In the Courts

Eastern District of NY Rules on Sentencing

On Sept. 29, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York issued an opinion in support of the sentencing of Ion Catalin Vrancea, who was convicted on multiple counts in November 2013. U.S. v. Vrancea, 2015 WL 5725883, No. 12-CR-198 (WFK) (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 29, 2015). Following a jury trial, Vrancea was sentenced to 30 years in prison, followed by three years of supervised release and restitution of $67,361 for his role in an international credit card scheme, whereby he stole credit card information via an electronic scanner, withdrew cash from banks in the United States, and wired funds to co-conspirators overseas. Upon learning of the charges against him, Vrancea attempted to destroy evidence by setting fire to his apartment. FBI agents were ultimately able to recover electronic equipment that implicated him.

Vrancea subsequently filed an appeal with the U.S. District Court for the Second Circuit, challenging his conviction and sentence. In July 2015, the Second Circuit affirmed the conviction, but remanded the case for resentencing. The Second Circuit noted that the district court had failed to explain its reasons for departing from the recommended sentencing range pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ' 3553, as required under the law.

To comply with the Second Circuit's instructions, the Eastern District of New York entered a lengthy order, which not only applied each sentencing factor to the specific facts of Vrancea's case, but also reduced his sentence to 15 years in prison with three years supervised release and the same amount due in restitution. Of particular interest was the Eastern District's analysis of ' 3553(a)(2)(B): “the need for the sentence imposed ' to afford adequate deterrence to criminal conduct.” Citing numerous decisions of other New York District Courts, the Eastern District found that “[t]o permit such an offender to avoid meaningful incarceration, while jailing thieves and other non-violent offenders of lower social status, would trivialize the seriousness of white-collar offenses.” See, e.g., U.S. v. Emmenegger, 239 F.Supp.2d 416, 427 (S.D.N.Y. 2004). Likewise, “[p]ersons who commit white-collar crimes ' are capable of calculating the costs and benefits of their illegal activities relative to the severity of the punishments that may be imposed. A serious sentence is required to discourage such crimes.” See, e.g., U.S. v. Stein, 09-CR-377, 2010 WL 678122, at *3 (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 25, 2010). The Second Circuit has also held that, because of the light sentences often imposed, white collar crime is “a game worth playing.” U.S. v. Goffer , 721 F.3d 113, 132 (2d Cir. 2013).

In this case, the court sated that Vrancea was a well-educated individual with “high-level electrical skills” who “could have used [these] skills in a productive manner.” Vrancea , 2015 WL 572883, at *12-13. Consequently, the Eastern District concluded that “[a] high-sentence [was] both necessary to deter other skimmers and cyber criminals who, like [Vrancea], [were] in a position to choose between a law-abiding life and a life of crime” to ensure that such crimes are adequately discouraged. Id. at *13. One week later, Vrancea filed a notice of appeal with the Second Circuit.

'

Eastern District of NY Rules on Sentencing

On Sept. 29, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York issued an opinion in support of the sentencing of Ion Catalin Vrancea, who was convicted on multiple counts in November 2013. U.S. v. Vrancea, 2015 WL 5725883, No. 12-CR-198 (WFK) (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 29, 2015). Following a jury trial, Vrancea was sentenced to 30 years in prison, followed by three years of supervised release and restitution of $67,361 for his role in an international credit card scheme, whereby he stole credit card information via an electronic scanner, withdrew cash from banks in the United States, and wired funds to co-conspirators overseas. Upon learning of the charges against him, Vrancea attempted to destroy evidence by setting fire to his apartment. FBI agents were ultimately able to recover electronic equipment that implicated him.

Vrancea subsequently filed an appeal with the U.S. District Court for the Second Circuit, challenging his conviction and sentence. In July 2015, the Second Circuit affirmed the conviction, but remanded the case for resentencing. The Second Circuit noted that the district court had failed to explain its reasons for departing from the recommended sentencing range pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ' 3553, as required under the law.

To comply with the Second Circuit's instructions, the Eastern District of New York entered a lengthy order, which not only applied each sentencing factor to the specific facts of Vrancea's case, but also reduced his sentence to 15 years in prison with three years supervised release and the same amount due in restitution. Of particular interest was the Eastern District's analysis of ' 3553(a)(2)(B): “the need for the sentence imposed ' to afford adequate deterrence to criminal conduct.” Citing numerous decisions of other New York District Courts, the Eastern District found that “[t]o permit such an offender to avoid meaningful incarceration, while jailing thieves and other non-violent offenders of lower social status, would trivialize the seriousness of white-collar offenses.” See, e.g., U.S. v. Emmenegger , 239 F.Supp.2d 416, 427 (S.D.N.Y. 2004). Likewise, “[p]ersons who commit white-collar crimes ' are capable of calculating the costs and benefits of their illegal activities relative to the severity of the punishments that may be imposed. A serious sentence is required to discourage such crimes.” See, e.g., U.S. v. Stein, 09-CR-377, 2010 WL 678122, at *3 (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 25, 2010). The Second Circuit has also held that, because of the light sentences often imposed, white collar crime is “a game worth playing.” U.S. v. Goffer , 721 F.3d 113, 132 (2d Cir. 2013).

In this case, the court sated that Vrancea was a well-educated individual with “high-level electrical skills” who “could have used [these] skills in a productive manner.” Vrancea , 2015 WL 572883, at *12-13. Consequently, the Eastern District concluded that “[a] high-sentence [was] both necessary to deter other skimmers and cyber criminals who, like [Vrancea], [were] in a position to choose between a law-abiding life and a life of crime” to ensure that such crimes are adequately discouraged. Id. at *13. One week later, Vrancea filed a notice of appeal with the Second Circuit.

'