. Bane, 720 F.3d 818, 826 (9th Cir. 2013) (noting that restitution must be tied to actual, proven losses). Brindoval's restitution share must therefore be calculated based on the corrected total loss figure of $8.3 million and Brindoval's proportionate share of the actual, documented investor losses—not on the basis of a speculative profits claim.
B. Lakeshore Capital Partners LLC
Lakeshore Capital Partners LLC ("Lakeshore") invested a total of $3,900,000 in two Aurelia Pictures projects: Glass Meridian and The Understory. Lakeshore's Managing Member is Diana Caruso, and its principal office is located at 2300 Main Street, Suite 510, Irvine, California 92614. Lakeshore has filed a victim impact statement with the Probation Office in which it claims a total loss of its invested capital.
The defense does not dispute that Lakeshore is an identified victim entitled to restitution under the MVRA. However, Lakeshore's restitution share should be calculated on a proportionate basis, reflecting its actual losses relative to the corrected total restitution figure of $8.3 million.
C. California Film Commission
The government's loss figure includes $2,800,000 in California Film Commission tax credits that were allegedly obtained through fraudulent representations across three Aurelia Pictures productions. The California Film Commission has been notified of the criminal proceedings and, as we understand it, is separately pursuing civil recovery of these amounts through its own administrative and legal channels.
The defense does not contest that the $2.8 million in improperly obtained tax credits is properly included in the restitution total. However, the defense respectfully requests that any restitution order entered by the Court provide that any amounts recovered by the California Film Commission through its civil or administrative proceedings be credited against the criminal restitution obligation. This credit mechanism is essential to avoid double recovery, which would be inequitable and inconsistent with the purposes of the MVRA. See United States v. Dupre, 462 F.3d 131, 140 (2d Cir. 2006) (recognizing that restitution orders should account for amounts recovered through other proceedings to prevent double recovery).
D. Individual Investors
In addition to the institutional investors identified above, five individual investors made combined investments of approximately $2,600,000 across various Aurelia Pictures projects. To our knowledge, none of these individual investors has retained separate counsel in connection with the criminal proceedings. Each has been contacted by the Probation Office in connection with the preparation of the PSR.
The defense's position is that each individual investor's share of the restitution amount should be calculated on a pro rata basis, reflecting each investor's documented investment and actual losses relative to the total. We are prepared to work with the government and the Probation Office to confirm the individual investment amounts and to ensure that each individual investor receives an equitable allocation.
E. Proposed Allocation Methodology
The defense proposes that the total restitution amount of $8,300,000 be allocated pro rata among all identified victims—Brindoval Investors Group LP, Lakeshore Capital Partners LLC, the California Film Commission, and the five individual investors—based on each victim's documented actual losses as a proportion of the aggregate actual loss.
We respectfully request that the government work with victims' counsel, including Susan R. Aldrich of Aldrich & McBride LLP (who represents Brindoval and, as we understand it, has also been consulted by Lakeshore), to confirm the individual loss figures attributable to each victim. This cooperative approach will ensure that the allocation presented to the Court at sentencing is accurate and that no victim is either over- or under-compensated.
Additionally, the defense proposes that the restitution order include a provision stating that any amounts recovered through the Aurelia Pictures receivership proceeding (discussed in detail below) that are distributed to identified victims shall be credited against the outstanding restitution balance. This is consistent with standard practice in cases involving parallel receivership and criminal proceedings and serves the dual purpose of promoting victim recovery while avoiding duplicative payments.
IV. Ms. Fonseca's Financial Capacity and Proposed Payment Schedule
A. Current Identifiable Assets
The defense has conducted a comprehensive review of Ms. Fonseca's financial circumstances in order to provide the Court and the government with an accurate picture of her ability to satisfy a restitution obligation. Ms. Fonseca's identifiable assets, as of the date of this letter, are as follows:
Residence. Ms. Fonseca owns a single-family residence located at 1847 Mulholland Terrace, Los Angeles, California 90068. The property was appraised in November 2025 at a fair market value of approximately $3,200,000. The property is encumbered by an outstanding mortgage held by Pacific Meridian Bank, N.A., with a current balance of approximately $1,850,000. Accordingly, Ms. Fonseca's net equity in the property is approximately $1,350,000. The residence is currently the primary home for Ms. Fonseca, her two minor children, and her elderly mother.
Equity Interest in Aurelia Pictures, Inc. Ms. Fonseca holds an equity interest in Aurelia Pictures, Inc. That entity is currently the subject of a receivership proceeding in the Los Angeles Superior Court, Case No. 25STCV08312, under court-appointed receiver Nathaniel W. Prescott of Ridgeway Advisory Group LLC. The receiver's most recent interim report, filed on December 15, 2025, estimates the remaining gross asset value of Aurelia Pictures at approximately $6,300,000, inclusive of film libraries, distribution agreements, trademarks, intellectual property, and residual income streams. However, Pacific Meridian Bank, N.A. holds a secured claim against the entity in the approximate amount of $6,800,000, representing the outstanding balance on a $10,000,000 revolving credit facility. Additional creditor claims are pending against the receivership estate. Given the secured creditor's priority position and the magnitude of the outstanding obligations, the estimated net value of Ms. Fonseca's equity interest in Aurelia Pictures, after satisfaction of all creditor claims, ranges from $0 to approximately $400,000. This estimate is necessarily uncertain and depends on the receiver's ability to realize value from the remaining assets and the ultimate resolution of competing creditor claims.
Frozen Personal Savings and Brokerage Accounts. Ms. Fonseca maintains personal savings and brokerage accounts with an aggregate current value of approximately $287,000. These accounts are currently frozen pursuant to government order and remain under the jurisdiction of this Court.
Vehicle. Ms. Fonseca owns a 2022 Mercedes-Benz GLE 450, which has an estimated current market value of approximately $42,000. There is no outstanding lien on the vehicle.
Summary of Identifiable Assets. Based on the foregoing, Ms. Fonseca's total identifiable assets are estimated as follows:
The defense acknowledges that these assets represent only a fraction of the proposed $8.3 million restitution amount. We address the resulting "restitution gap" below.
B. Receivership Recoveries
As noted above, the court-appointed receiver, Nathaniel W. Prescott of Ridgeway Advisory Group LLC, is currently managing the remaining assets of Aurelia Pictures, Inc. pursuant to the Los Angeles Superior Court's order of receivership. The receivership estate includes the company's film libraries (encompassing completed and partially completed productions), existing distribution agreements with domestic and international distributors, trademarks and other intellectual property, residual income streams from prior releases, and miscellaneous production equipment and office furnishings.
The receiver's most recent interim report estimates the gross remaining asset value at approximately $6,300,000. However, as noted, Pacific Meridian Bank, N.A. holds a secured claim of approximately $6,800,000 under its revolving credit facility, which is senior to all unsecured claims and equity interests. Additional creditor claims—including claims by vendors, talent agencies, post-production houses, and other service providers—are pending against the receivership estate and have not yet been fully adjudicated. As a result, the net recoveries available for distribution to investors and, ultimately, for the defendant's equity interest remain highly uncertain.
Notwithstanding this uncertainty, the defense proposes that any amounts recovered through the receivership and distributed directly to identified victims of the offenses of conviction should be credited against Ms. Fonseca's restitution obligation. This approach is consistent with the principle that victims are entitled to be made whole but not to receive a windfall, and it ensures that the restitution order reflects the net amount that victims have actually lost after accounting for all available sources of recovery.
C. Proposed Payment Structure
With the foregoing asset profile in mind, the defense proposes the following payment structure for the satisfaction of the restitution obligation:
1. Initial Lump-Sum Payment at Sentencing. Ms. Fonseca proposes to make an immediate lump-sum payment at or promptly following sentencing from her currently available liquid assets. Specifically, this initial payment would be composed of the $287,000 in frozen savings and brokerage accounts (which Ms. Fonseca consents to have released for restitution purposes upon entry of the sentencing judgment) and the proceeds from the liquidation of her 2022 Mercedes-Benz GLE 450, estimated at approximately $42,000. The total initial lump-sum payment would therefore be approximately $329,000. Ms. Fonseca is prepared to authorize the release of the frozen accounts and the sale of the vehicle promptly upon entry of the judgment and restitution order.
2. Sale of Residence. Ms. Fonseca is prepared to discuss the orderly sale of her residence at 1847 Mulholland Terrace, Los Angeles, California 90068, with the net equity of approximately $1,350,000 to be applied to the restitution obligation upon completion of the sale. However, we respectfully request that the Court allow a reasonable timeline—we propose twelve to eighteen months from the date of sentencing—to effectuate an orderly sale that will maximize the realized value and, accordingly, the recovery available to victims.
We bring to the Court's and the government's attention that the Mulholland Terrace residence is currently the primary home for Ms. Fonseca's two minor children: Elena Fonseca, age 17, and Marco Fonseca, age 14. The residence is also home to Ms. Fonseca's elderly mother, Corazon Fonseca, age 79, who was diagnosed with early-stage Alzheimer's disease in 2024 and for whom Ms. Fonseca serves as the primary caregiver. The defense respectfully submits that the Court should take these family circumstances into account in setting the timeline for the sale of the residence, consistent with its equitable discretion under the MVRA. An orderly sale process that allows sufficient time for Ms. Fonseca's family to secure alternative housing will not only serve humanitarian considerations but will also maximize the sale price—and therefore the recovery available to victims—by avoiding the discount associated with a forced or distressed sale.
3. Receivership Distributions. As discussed above, any distributions from the Aurelia Pictures receivership to Ms. Fonseca personally, or any distributions made directly to identified victims of the offenses of conviction, should be credited against the outstanding restitution balance. The defense is prepared to consent to a provision in the restitution order requiring Ms. Fonseca to promptly remit to the Clerk of Court any receivership distributions she receives, for application to the restitution obligation.
4. Monthly Installment Payments During Supervised Release. Following any period of imprisonment imposed by the Court and during any term of supervised release, Ms. Fonseca proposes to make monthly installment payments toward the outstanding restitution balance from her earned income. The specific monthly amount should be determined by the Court based on Ms. Fonseca's actual earning capacity and necessary living expenses at the time such payments commence, consistent with 18 U.S.C. § 3664(f)(2).
The defense acknowledges that Ms. Fonseca's earning capacity will be significantly diminished as a result of her conviction. She has spent the entirety of her professional career in the entertainment industry, and the reputational consequences of this case will substantially limit her future opportunities. Nevertheless, Ms. Fonseca anticipates that she may be able to obtain consulting or advisory work in the entertainment industry or in related fields, and she is committed to applying a meaningful portion of any future earned income toward the satisfaction of her restitution obligation. We propose that the Court set the installment payment amount as a condition of supervised release, to be determined at the outset of the supervised release term based on Ms. Fonseca's demonstrated income and documented necessary living expenses at that time.
5. Summary of Total Immediate and Near-Term Recoveries. Based on the foregoing, the total immediate and near-term recoveries available to victims from Ms. Fonseca's identifiable personal assets are approximately $1,679,000 (low estimate, assuming $0 recovery from the Aurelia Pictures equity interest) to approximately $2,079,000 (high estimate, assuming $400,000 from the Aurelia equity interest). These figures do not include any additional amounts that may be recovered through the receivership and distributed directly to victims, nor any monthly installment payments from future earned income.
D. Acknowledgment of the Restitution Gap
The defense forthrightly acknowledges that the proposed restitution amount of $8,300,000 substantially exceeds Ms. Fonseca's identifiable assets, which total approximately $1.68 million to $2.08 million as set forth above. The resulting "restitution gap" of approximately $6.2 million to $6.6 million is significant, and the defense does not attempt to minimize it.
We recognize that the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act requires the imposition of restitution in the full amount of each victim's actual losses, regardless of the defendant's ability to pay. See 18 U.S.C. § 3664(f)(1)(A). The defense does not challenge this statutory mandate. However, the Act also provides that the court "shall" specify a payment schedule that accounts for the defendant's "financial resources and other assets" and "projected earnings and other income." 18 U.S.C. § 3664(f)(2). The payment schedule should therefore be realistic and reflect Ms. Fonseca's actual financial capacity—imposing installment obligations that she has no ability to meet would serve no practical purpose and would not advance the interests of victims.
We also respectfully note that a sentence structured to permit Ms. Fonseca to return to productive employment sooner rather than later would enhance her ability to generate income for restitution payments over the long term. This is not merely a sentencing consideration under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)—it is directly relevant to maximizing victim recovery under the MVRA. A defendant who is incarcerated for an extended period generates no income and therefore makes no restitution payments; a defendant who is released to supervised release and permitted to work can make meaningful monthly contributions toward satisfying the restitution obligation. The defense intends to address this consideration more fully in its sentencing memorandum, which will be filed in accordance with the Court's scheduling order.
V. Request for Meet-and-Confer
The defense respectfully requests that the government agree to a meet-and-confer at the earliest mutually convenient date to discuss the restitution framework outlined in this letter. We believe that a productive discussion between the parties could narrow—and potentially resolve—the areas of disagreement on the restitution issue, to the benefit of the Court and the victims alike.
The topics we propose for discussion include the following:
1. The proper total restitution amount: the defense's proposed figure of $8,300,000 versus the government's requested figure of $14,700,000, including the double-counting issue and the reinvested production funds credit;
2. The allocation of the agreed-upon restitution amount among the identified victims, including the pro rata methodology;
3. The proposed payment schedule, including the timing and mechanics of the initial lump-sum payment, the sale of the residence, and the monthly installment payments during supervised release;
4. Credits for receivership recoveries and any amounts recovered by the California Film Commission through its civil or administrative proceedings; and
5. The treatment of Brindoval Investors Group LP's claimed lost profits of $3,100,000, which the defense maintains are not properly included in restitution under the MVRA.
We suggest that the meet-and-confer take place no later than February 7, 2026, in order to allow sufficient time for any agreed-upon framework to be reduced to a written stipulation and presented to the Court in advance of the March 6, 2026 sentencing hearing. This timeline would also allow the defense to finalize and produce Dr. Chandrasekaran's expert report in support of the corrected loss figure.
The defense is also prepared to include victims' counsel in these discussions if the government deems it appropriate. Given the significant sums at issue and the institutional victims' active participation in the proceedings to date, a collaborative discussion that includes Ms. Aldrich and any other victims' representatives could be productive.
I am available to meet at the United States Attorney's Office, at Calderwood & Harkness's offices at 2029 Century Park East, or by videoconference, at whatever time and in whatever format is most convenient for your office. My associate, Victoria Chambers, who has been working closely with me on the restitution issues in this case, will also be available to participate.
VI. Reservation of Rights
This letter is submitted without prejudice to Ms. Fonseca's right to contest the restitution amount at the sentencing hearing before Judge Driscoll. Nothing in this proposal, or in any subsequent discussions between the parties, constitutes an admission by the defense regarding the proper loss calculation, the scope of restitution, or any other issue relevant to sentencing. The defense expressly reserves all rights to present argument and evidence on these issues at the sentencing hearing, including the expert testimony of Dr. Priya Chandrasekaran, should the parties be unable to reach agreement on a restitution framework.
The defense further reserves the right to supplement or modify the proposed payment schedule based on any changes in Ms. Fonseca's financial circumstances, including but not limited to developments in the Aurelia Pictures receivership proceeding, changes in real estate market conditions affecting the value of the Mulholland Terrace residence, and any other material changes that may occur between the date of this letter and the date of sentencing.
VII. Closing
We are hopeful that the parties can work cooperatively on the restitution issue. A jointly recommended restitution framework would serve the interests of judicial efficiency, provide certainty and clarity to the victims, and demonstrate to the Court that both sides have engaged in a good-faith effort to resolve a complex financial issue in advance of sentencing. We believe that the proposal set forth in this letter represents a fair and legally supportable starting point for that discussion.
Copies of this letter are being provided contemporaneously to co-counsel AUSA Derek R. Huang and to United States Probation Officer Michael T. Brennan, who is preparing the final PSR for the March 6 sentencing hearing. We want to ensure that all relevant parties are apprised of the defense's position on restitution at the earliest possible date.
Please do not hesitate to contact me or my associate Victoria Chambers at (310) 556-7200 with any questions, or to schedule the requested meet-and-confer at your earliest convenience. We look forward to hearing from you.
Respectfully submitted,
CALDERWOOD & HARKNESS LLP
By: ________
Conrad Ashby Partner, White Collar & Investigations Calderwood & Harkness LLP 2029 Century Park East, Suite 3300 Los Angeles, California 90067 Telephone: (310) 556-7200
Email: cashby@calderwoodharkness.com
cc: AUSA Derek R. Huang, United States Attorney's Office, Central District of California cc: Michael T. Brennan, United States Probation Officer, Central District of California cc: Victoria Chambers, Calderwood & Harkness LLP cc: Lisa Morrow, Calderwood & Harkness LLP
Asset | Estimated Value
Residence (net equity) | $1,350,000
Aurelia Pictures equity interest (net) | $0 – $400,000
Frozen savings/brokerage accounts | $287,000
Vehicle | $42,000
Total | $1,679,000 – $2,079,000

VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL AND U.S. MAIL

CALDERWOOD & HARKNESS LLP

Record

Parties

Dates

Amounts