UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.
MARGUERITE D. FONSECA,
Defendant.
Case No. 2:24-cr-00583-CMD
DEFENDANT'S PROPOSED JUDGMENT IN A CRIMINAL CASE AND ORDER OF RESTITUTION
Filed: February 14, 2026
Before the Honorable Catherine M. Driscoll, United States District Judge
Submitted by counsel for the Defendant:
Conrad Ashby (Responsible Partner) and Victoria Chambers (Billing Partner) Calderwood & Harkness LLP 2029 Century Park East, Suite 3300 Los Angeles, California 90067 Telephone: (310) 553-4400 Facsimile: (310) 553-4401
Right-click to update Table of Contents
I. DEFENDANT INFORMATION
The Court has before it the Defendant, Marguerite Delphine Fonseca, who was found guilty by a jury on September 18, 2025, as to each of the seven counts charged in the Second Superseding Indictment. The following information pertains to the Defendant:
Full Name: Marguerite Delphine Fonseca
Date of Birth: March 8, 1974 (age 52 as of the date of filing)
Residence: 1847 Mulholland Terrace, Los Angeles, California 90068
Attorney of Record: Conrad Ashby, Calderwood & Harkness LLP, 2029 Century Park East, Suite 3300, Los Angeles, California 90067
Former Trial Counsel: Harrison J. Kerrigan, Kerrigan & Wolfe LLP, 444 South Flower Street, Suite 1800, Los Angeles, California 90071. Mr. Kerrigan represented the Defendant through trial and post-trial motions. Calderwood & Harkness LLP substituted in as counsel of record on November 21, 2025, by order of this Court.
Case Number: 2:24-cr-00583-CMD
United States Probation Officer: Michael T. Brennan, United States Probation Office, Central District of California, 312 North Spring Street, Suite 727, Los Angeles, California 90012
The Presentence Investigation Report ("PSR") was disclosed to the parties on December 19, 2025, and a revised PSR incorporating the parties' objections was filed under seal on January 30, 2026. The Defendant filed written objections to the PSR on January 16, 2026, and the Government filed its response on January 27, 2026. Sentencing is currently scheduled for March 7, 2026.
II. COUNTS OF CONVICTION
The Defendant was convicted by jury verdict on September 18, 2025, following an eleven-day trial before this Court, on the following counts of the Second Superseding Indictment:
Count 1: Conspiracy to Commit Wire Fraud
Statute: 18 U.S.C. § 1349 (conspiracy to commit wire fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343)
Date of Offense: From on or about January 2018 through on or about December 2022
Date of Conviction: September 18, 2025, by jury verdict
Maximum Statutory Penalties: Imprisonment of not more than twenty (20) years; a fine of not more than $250,000 or twice the gross gain or gross loss resulting from the offense, whichever is greater; supervised release of not more than three (3) years; and a mandatory special assessment of $100.00.
The jury found beyond a reasonable doubt that the Defendant conspired with her co-conspirator, Raphael Torres-Medina (separately indicted, Case No. 2:24-cr-00591-CMD, currently pending), to devise and execute a scheme to defraud investors and the California Film Commission through a series of materially false and misleading representations regarding the financial condition, production budgets, and revenue projections of Aurelia Pictures, Inc., a film production and distribution company of which the Defendant served as Founder, Chief Executive Officer, and sole member of the Board of Directors from its incorporation in 2016 through the appointment of a receiver in 2025.
Counts 2 Through 5: Wire Fraud (Four Counts)
Statute: 18 U.S.C. § 1343
Date of Offenses: Each within the period from on or about January 2018 through on or about December 2022, as set forth in the Second Superseding Indictment:
• Count 2: On or about March 14, 2019 — Wire transfer of $1,250,000 from Brindoval Investors Group LP to Aurelia Pictures, Inc., effectuated by means of an interstate wire communication from a financial institution in Chicago, Illinois, to a financial institution in Los Angeles, California.
• Count 3: On or about August 22, 2019 — Wire transfer of $875,000 from Lakeshore Capital Partners LLC to Aurelia Pictures, Inc., effectuated by means of an interstate wire communication from a financial institution in Irvine, California, to a financial institution in Los Angeles, California.
• Count 4: On or about February 11, 2021 — Electronic transmission of a fraudulent financial statement and investor presentation from Aurelia Pictures, Inc. in Los Angeles, California, to Brindoval Investors Group LP in Chicago, Illinois, by means of electronic mail.
• Count 5: On or about September 3, 2021 — Wire transfer of $2,100,000 from Brindoval Investors Group LP to Aurelia Pictures, Inc., effectuated by means of an interstate wire communication from a financial institution in Chicago, Illinois, to a financial institution in Los Angeles, California.
Date of Conviction: September 18, 2025, by jury verdict as to each of Counts 2 through 5.
Maximum Statutory Penalties (per count): Imprisonment of not more than twenty (20) years; a fine of not more than $250,000 or twice the gross gain or gross loss resulting from the offense, whichever is greater; supervised release of not more than three (3) years; and a mandatory special assessment of $100.00.
Counts 6 and 7: Money Laundering (Two Counts)
Statute: 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(1)(B)(i) (laundering of monetary instruments — concealment)
Date of Offenses: Each within the period from on or about January 2018 through on or about December 2022, as set forth in the Second Superseding Indictment:
• Count 6: On or about April 27, 2020 — Transfer of approximately $485,000 in proceeds of wire fraud from an Aurelia Pictures, Inc. operating account at Pacific Meridian Bank, N.A. to a personal investment account held in the name of the Defendant at Zynvaro Wealth Advisors, knowing that the transaction was designed in whole or in part to conceal and disguise the nature, location, source, ownership, and control of the proceeds of specified unlawful activity.
• Count 7: On or about November 15, 2021 — Transfer of approximately $312,000 in proceeds of wire fraud from an Aurelia Pictures, Inc. operating account at Pacific Meridian Bank, N.A. to a personal savings account held in the name of the Defendant at Pacific Meridian Bank, N.A., knowing that the transaction was designed in whole or in part to conceal and disguise the nature, location, source, ownership, and control of the proceeds of specified unlawful activity.
Date of Conviction: September 18, 2025, by jury verdict as to each of Counts 6 and 7.
Maximum Statutory Penalties (per count): Imprisonment of not more than twenty (20) years; a fine of not more than $500,000 or twice the value of the property involved in the transaction, whichever is greater; supervised release of not more than three (3) years; and a mandatory special assessment of $100.00.
Summary
Total Counts of Conviction: Seven (7)
The Defendant was acquitted on Count 8 of the Second Superseding Indictment, which charged an additional count of money laundering in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(1)(A)(i). Count 9, which charged obstruction of justice in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(1), was dismissed by the Government on the second day of trial pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 48(a).
III. SENTENCING GUIDELINE CALCULATIONS (AS PROPOSED BY DEFENDANT)
The following sentencing guideline calculations represent the Defendant's position and are submitted for the Court's consideration. The Defendant's objections to the PSR's calculations are set forth in the Defendant's Sentencing Memorandum filed on February 7, 2026, and are incorporated herein by reference. The Defendant respectfully requests that the Court adopt the calculations set forth below.
A. Grouping of Counts
Pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3D1.2(d), all counts of conviction (Counts 1 through 7) are grouped together for purposes of calculating the offense level because the counts involve the same victim and the same act or transaction, or are part of a common scheme or plan. The wire fraud counts (Counts 2 through 5) and the conspiracy count (Count 1) involve substantially the same harm. The money laundering counts (Counts 6 and 7) are grouped with the fraud counts pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3D1.2(c), as the money laundering is an integral component of the underlying fraud scheme. Accordingly, a single offense level applies to all grouped counts.
B. Base Offense Level
Base Offense Level (U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(a)(1)): 7
The base offense level of 7 applies because the statutory maximum term of imprisonment for the most serious count of conviction (wire fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1343 and money laundering under 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(1)(B)(i)) is twenty (20) years, which exceeds the threshold for application of U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(a)(1).
C. Specific Offense Characteristics
1. Loss Enhancement — U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(1)
Defendant's Position: +16 levels (loss amount more than $6,500,000 but not more than $9,500,000)
The Defendant contends that the appropriate intended loss amount is $8,300,000.00. This figure is derived as follows:
The PSR calculates the total intended loss at $14,700,000, relying primarily on the Government's loss calculations as presented through the testimony of FBI forensic accountant Special Agent Patricia Ochoa and the expert report of the Government's damages expert, Dr. Lawrence Whitfield of Thornton Analytics, LLC. The Government's figure includes:
(a) $7,400,000 in investor funds obtained by Aurelia Pictures, Inc. through the fraudulent scheme;
(b) $3,200,000 in California Film Tax Credits obtained by Aurelia Pictures, Inc. through fraudulent applications to the California Film Commission; and
(c) $4,100,000 in additional projected investor solicitations that were contemplated but not consummated.
The Defendant objects to the Government's loss figure on two independent grounds:
First, the Government's calculation double-counts approximately $4,300,000 in losses. Specifically, $2,800,000 of the California Film Tax Credits identified in category (b) above were obtained on the basis of the same production expenditures that form the basis for the investor losses identified in category (a). The fraudulent representations made to investors regarding the production budgets for "The Meridian Gate" (2019) and "Silver Palms" (2020) are the same representations that were submitted to the California Film Commission in the corresponding tax credit applications. To count these amounts separately as distinct losses results in impermissible double-counting. An additional $1,500,000 in projected investor solicitations identified in category (c) were duplicative of amounts already included in category (a), as they represent renewal commitments from existing investors (Brindoval and Lakeshore) that were based on the same fraudulent financial statements already accounted for in the investor loss calculation.
Second, the Government's loss calculation fails to account for $2,100,000 in funds that were legitimately reinvested into actual production activities. While the Defendant acknowledges that she made material misrepresentations to investors regarding the allocation and use of invested funds, a significant portion of those funds — approximately $2,100,000 — was in fact expended on bona fide production costs, including payments to above-the-line and below-the-line talent, location fees, post-production services, and distribution expenses. Under U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1, Application Note 3(E)(i), the loss amount should be reduced by the fair market value of goods or services provided by the defendant to the victim. The films produced by Aurelia Pictures generated actual revenue and retained some residual value, and the legitimate production expenditures should be credited against the loss amount.
Accordingly, the proper calculation is:
$14,700,000 (Government's figure) – $4,300,000 (double-counted amounts) – $2,100,000 (reinvested production funds) = $8,300,000 (Defendant's calculated intended loss)
This amount falls within the range of "more than $6,500,000 but not more than $9,500,000" under U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(1)(I), resulting in an enhancement of +16 levels.
The Defendant specifically objects to the PSR's application of a +18 level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(1)(J), which applies to loss amounts of more than $9,500,000 but not more than $25,000,000. The PSR's reliance on the Government's $14,700,000 figure is unsupported by the trial evidence and is the product of the double-counting and over-inclusion described above. The Defendant's objections are set forth in greater detail in the Defendant's Sentencing Memorandum.
2. Number of Victims — U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(2)(A)(i)
Enhancement: +2 levels (10 or more but fewer than 50 victims)
The Defendant does not object to this enhancement. The record establishes that the scheme involved at least ten identifiable victims, including the five individual investors identified in the PSR, the institutional investors Brindoval Investors Group LP and Lakeshore Capital Partners LLC (and their respective limited partners), and the California Film Commission.
3. Abuse of Position of Trust — U.S.S.G. § 3B1.3
Enhancement: +2 levels
The Defendant does not object to this enhancement. The Defendant served as Founder, Chief Executive Officer, and sole director of Aurelia Pictures, Inc. and occupied a position of trust with respect to both the institutional and individual investors. The Defendant's position afforded her access to the investors' funds and enabled her to divert those funds without detection for an extended period.
4. Sophisticated Means — U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(10)(C)
Defendant's Position: +0 levels (enhancement should not apply)
The Defendant objects to the application of the sophisticated means enhancement. The PSR recommends a +2 level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(10)(C), asserting that the Defendant employed sophisticated means to execute or conceal the fraud. The Defendant submits that this enhancement is not warranted by the evidence.
Application Note 9(B) to U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1 defines "sophisticated means" as "especially complex or especially intricate offense conduct pertaining to the execution or concealment of an offense." The note provides examples such as the use of fictitious entities, corporate shells, or offshore financial accounts.
The evidence at trial did not establish that the Defendant employed especially complex or especially intricate methods. The Defendant operated through a single corporate entity — Aurelia Pictures, Inc. — that was a legitimate, operating film production company. The misrepresentations to investors, while material and fraudulent, involved the inflation of production budgets, the overstatement of projected revenues, and the concealment of personal expenditures. These are hallmarks of a conventional embezzlement and fraud scheme, not a scheme involving the kind of layered corporate structures, offshore accounts, or complex financial instruments that courts have found to constitute "sophisticated means."
The money laundering counts involved straightforward transfers between domestic bank accounts. The Defendant did not use shell companies, nominee accounts, foreign bank accounts, or other concealment mechanisms that would elevate this conduct to the level of "sophisticated means." See, e.g., United States v. Zolp, 659 F.3d 438, 446 (5th Cir. 2011) (holding that basic misrepresentations, even when repeated, do not constitute sophisticated means absent evidence of especially complex conduct).
Accordingly, the Defendant submits that the +2 level enhancement for sophisticated means should not be applied.
5. Acceptance of Responsibility — U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1
Not Applied. The Defendant proceeded to trial and was convicted by jury verdict. The Defendant is not entitled to a reduction for acceptance of responsibility under U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1.
D. Summary of Offense Level Calculation
E. Criminal History Category
Criminal History Category: I
The Defendant has no prior criminal history. The Defendant has no prior convictions, no prior arrests, and no other criminal justice contacts that would result in the assessment of criminal history points under U.S.S.G. Chapter 4. The PSR confirms a Criminal History Category of I, and neither party objects to this determination.
F. Advisory Guidelines Range (Proposed)
Based on a Total Offense Level of 27 and a Criminal History Category of I, the advisory sentencing guidelines range is 70 to 87 months of imprisonment.
The Defendant respectfully submits, however, that a sentence substantially below the advisory guidelines range is warranted in this case, based on the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), as argued at length in the Defendant's Sentencing Memorandum. Specifically, the Defendant proposes a sentence of 42 months of imprisonment, as set forth in Section IV below.
IV. PROPOSED SENTENCE
The Defendant respectfully proposes the following sentence for the Court's consideration. The bases for the proposed sentence are set forth in detail in the Defendant's Sentencing Memorandum filed on February 7, 2026, and in the supplemental materials submitted therewith, including letters of support from family members, colleagues, and community leaders, as well as the report of the Defendant's treating psychiatrist, Dr. Elaine Varma.
A. Imprisonment
The Court sentences the Defendant to a term of imprisonment of forty-two (42) months as to each of Counts 1 through 7, all terms to run concurrently.
The proposed sentence of 42 months represents a variance below the advisory guidelines range of 70 to 87 months. The Defendant submits that this variance is warranted under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) based on, among other factors:
(a) The nature and circumstances of the offense, including the fact that the Defendant operated a legitimate film production company and that a substantial portion of the invested funds was used for bona fide production activities;
(b) The history and characteristics of the Defendant, including her lack of any prior criminal history, her significant mental health challenges (Major Depressive Disorder and Generalized Anxiety Disorder, as documented by Dr. Elaine Varma), and her role as the primary caregiver for her two minor children and her elderly mother;
(c) The need for the sentence imposed to reflect the seriousness of the offense, to promote respect for the law, and to provide just punishment, while also considering the need to avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities among defendants with similar records who have been found guilty of similar conduct;
(d) The need to provide the Defendant with needed educational or vocational training, medical care, or other correctional treatment in the most effective manner; and
(e) The Defendant's demonstrated commitment to making restitution to the victims, as evidenced by her cooperation with the court-appointed receiver and her agreement to liquidate personal assets for the benefit of the victims.
The Defendant shall be remanded to the custody of the United States Bureau of Prisons for service of the sentence. The Defendant requests that the Court make the following recommendations to the Bureau of Prisons:
Facility Designation: The Defendant is recommended for designation to a facility reasonably close to Los Angeles, California, to facilitate regular visitation by her minor children, Elena Fonseca (age 17) and Marco Fonseca (age 14), who reside with their maternal grandmother, Corazon Fonseca (age 79), at the Defendant's residence in Los Angeles. Regular contact with her children is essential to the Defendant's mental health and to the well-being of her children during this period of separation. The Defendant requests designation to FCI Dublin or, in the alternative, to another minimum-security or low-security facility within reasonable proximity to the greater Los Angeles area.
Mental Health Treatment: The Court recommends that the Bureau of Prisons provide the Defendant with appropriate mental health treatment during incarceration, including continuation of her prescribed medication regimen. The Defendant is currently prescribed sertraline 100mg daily for the treatment of Major Depressive Disorder and Generalized Anxiety Disorder, as prescribed by her treating psychiatrist, Dr. Elaine Varma, of Pacific Mind Health Associates, 11645 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 800, Los Angeles, California 90025. Dr. Varma's report, submitted as an attachment to the Defendant's Sentencing Memorandum, documents the Defendant's psychiatric history and the clinical necessity of continued pharmacological treatment. The Court recommends that the Bureau of Prisons ensure continuity of care and that the Defendant receive regular psychiatric monitoring during incarceration.
The Defendant shall receive credit for any time served in connection with this offense pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3585(b). The Defendant was detained for a period of approximately seventeen (17) days following her arrest on June 12, 2024, before being released on conditions of release on June 29, 2024, by order of Magistrate Judge Barbara S. Stein.
B. Supervised Release
Upon release from imprisonment, the Defendant shall be placed on supervised release for a term of three (3) years as to each of Counts 1 through 7, all terms to run concurrently. The total term of supervised release shall therefore be three (3) years.
1. Mandatory Conditions of Supervised Release
The Defendant shall comply with the following mandatory conditions of supervised release, as required by 18 U.S.C. § 3583(d) and applicable law:
(a) The Defendant shall not commit another federal, state, or local crime during the term of supervised release.
(b) The Defendant shall not unlawfully possess a controlled substance.
(c) The Defendant shall cooperate in the collection of a DNA sample if required pursuant to the DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination Act of 2000, 34 U.S.C. § 40702.
(d) The Defendant shall comply with the requirements of the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (34 U.S.C. § 20901, et seq.), if applicable. This condition is not applicable to the Defendant.
(e) The Defendant shall refrain from any unlawful use of a controlled substance and shall submit to one drug test within fifteen (15) days of release on supervised release and at least two periodic drug tests thereafter, as determined by the Court or the probation officer, unless the Court determines that the Defendant poses a low risk of future substance abuse.
(f) The Defendant shall submit to the collection of a DNA sample, if applicable, at the direction of the probation officer.
2. Standard Conditions of Supervised Release
The Defendant shall comply with the standard conditions of supervised release as set forth in the judgment form and as adopted by the United States District Court for the Central District of California, including but not limited to the following:
(a) The Defendant shall report to the probation office in the district to which the Defendant is released within seventy-two (72) hours of release from the custody of the Bureau of Prisons.
(b) The Defendant shall not leave the judicial district without the permission of the Court or the probation officer.
(c) The Defendant shall report to the probation officer in a manner and frequency as directed by the Court or the probation officer.
(d) The Defendant shall answer truthfully all inquiries by the probation officer and follow the instructions of the probation officer.
(e) The Defendant shall support her dependents and meet other family responsibilities, including any obligations imposed by any state court order of child support or custody.
(f) The Defendant shall work regularly at a lawful occupation, unless excused by the probation officer for schooling, training, or other acceptable reasons.
(g) The Defendant shall not change residence or employment, or travel outside the jurisdiction, without notifying the probation officer at least ten (10) days in advance, or as otherwise directed by the probation officer.
(h) The Defendant shall refrain from excessive use of alcohol and shall not purchase, possess, use, distribute, or administer any controlled substance or any paraphernalia related to any controlled substance, except as prescribed by a physician.
(i) The Defendant shall not frequent places where controlled substances are illegally sold, used, distributed, or administered.
(j) The Defendant shall not associate with any persons engaged in criminal activity and shall not associate with any person convicted of a felony, unless granted permission to do so by the probation officer.
(k) The Defendant shall permit a probation officer to visit at any time at home or elsewhere and shall permit the confiscation of any contraband observed in plain view of the probation officer.
(l) The Defendant shall notify the probation officer within seventy-two (72) hours of being arrested or questioned by a law enforcement officer.
(m) The Defendant shall not enter into any agreement to act as an informer or a special agent of a law enforcement agency without the permission of the Court.
(n) As directed by the probation officer, the Defendant shall notify the probation officer of any material change in the Defendant's economic circumstances that might affect the Defendant's ability to pay any unpaid amount of restitution, fines, or special assessments.
3. Special Conditions of Supervised Release
In addition to the mandatory and standard conditions set forth above, the Defendant shall comply with the following special conditions of supervised release:
Special Condition 1 — Mental Health Treatment: The Defendant shall participate in and successfully complete a mental health treatment program as directed by the probation officer. This shall include continued psychiatric treatment for Major Depressive Disorder and Generalized Anxiety Disorder, including medication management. The Defendant shall continue treatment consistent with the care provided by her treating psychiatrist, Dr. Elaine Varma, of Pacific Mind Health Associates, 11645 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 800, Los Angeles, California 90025, or by a successor provider approved by the probation officer. The Defendant shall take all prescribed medications as directed and shall not discontinue or modify any prescribed psychiatric medication without the approval of the treating provider and notification to the probation officer. The Defendant shall sign any releases of information necessary to allow the probation officer to communicate with the treating provider regarding the Defendant's compliance with this condition. The cost of treatment shall be borne by the Defendant unless the probation officer determines that the Defendant is unable to pay, in which case the Defendant may be referred to an appropriate community-based provider.
Special Condition 2 — No Contact with Victims: The Defendant shall have no direct contact, whether in person, by telephone, by electronic communication, by social media, or by any other means, with any identified victim in this case, including but not limited to officers, representatives, or agents of Brindoval Investors Group LP, Lakeshore Capital Partners LLC, the California Film Commission, or any individual investor identified in the Presentence Investigation Report, except through counsel or as directed by the probation officer or the Court. Communication related to restitution payments shall be conducted exclusively through the Clerk of Court or the probation officer. This condition shall not prohibit the Defendant from attending court proceedings at which victims may be present, nor shall it prohibit incidental contact in public places, provided that the Defendant does not initiate communication.
Special Condition 3 — Financial Disclosure: The Defendant shall provide complete and truthful disclosure of her financial condition to the probation officer on a quarterly basis, no later than the fifteenth (15th) day of the month following the end of each calendar quarter. Such disclosure shall include all income from any source, all assets (including real property, personal property, bank accounts, brokerage accounts, retirement accounts, and any interest in any business entity), all debts and liabilities, and all expenses. The Defendant shall cooperate fully in the collection of restitution as set forth in the Restitution Order below. The Defendant shall not open or maintain any bank account, brokerage account, or other financial account at any financial institution without notifying the probation officer within five (5) business days of opening such account. The Defendant shall provide the probation officer with access to financial records and shall execute any authorizations or releases necessary to permit the probation officer to verify the Defendant's financial condition.
Special Condition 4 — Employment and Earnings: The Defendant shall maintain full-time, gainful employment or actively seek such employment as directed by the probation officer. The Defendant shall provide documentation of all compensation received from any source, including but not limited to wages, consulting fees, royalties, residuals, bonuses, commissions, or any other income, within fifteen (15) days of receipt. The Defendant shall provide copies of all W-2 forms, 1099 forms, K-1 schedules, and federal and state income tax returns to the probation officer within thirty (30) days of filing.
Special Condition 5 — No Self-Employment Without Approval: The Defendant shall not engage in any self-employment, independent contracting, or independent business activity without the prior written approval of the probation officer. Any request for approval shall be accompanied by a detailed written description of the proposed activity, including the nature of the business, the source of any start-up capital, the anticipated income, and the identity of any business partners or associates. Any approved self-employment shall be subject to enhanced financial monitoring, including more frequent financial disclosures and the right of the probation officer to audit the Defendant's business records at any time.
Special Condition 6 — Community Service: The Defendant shall perform three hundred (300) hours of community service during the term of supervised release, as directed by the probation officer. Community service shall be performed at a nonprofit organization or governmental entity approved by the probation officer. The Defendant shall provide documentation of completed community service hours to the probation officer on a monthly basis.
Special Condition 7 — Cooperation with Receivership: The Defendant shall continue to cooperate fully with the court-appointed receiver, Nathaniel W. Prescott of Ridgeway Advisory Group LLC, 1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 2700, Los Angeles, California 90067, and any successor receiver, in connection with the receivership of Aurelia Pictures, Inc. (Los Angeles County Superior Court, Case No. 25STCV08312). Such cooperation shall include, without limitation, providing information and documents as requested by the receiver, making herself available for interviews and depositions as reasonably requested, and refraining from any action that would impede the receiver's ability to marshal, administer, and distribute the assets of Aurelia Pictures, Inc. for the benefit of creditors and victims.
C. Restitution
The Defendant shall pay restitution in the amount and manner set forth in Section V of this Proposed Judgment, which constitutes the proposed Order of Restitution and is incorporated herein by reference.
D. Special Assessment
The Defendant shall pay a special assessment in the total amount of Seven Hundred Dollars ($700.00), consisting of One Hundred Dollars ($100.00) per count of conviction multiplied by seven (7) counts, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3013. The special assessment is due immediately upon the entry of judgment.
Payment of the special assessment shall be made to the Clerk of Court, United States District Court for the Central District of California, 350 West 1st Street, Los Angeles, California 90012, by cashier's check, money order, or other method accepted by the Clerk. If the Defendant is unable to pay the special assessment immediately, payment shall be made in accordance with the schedule established by the Bureau of Prisons through the Inmate Financial Responsibility Program.
E. Fine
The Court does not impose a fine.
The Defendant submits that the imposition of a fine is not appropriate in this case in light of the Defendant's substantial restitution obligation of $8,300,000.00 and her limited financial resources. The Defendant's identifiable assets total approximately $1,680,000 to $2,080,000, consisting of:
(a) Estimated equity in the Defendant's residence at 1847 Mulholland Terrace, Los Angeles, California 90068: approximately $1,350,000 (based on a current appraised value of $3,200,000 and an outstanding mortgage balance of $1,850,000 held by Pacific Meridian Bank, N.A.);
(b) Frozen savings and brokerage accounts: approximately $287,000;
(c) Estimated proceeds from the liquidation of the Defendant's 2022 Mercedes-Benz GLE 450: approximately $42,000;
(d) Estimated potential distribution from the receivership of Aurelia Pictures, Inc.: $0 to $400,000 (the receiver has indicated that distributions to equity holders, if any, are uncertain and may be nominal).
The Court has considered the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3572, including the Defendant's income, earning capacity, and financial resources; the burden that the fine would impose on the Defendant and her dependents; and the need to provide restitution to the victims of the offense. The Court finds that the imposition of a fine would unduly burden the Defendant and her dependents — including her two minor children and her elderly mother who depends on the Defendant for financial support — and would impair the Defendant's ability to make restitution to the victims of the offense.
F. Forfeiture
Forfeiture, if any, shall be as previously ordered by the Court. The Defendant notes that the Government obtained a preliminary order of forfeiture on January 9, 2025 (Dkt. 47), which identified certain property as subject to forfeiture under 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(C) and 28 U.S.C. § 2461(c). To the extent that any forfeited assets are applied to the restitution obligation pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3664(j)(1) and 21 U.S.C. § 853(i)(1), the total restitution obligation shall be reduced accordingly. The Defendant requests that the Court direct the Government to apply all forfeited assets to the restitution obligation for the benefit of the identified victims. The forfeiture order and the restitution order are complementary, and the Defendant shall not be required to pay restitution in an amount that, together with the value of forfeited assets applied to restitution, exceeds the total restitution amount of $8,300,000.00.
V. ORDER OF RESTITUTION
A. Statutory Basis
Restitution in this case is mandatory pursuant to the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act ("MVRA"), 18 U.S.C. § 3663A, which requires the imposition of restitution for offenses committed in violation of Title 18 of the United States Code that involve fraud or deception and that result in an identifiable victim who suffers a physical injury or pecuniary loss. The offenses of conviction in this case — conspiracy to commit wire fraud, wire fraud, and money laundering — are offenses for which restitution is mandatory under 18 U.S.C. § 3663A(c)(1)(A)(ii).
The procedures for the issuance and enforcement of the restitution order are governed by 18 U.S.C. § 3664, which sets forth the requirements for the determination of losses, the identification of victims, the establishment of a payment schedule, and the enforcement of the restitution obligation.
The Court is required to order restitution to each victim in the full amount of each victim's losses, as determined by the Court, without consideration of the economic circumstances of the defendant. 18 U.S.C. § 3664(f)(1)(A). However, the Court retains discretion to establish a payment schedule that accounts for the defendant's financial resources and projected earnings. 18 U.S.C. § 3664(f)(2).
B. Total Restitution Amount
Total Restitution Ordered: $8,300,000.00 (Eight Million Three Hundred Thousand Dollars and No Cents)
The total restitution amount is based on the Defendant's calculated intended loss, as set forth in Section III.C.1 above. This figure reflects the elimination of $4,300,000 in double-counted amounts from the Government's total loss figure of $14,700,000 and a further reduction of $2,100,000 for funds that were reinvested into bona fide production activities by Aurelia Pictures, Inc.
The Defendant acknowledges that the Court will make its own determination of the appropriate loss amount for purposes of both the sentencing guidelines calculation and the restitution order. The Defendant submits this proposed restitution amount for the Court's consideration and respectfully requests that the Court adopt the Defendant's loss calculation for the reasons set forth in the Defendant's Sentencing Memorandum and Section III.C.1 of this Proposed Judgment.
C. Identification of Victims and Allocation
Restitution shall be payable to the following identified victims in the following amounts, allocated on a proportionate basis relative to their respective actual out-of-pocket losses:
The contact information and counsel of record for each victim are as follows:
Brindoval Investors Group LP — Theodore R. Blackwell, Managing Partner, 150 North Wacker Drive, Suite 2200, Chicago, Illinois 60606. Counsel: Susan R. Aldrich, Aldrich & McBride LLP, 70 West Madison Street, Suite 1400, Chicago, Illinois 60602. Proportionate share: $3,631,000.00, representing approximately 43.7% of the total restitution amount, consistent with Brindoval's proportionate share of actual out-of-pocket losses.
Lakeshore Capital Partners LLC — Diana Caruso, Managing Member, 2300 Main Street, Suite 510, Irvine, California 92614. Counsel: Susan R. Aldrich, Aldrich & McBride LLP, 70 West Madison Street, Suite 1400, Chicago, Illinois 60602. Proportionate share: $1,727,000.00, representing approximately 20.8% of the total restitution amount, consistent with Lakeshore's proportionate share of actual out-of-pocket losses.
Individual Investors — Five individual investors, as identified in the Presentence Investigation Report under seal. The names and contact information for the individual investors are set forth in the PSR at paragraphs 47 through 56 and are incorporated herein by reference. The individual investors' combined proportionate share is $1,152,000.00, representing approximately 13.9% of the total restitution amount. This amount shall be allocated pro rata among the five individual investors based on each investor's respective actual out-of-pocket loss, as determined by the Court. The specific allocation among the five individual investors is set forth in Appendix A to the PSR.
California Film Commission (State of California) — California Film Commission, 7080 Hollywood Boulevard, Suite 900, Hollywood, California 90028. The California Film Commission's proportionate share is $1,790,000.00, representing approximately 21.6% of the total restitution amount. This figure reflects the adjusted tax credit recovery amount, accounting for the elimination of the $2,800,000 in double-counted tax credit losses described in Section III.C.1 above. The original tax credit amount claimed by the Government was $3,200,000; after subtracting the $1,410,000 attributable to double-counting with investor losses already accounted for in the Brindoval and Lakeshore allocations, the adjusted figure is $1,790,000.00.
Exclusion of Consequential Damages. The above allocations are based on each victim's proportionate share of actual out-of-pocket loss relative to the total restitution amount of $8,300,000.00. Brindoval Investors Group LP has submitted a claim for lost profits in the amount of $3,100,000, representing the difference between the projected returns on its investment as represented by the Defendant and the actual returns received. This claim is excluded from the restitution calculation. Restitution under the MVRA, 18 U.S.C. § 3663A, is limited to the victim's actual losses, not consequential damages, lost profits, or speculative future earnings. See United States v. Brock, 631 F.3d 563, 570 (1st Cir. 2011); United States v. Bengis, 631 F.3d 33, 40 (2d Cir. 2011).
The allocation set forth above is subject to adjustment by the Court based on the Court's findings regarding the actual losses sustained by each victim at the sentencing hearing.
D. Payment Schedule
1. Immediate Lump-Sum Payment
Within thirty (30) days of the entry of this Judgment, the Defendant shall make an initial lump-sum restitution payment in the total amount of Three Hundred Twenty-Nine Thousand Dollars ($329,000.00), consisting of:
(a) $287,000.00 from the Defendant's frozen savings and brokerage accounts, which are currently subject to government seizure and/or freeze orders entered in connection with this case. These accounts include:
• Pacific Meridian Bank, N.A., savings account ending in x4782: approximate balance of $94,000;
• Pacific Meridian Bank, N.A., checking account ending in x3195: approximate balance of $23,000;
• Zynvaro Wealth Advisors, brokerage account ending in x8641: approximate balance of $170,000 (subject to market fluctuation).
(b) $42,000.00 from the proceeds of the liquidation of the Defendant's 2022 Mercedes-Benz GLE 450 (VIN: 4JGFB5KE4NA123456), currently stored at a facility designated by the United States marshals Service. The estimated liquidation value of $42,000 is based on the Kelley Blue Book private party value as of December 2025. The actual liquidation proceeds may vary, and any difference shall be accounted for in subsequent restitution payments.
The lump-sum payment shall be distributed to the identified victims on a pro rata basis consistent with the proportionate allocation set forth in Section V.C above.
The Government is hereby directed to release the Defendant's frozen accounts identified in paragraph (a) above for the purpose of effectuating this payment within fourteen (14) days of the entry of this Judgment. The Defendant shall cooperate with the Government and the Clerk of Court to facilitate the transfer of funds.
2. Monthly Installment Payments During Imprisonment
During the term of imprisonment, the Defendant shall make monthly installment payments toward the restitution obligation from any income received, including but not limited to any funds received from employment through the Bureau of Prisons Inmate Financial Responsibility Program ("IFRP"), at a rate to be determined by the Bureau of Prisons consistent with BOP policies and the IFRP guidelines set forth in BOP Program Statement 5380.08. The Defendant shall cooperate with the Bureau of Prisons in the establishment of a payment plan under the IFRP and shall not refuse participation in the IFRP.
3. Monthly Installment Payments During Supervised Release
During the term of supervised release, the Defendant shall make monthly restitution payments in an amount to be determined by the probation officer based on the Defendant's income and financial resources, but in no event less than Two Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($2,500.00) per month, payable on the first business day of each calendar month. The first monthly payment shall be due on the first business day of the first full calendar month following the Defendant's release from imprisonment.
The minimum monthly payment amount of $2,500.00 shall be subject to upward adjustment based on the Defendant's financial circumstances. The probation officer is authorized to increase the monthly payment amount at any time based on the Defendant's income, assets, and financial condition, as reported in the quarterly financial disclosures required by Special Condition 3. The Defendant may petition the Court for a reduction in the monthly payment amount upon a showing of changed financial circumstances, including loss of employment, illness, or other extraordinary circumstances.
4. Additional Payments
In addition to the scheduled payments set forth above, the following additional payment obligations apply:
(a) Receivership Distributions. Any proceeds received by the Defendant from the receivership of Aurelia Pictures, Inc. (Los Angeles County Superior Court, Case No. 25STCV08312, receiver: Nathaniel W. Prescott, Ridgeway Advisory Group LLC), including any distribution on account of the Defendant's equity interest in Aurelia Pictures, Inc. (currently estimated at $0 to $400,000, based on the receiver's preliminary report dated October 15, 2025), shall be applied to the restitution obligation within thirty (30) days of receipt by the Defendant. The Defendant shall promptly notify the probation officer of any distribution received from the receivership.
(b) Lump-Sum Payments and Windfalls. Any lump-sum payments received by the Defendant, including but not limited to tax refunds, inheritances, gifts, settlements, insurance proceeds, lottery or gambling winnings, or other windfalls exceeding One Thousand Dollars ($1,000.00), shall be applied to the restitution obligation within thirty (30) days of receipt. The Defendant shall promptly notify the probation officer of the receipt of any such payment.
(c) Proceeds from Sale or Refinancing of Residence. Upon any sale, transfer, or refinancing of the Defendant's residence located at 1847 Mulholland Terrace, Los Angeles, California 90068, the net proceeds remaining after satisfaction of the existing first mortgage held by Pacific Meridian Bank, N.A. (current outstanding balance: approximately $1,850,000) and reasonable, documented costs of sale (including real estate commissions, transfer taxes, and customary closing costs), shall be applied in full to the restitution obligation. The current appraised value of the property is approximately $3,200,000, yielding estimated equity of approximately $1,350,000. The Defendant shall not sell, transfer, convey, gift, encumber, pledge, hypothecate, or refinance the property without the prior written approval of the probation officer and written notice to the Court at least thirty (30) days in advance of any proposed transaction. Any approved transaction shall be on commercially reasonable terms, and the probation officer may require an independent appraisal of the property at the Defendant's expense.
5. Interest. Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3612(f), unless the Court specifically finds that the Defendant does not have the ability to pay interest, interest shall accrue on the unpaid balance of the restitution obligation at the rate established by 28 U.S.C. § 1961 (i.e., the weekly average one-year constant maturity Treasury yield, as published by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, for the calendar week preceding the date of the judgment).
The Defendant respectfully requests that the Court waive the accrual of interest on the restitution obligation pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3612(f)(3)(A). The Defendant submits that she does not have the ability to pay interest in addition to the principal restitution obligation. As set forth above, the Defendant's identifiable assets total approximately $1,680,000 to $2,080,000, against a restitution obligation of $8,300,000. Even with full liquidation of all identifiable assets and consistent monthly payments of $2,500 or more during the three-year term of supervised release, the Defendant will not be able to satisfy the restitution obligation in full during the period of supervised release. The accrual of interest on the unpaid balance would further increase the Defendant's total obligation and reduce the proportion of each payment that is allocated to the victims' actual losses. Waiver of interest would serve the interests of the victims by ensuring that the maximum amount of each payment is applied to the principal restitution amount.
6. Duration. The restitution obligation shall remain in effect and enforceable until paid in full, notwithstanding the expiration of the term of supervised release, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3613(a). The restitution order is a lien in favor of the United States on all property and rights to property of the Defendant, as provided by 18 U.S.C. § 3613(c). The lien arises on the date of the entry of judgment and continues for twenty (20) years after the date of the entry of judgment (or for twenty (20) years after the release of the Defendant from imprisonment, whichever is later), or until the liability is satisfied, remitted, set aside, or is otherwise terminated, whichever occurs first. 18 U.S.C. § 3613(b).
E. Enforcement