California Commercial Real Estate Agent Pleads Guilty to Obstructing the IRS

Source: United States Department of Justice

A California man pleaded guilty yesterday to obstructing the IRS’s efforts to collect hundreds of thousands of dollars in unpaid taxes.

The following is according to court documents and statements made in court: Gabriel David Guerrero, a resident of Los Angeles County, is a real estate broker who did not timely file individual income tax returns for many years. After the IRS assessed taxes against Guerrero and attempted to collect them him, Guerrero took steps to conceal his income and assets from the IRS. For example, he made extensive use of cash and cashier’s checks; submitted a false form to the IRS that significantly understated his income; and used a nominee bank account to deposit income.

He is scheduled to be sentenced on Sept. 15 and faces a maximum penalty of three years in prison. Guerrero also faces a period of supervised release, restitution, and monetary penalties. A federal district court judge will determine any sentence after considering the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines and other statutory factors.

Acting Deputy Assistant Attorney General Karen E. Kelly of the Justice Department’s Tax Division and U.S. Attorney Bilal A. Essayli for the Central District of California made the announcement.

IRS Criminal Investigation is investigating the case.

Trial Attorneys Robert Kemins and Christopher Gerace of the Tax Division along with Assistant U.S. Attorney Steven Arkow for the District of Central District of California are prosecuting the case.

Security News: California Commercial Real Estate Agent Pleads Guilty to Obstructing the IRS

Source: United States Department of Justice

A California man pleaded guilty yesterday to obstructing the IRS’s efforts to collect hundreds of thousands of dollars in unpaid taxes.

The following is according to court documents and statements made in court: Gabriel David Guerrero, a resident of Los Angeles County, is a real estate broker who did not timely file individual income tax returns for many years. After the IRS assessed taxes against Guerrero and attempted to collect them him, Guerrero took steps to conceal his income and assets from the IRS. For example, he made extensive use of cash and cashier’s checks; submitted a false form to the IRS that significantly understated his income; and used a nominee bank account to deposit income.

He is scheduled to be sentenced on Sept. 15 and faces a maximum penalty of three years in prison. Guerrero also faces a period of supervised release, restitution, and monetary penalties. A federal district court judge will determine any sentence after considering the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines and other statutory factors.

Acting Deputy Assistant Attorney General Karen E. Kelly of the Justice Department’s Tax Division and U.S. Attorney Bilal A. Essayli for the Central District of California made the announcement.

IRS Criminal Investigation is investigating the case.

Trial Attorneys Robert Kemins and Christopher Gerace of the Tax Division along with Assistant U.S. Attorney Steven Arkow for the District of Central District of California are prosecuting the case.

Justice Department Successfully Defends Army Corps of Engineers Permit for South Carolina Mixed Use Development

Source: United States Department of Justice Criminal Division

Development projects may require a Clean Water Act (CWA) permit when wetlands need to be filled. Thus, developers of the Cainhoy Project — a more than 9,000-acre mixed use development in the Charleston, South Carolina — turned to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in 2018 for a CWA permit.

The Cainhoy Project will provide much needed housing (at least 9,000 residential units) in addition to commercial development, schools, city services, jobs, a medical center, and more. After a four-year environmental assessment — and a modified proposal by the developers to reduce by 90% how much wetlands would be filled — the Corps issued a permit. A lawsuit over the permit’s issuance brought the case before the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina and  the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

The Justice Department’s Environment and Natural Resources Division (ENRD) defended the Corps’ decision to issue a permit. Plaintiffs asked for a preliminary injunction based on speculative harm to a species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The injunction was denied, however, and the ESA claim was abandoned after the Fourth Circuit affirmed the District Court’s order denying preliminary relief.

The District Court then granted summary judgment to the federal defendants regarding the CWA and National Environmental Policy Act claims. The court concluded that the Corps had reasonably determined the least damaging and practicable alternative for the proposed development. And in light of the Corps’ extensive consideration of the project, the District Court deferred to the Corps’ determination that the project would not lead to significant deterioration of waters of the United States, as ENRD had argued.

Attorneys from ENRD’s Environmental Defense Section, Natural Resources Section, and Wildlife and Marine Resources Section handled the case.

Defense News: Naval Surface and Mine Warfighting Development Center (SMWDC) Celebrates 10 Year Anniversary

Source: United States Navy

SAN DIEGO — Naval Surface and Mine Warfighting Development Center (SMWDC) celebrated its 10 year anniversary at Naval Base San Diego, June 9th. Rear Adm. T. J. Zerr, commander, SMWDC, with guest speaker Rear Adm. Joseph Cahill, commander, Naval Surface Force Atlantic, delivered remarks to former SMWDC Commanders, plankowners, teammates, and friends and family, all of whom played an instrumental role in the founding of SMWDC and its legacy.

U.S. Attorneys for Southwestern Border Districts Charge More than 1150 Illegal Aliens with Immigration-Related Crimes During the Second Week in June as part of Operation Take Back America

Source: United States Department of Justice

Since the inauguration of President Trump, the Department of Justice is playing a critical role in Operation Take back America, a nationwide initiative to repel the invasion of illegal immigration, achieve total elimination of cartels and transnational criminal organizations (TCOs), and protect our communities from perpetrators of violent crime. Operation Take Back America streamlines efforts and resources from the Department’s Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Forces (OCDETFs) and Project Safe Neighborhoods (PSN).

Last week, the U.S. Attorneys for Arizona, Southern California, New Mexico, Southern Texas, and Western Texas charged more than 1150 defendants with Criminal violations of U.S. immigration laws.

The Southern District of Texas filed a total of 202 cases in immigration and border security-related matters. The filed cases include seven involving human smuggling. A total of 129 people are charged with illegally entering the country, while another 63 face charges of felony reentry after prior removal. Most of those individuals have prior felonies such as narcotics, violent crime, immigration crimes and more. Other relevant cases charged this week relate to other immigration crimes. One such person charged this week is Luis Humberto Gonzalez-Sanchez who was arrested for allegedly harboring 16 illegal aliens in his home in Mercedes. The criminal complaint alleges he harbored over 100 aliens in the last six months for whom he was paid $150 each. If convicted, he faces up to 10 years in prison.

The Western District of Texas filed 410 new immigration and immigration-related criminal cases. Among the new cases, Mexican national Albert Sanchez-Jaimes was charged with one count of illegal re-entry in Austin. Sanchez-Jaimes was encountered at the Burnet County Jail, where he was booked for alleged charges of boating while intoxicated and marijuana possession. Sanchez-Jaimes has lengthy immigration and criminal records that include four prior removals, a deadly conduct conviction in 2020, multiple convictions for assault on a family member, and two prior convictions for illegal re-entry. In Waco, the Immigration and Customs Enforcement Fugitive Operations Team arrested Mexican national Daniel Edgar Perez-Cortez on June 5 as the result of an investigation stemming from a Waco Crime Stoppers referral. Perez-Cortez has a prior conviction for illegal re-entry in 2024, as well as convictions for Driving While Intoxicated and possession of prohibited weapons, and a conviction for deadly conduct discharging a firearm. He’s now federally charged with illegal re-entry and, if convicted, faces up to 20 years in prison.

The District of Arizona brought immigration-related criminal charges against 199 individuals. Specifically, the United States filed 74 cases in which aliens illegally re-entered the United States, and the United States also charged 104 aliens for illegally entering the United States. In its ongoing effort to deter unlawful immigration, the United States filed 18 cases against 20 individuals responsible for smuggling illegal aliens into and within the District of Arizona. Protecting law enforcement officers is a key part of border vigilance, and federal prosecutors also charged one individual for assaulting a Border Patrol Agent.

The Southern District of California filed 131 border-related cases this week, including charges of assault on a federal officer, bringing in aliens for financial gain, reentering the U.S. after deportation, and importation of controlled substances. A sample of border-related arrests this week: On May 31, 2025, Brenda Esmeralda Sanchez and Marlen Yamille Salmoran, United States citizens, were arrested and charged with False Personation of Immigration Matters and Aggravated Identity Theft. According to a complaint, Sanchez and her adult daughter, Salmoran, attempted to cross the border at the San Ysidro Port of Entry with an unaccompanied undocumented child from Mexico by presenting Customs and Border Protection officers with a genuine U.S. birth certificate belonging to Sanchez’s son. Sanchez has two prior arrests for alien smuggling. On May 31, Ricardo Cuevas Diaz and Luis Armando Bojorquez Cazarez, Mexican citizens with border-crossing cards, were arrested and charged with Importation of a Controlled Substance. According to a complaint, when the two men attempted to cross the border at the Otay Mesa Port of Entry, Customs and Border Protection Officers found 128 packages containing 133 pounds of methamphetamine concealed in the air filter, firewall, roof, quarter panels and rear bed of the vehicle.

The District of New Mexico filed 211 criminal charges related to immigration and border security-related matters. the following criminal charges: 67 individuals were charged this week with Illegal Reentry After Deportation (8 U.S.C. 1326), 5 individuals were charged this week with Alien Smuggling (8 U.S.C. 1324). 50 individuals were charged this week with Illegal Entry (8 U.S.C. 1325), and 88 individuals were charged this week with Illegal Entry (8 U.S.C. 1325), violation of a military security regulation (50 U.S.C. 797) and Entering Military, Naval, or Coast Guard Property (18 U.S.C. 1382), arising from the newly established National Defense Area in New Mexico.

We are grateful for the hard work of our border prosecutors in bringing these cases and helping to make our border safe again.

Head of Justice Department’s Criminal Division Matthew R. Galeotti Delivers Remarks at American Conference Institute Conference

Source: United States Department of Justice Criminal Division

Thank you, Lisa and Paige, for having me here today. And thank you to the American Conference Institute for hosting this conference.

Under my leadership, the Criminal Division has been tirelessly working to execute on all of the Department’s priorities, holding criminals to account and seeking justice for victims.

Today, I’m here to talk about the Criminal Division’s renewed efforts to combat white-collar crime in the new Administration.

Let me first say a few words about FCPA enforcement before I discuss in detail the Criminal Division’s policies, approach, and initiatives in the white-collar space.

The Deputy Attorney General sent me a memorandum, which he publicly released, detailing the new FCPA Enforcement Guidelines called for by the President’s Executive Order. These Guidelines provide evaluation criteria and a non-exhaustive list of factors to balance when deciding whether to pursue an FCPA case.

As detailed in the DAG’s memo, the factors include — but are not limited to — whether the alleged misconduct deprived specific and identifiable U.S. entities of fair access to compete; involves key infrastructure or assets; bears strong indicia of corrupt intent tied to particular individuals and serious misconduct; or is associated with the criminal operations of a Cartel or Transnational Criminal Organization. No one factor is necessary or dispositive.

The through-line is that these Guidelines require the vindication of U.S. interests. People have speculated about the meaning of that phrase, but the DAG’s memo makes it clear. It is not about the nationality of the subject or where the company is headquartered. In plain terms, conduct that genuinely impacts the United States or the American people is subject to potential prosecution by U.S. law enforcement. Conduct that does not implicate U.S. interests should be left to our foreign counterparts or appropriate regulators. And in those cases, the Criminal Division won’t hesitate to work with our foreign counterparts or domestic regulators to provide assistance and ensure that those countries and regulators can vindicate their interests and pursue their mandates.

The memo also directs other common-sense principles, such as focusing on specific misconduct of individuals, rather than collective knowledge theories. All of these propositions are not controversial; in fact, we’ve heard them many times from counsel advocating on behalf of their clients. 

Under the DAG’s leadership, the Department has reviewed FCPA matters, closing certain cases and proceeding with others by applying the criteria set forth in the Guidelines. With these Guidelines now in place, and consistent with the Executive Order, the Criminal Division will enforce the FCPA — firmly but fairly — by bringing enforcement actions against conduct that directly undermines U.S. national interests without losing sight of the burdens on American companies that operate globally.

Now, let me shift from the FCPA to the extremely broad swath of white-collar and corporate misconduct not governed by that particular statute.

As many of you know, four weeks ago, I released the Criminal Division’s enforcement plan for white-collar crime and discussed how we will ensure justice and fairness in those cases. To the extent anyone may have misread these remarks, let me be clear: Under my leadership, the Criminal Division has not and will not close meritorious investigations or dismiss meritorious cases. Indeed, consistent with the principles set forth in my memorandum, we will vigorously pursue these investigations and open new ones. We will move them expeditiously. And we will resolve them, fairly and justly.

Let me make one other broad, related point. Be conscientious about what, when, and how you appeal the decisions of Trial Attorneys and AUSAs. White-collar and corporate defendants are fortunate to have sophisticated counsel. We do not begrudge defense counsel for zealously advocating for their clients. And we hold our prosecutors to the highest standards. These are central tenets of our system.

But seeking premature relief, mischaracterizing prosecutorial conduct, or otherwise failing to be an honest broker actively undermines our system. It also will be counter-productive to your appeals, coloring arguments that may carry more weight, especially when made judiciously at the appropriate time. Clients deserve your wise counsel about how to handle the most significant and sensitive matters, and in the overwhelming majority of cases, that’s what they get. We should all strive to keep it that way.

In the Criminal Division, we are focused on the work. So, let’s talk about that.

Fighting white-collar and corporate crime is a critical component of the Criminal Division’s priorities. From procurement to health care fraud, and money laundering to sanctions evasion, white-collar and corporate crimes steal from taxpayers, inhibit American prosperity, and impact national security. These crimes rob U.S. citizens and investors of their hard-earned savings, disturb markets, hurt the economy, and victimize vulnerable Americans.

Protecting the American people requires an aggressive and robust strategy to investigate and prosecute white-collar and corporate crime. Almost a month ago, you heard me say that you have a role to play in this fight. Indeed, business and compliance leaders, and the counsel who advise them, have a critical role to play. You can do the right thing, report potential crimes, root out misconduct, cooperate with the Department, and help the company remediate. And when you do, significant benefits are available to your clients.

But there is an important corollary to that — and I want to make sure you hear it clearly and take it to your stakeholders and clients. For those who do not come forward despite all the benefits available: we will move aggressively — yet fairly — to prosecute white-collar offenders whose crimes undermine U.S. interests. We will hold accountable those who victimize the most vulnerable among us and defraud the government. We will root out those who abuse the American economy and exploit law-abiding businesses. We will swiftly bring charges against individuals and companies, and all the benefits of our policies will not be available to these offenders.

So let me take a few minutes to speak at a more granular level about what our policies mean in practice. The memo and policies I issued last month demonstrate our commitment to this approach. We clarified the Corporate Enforcement and Voluntary Self-Disclosure Policy and expanded the Corporate Whistleblower Awards Pilot Program because these policies work. They incentivize companies and individuals to report crime to let us go after bad actors. 

Indeed, these policies and incentives work best when we are clear and transparent with the public, including American businesses and the defense bar. That is why I issued the white-collar memo last month. The memorandum clearly articulated key areas of enforcement for the Criminal Division and directed our prosecutors to move quickly to bring charges. As an aside, and this should go without saying, priority connotes precedence, not exclusivity.

Let me dig in on three key areas of change.

First, declinations. The benefits to companies that voluntarily self-report, cooperate, and remediate have never been clearer and more certain: those companies will receive a declination, not just a “presumption.”

While we have maintained our discretion to deviate where there are aggravating circumstances, this is not a game of “gotcha.”  We cannot envision every fact pattern imaginable, and we must retain some flexibility where the aggravating factors are such that a declination simply is not appropriate. But I can tell you that I am closely reviewing all corporate resolutions, and I am standing behind this policy. Indeed, the revised CEP narrowed what constitutes an “aggravating factor,” giving even more transparency and certainty for companies deciding whether or not to come forward. Issuing declinations for voluntary self-reports is sound policy — both to hold the most culpable individuals accountable and as a preventative measure to deter misconduct from happening in the first place — and I will closely scrutinize any VSD that is not recommended for a CEP declination. The circumstances would have to be truly aggravating and sufficient to outweigh the fact that the company voluntarily came forward.

Next, monitors. We are nearing the end of our review of all Criminal Division corporate monitors. And, as the revised monitor policy lays out, we have learned some important lessons. Under my leadership, the Criminal Division has proceeded with some monitorships but terminated others where circumstances permitted companies to achieve compliance with our agreements on their own, including by self-reporting, compliance certifications, and other requirements.

Monitors are meant to be a temporary bridge and accountability measure to move a company quickly and efficiently to full compliance. We believe the measures we’ve instituted in place of monitorships — including putting additional burden on the Criminal Division — more quickly transition companies to full compliance. These self-directed measures limit the wasted effort and financial resources that are expended when companies are more focused on “teaching to the test,” so to speak, rather than make lasting improvements.

And finally, on efficiency. The Criminal Division’s experts tackle the most complex criminal cases. These take significant effort and resources, but they don’t need to take unreasonable time. Lengthy and sprawling investigations do not serve the Department, our prosecutors, the American public, or those under investigation. Under my leadership, the Criminal Division will do its part to charge or decline quickly.

Since issuing our new policies, I have met with the leaders in all my Sections and made it clear: we must move more quickly to get criminals off the streets and bring clarity to those under investigation. Moving cases quickly will ensure that we use our resources efficiently in service of all of the Department’s priorities.

But you play a role in efficiency, too. Producing documents swiftly in response to requests, promptly identifying key evidence, quickly making witnesses available, and effectively navigating complex global legal regimes are just part of what we expect cooperating companies to do. To state the obvious: when the delay is due to the conduct of a subject or target, arguments regarding a supposed lack of efficiency will not resonate.

Finally, we also expect you to work closely with our teams, to follow the process, to narrow disagreements, and to raise up issues after exhausting discussions. I rely on my prosecutors to educate me on the facts of their cases and the issues you raise. When you reach out to me or other Department leadership, you, your client, and I can all move more efficiently when those issues have been appropriately narrowed.

Where are we now?  We’re less than thirty days since I issued the white-collar enforcement plan. In even just this short period, I can tell you we are happy with the results.

Since the memo was issued, we have seen new voluntary self-disclosures — including for potential FCPA violations. And as you know, when one company reports misconduct, it typically leads to the discovery of similar misconduct at other companies, so you benefit from being first in the door.

We have seen continued robust tips from whistleblowers, including in each of our newly added categories. These reports and tips cover many of the areas of focus in the white-collar memo. Just days after I announced the expansion, we received tips related to drug trafficking and corruption, procurement fraud, healthcare fraud, and more. This is just the beginning, so stay tuned.

With these policies in place, now is the time to get to work. We’ve made changes to effectuate my mandate to charge cases in a variety of areas. The Criminal Division is full of prosecutors, who, working with our partners in the U.S. Attorneys’ Offices and law enforcement agencies, must be focused on just that — bringing cases. Of note to this audience, in the coming weeks I anticipate significant announcements in key priority areas, including corporate resolutions across the white-collar landscape.

What do I want you to take away from today?  This is the time for companies to self-report. It is the time to do the work, come in early, cooperate, and remediate. The Criminal Division’s policies give clear benefits to those who do. And for those who don’t, we will move swiftly and aggressively to bring cases against individuals and companies. We will use all our tools and seek strong sentences. We will hold culpable companies and individuals to account for misconduct. 

Thank you.

Chinese National Pleads Guilty to Acting at the Direction of North Korea to Export Firearms, Ammo, and Technology to North Korea

Source: United States Department of Justice Criminal Division

An illegal alien from China pleaded guilty today to federal criminal charges for illegally exporting firearms, ammunition and other military items to North Korea by concealing them inside shipping containers that departed from the Port of Long Beach, California, and for committing this crime at the direction of North Korean government officials, who wired him approximately $2 million for his efforts.

Shenghua Wen, 42, of Ontario, California, pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to violate the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) and one count of acting as an illegal agent of a foreign government. Wen has been in federal custody since his arrest in December 2024.

According to his plea agreement, Wen is a citizen of the People’s Republic of China who entered the United States in 2012 on a student visa and remained in the U.S. illegally after his student visa expired in December 2013.

Prior to entering the United States, Wen met with officials from North Korea’s government at a North Korean embassy in China. These government officials directed Wen to procure goods on behalf of North Korea.

In 2022, two North Korean government officials contacted Wen through an online messaging platform and instructed him to buy and smuggle firearms and other goods – including sensitive technology – from the United States to North Korea via China.

In 2023, at the direction of North Korean government officials, Wen shipped at least three containers of firearms out of the Port of Long Beach to China en route to their ultimate destination in North Korea. Wen took steps to conceal that he was illegally shipping firearms to North Korea by, among other things, filing false export information regarding the contents of the containers.

In May 2023, Wen purchased a firearms business in Houston, paid for with money sent through intermediaries by one of Wen’s North Korean contacts. Wen purchased many of the firearms he sent to North Korea in Texas and drove the firearms from Texas to California, where he arranged for them to be shipped.

In December 2023, one of Wen’s weapons shipments – which falsely reported to U.S. officials that it contained a refrigerator – left the Port of Long Beach and arrived in Hong Kong in January 2024. This weapons shipment was later transported from Hong Kong to Nampo, North Korea.

In September 2024, Wen – once again acting at the direction of North Korean officials – bought approximately 60,000 rounds of 9mm ammunition that he intended to ship to North Korea.

In furtherance of the conspiracy and at the direction of North Korean officials, Wen also obtained sensitive technology that he intended to send to North Korea. This technology included a chemical threat identification device and a handheld broadband receiver that detects known, unknown, illegal, disruptive or interfering transmissions.

Wen also acquired or offered to acquire a civilian airplane engine and a thermal imaging system that could be mounted on a drone, helicopter, or other aircraft, and could be used for reconnaissance and target identification.

During the scheme, North Korean officials wired approximately $2 million to Wen to procure firearms and other goods for their government.

Wen admitted that at all relevant times he knew that it was illegal to ship firearms, ammunition, and sensitive technology to North Korea. He also admitted to never having the required licenses to export ammunition, firearms, and the above-described devices to North Korea. He further admitted to acting at the direction of North Korean government officials and that he had not provided notification to the Attorney General of the United States that he was acting in the United States at the direction and control of North Korea as required by law.

Wen faces a maximum penalty of 20 years in prison on the count of violating the IEEPA and a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison on the count of acting as an illegal agent of a foreign government. Sentencing is scheduled for Aug. 18. A federal district court judge will determine any sentence after considering the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines and other statutory factors.

Assistant Attorney General for National Security John Eisenberg, U.S. Attorney Bilal A. Essayli for the Central District of California, and Assistant Director Roman Rozhavsky of the FBI Counterintelligence Division made the announcement.

The FBI, Homeland Security Investigations, Defense Criminal Investigative Service (DCIS), the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), and the Department of Commerce Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) are investigating the case.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Sarah E. Gerdes for the Central District of California and Trial Attorney Ahmed Almudallal of the National Security Division’s Counterintelligence and Export Control Section are prosecuting the case.

Founder of Cryptocurrency Payment Company Charged with Evading Sanctions and Export Controls, Defrauding Financial Institutions, and Violating the Bank Secrecy Act

Source: United States Department of Justice

Defendant Allegedly Laundered More Than $500M Through the U.S. Financial System, Including by Facilitating Transactions with Sanctioned Russian Banks

A 22-count indictment was unsealed today charging Iurii Gugnin, also known as Iurii Mashukov and George Goognin, 38, a resident of New York and citizen of Russia, with various offenses related to using his cryptocurrency company Evita to funnel more than $500 million of overseas payments through U.S. banks and cryptocurrency exchanges while hiding the source and purpose of the transactions.

According to court documents, Gugnin is charged with wire and bank fraud, conspiracy to defraud the United States, violation of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), operating an unlicensed money transmitting business, failing to implement an effective anti-money laundering compliance program, failing to file suspicious activity reports, money laundering, and related conspiracy charges. Gugnin was arrested and arraigned today in New York.

“The defendant is charged with turning a cryptocurrency company into a covert pipeline for dirty money, moving over half a billion dollars through the U.S. financial system to aid sanctioned Russian banks and help Russian end-users acquire sensitive U.S. technology,” said John A. Eisenberg, Assistant Attorney General for National Security. “The Department of Justice will not hesitate to bring to justice those who imperil our national security by enabling our foreign adversaries to sidestep sanctions and export controls.”

“As alleged, Gugnin came to the United States and set up a money laundering operation under the guise of a cryptocurrency start-up, which he then used to evade sanctions and export controls and defraud U.S. financial institutions,” said U.S. Attorney Joseph Nocella Jr. for the Eastern District of New York. “Today’s arrest demonstrates that this Office will vigorously prosecute those who abuse the U.S. financial system in furtherance of criminal activity, particularly when it undermines national security.”

“Gugnin’s cryptocurrency company allegedly served as a front to launder hundreds of millions of dollars for sanctioned Russian entities and to obtain export-controlled technology for the Russian government,” said Assistant Director Roman Rozhavsky of the FBI’s Counterintelligence Division. “Let this serve notice that using cryptocurrency to hide illegal conduct will not prevent the FBI and our partners from holding you accountable.”

As alleged in the indictment, Gugnin is the founder, President, Treasurer, and Compliance Officer of U.S-based Evita Investments Inc. (Evita Investments) and Evita Pay Inc. (Evita Pay) (collectively, Evita). Gugnin used both companies to enable foreign customers — many of whom held funds at sanctioned Russian banks — to provide him with cryptocurrency, which he then laundered through cryptocurrency wallets and U.S. bank accounts. Gugnin ultimately converted the funds into U.S. dollars or other fiat currencies and then made payments through bank accounts in Manhattan on behalf of his foreign customers. In the process, the sources of the funds were obscured, disguising the audit trail and hiding the true counterparties to the transactions. Between June 2023 and January 2025, Gugnin used Evita to facilitate the movement of approximately $530 million through the U.S. financial system, most of which he received in the form of a cryptocurrency stablecoin known as Tether, or “USDT.”

To effectuate the scheme, Gugnin defrauded various banks and cryptocurrency exchanges through which he converted funds and made wire transfers. Gugnin repeatedly lied to these banks and exchanges, telling them that Evita did not conduct business with entities in Russia and did not deal with sanctioned entities. In fact, many of Gugnin’s customers were located in Russia, and he facilitated payments in funds held at sanctioned Russian banks, including PJSC Sberbank, PJSC Sovcombank, PJSC VTB Bank, and JSC Tinkoff Bank. Gugnin maintained personal accounts at two sanctioned Russian banks, JSC Alfa-Bank and PJSC Sberbank, with which he transacted while residing in the United States. Gugnin also facilitated payments by foreign customers to procure sensitive electronics, including an export-controlled server designed by a U.S. technology company, and laundered funds from a Moscow-based supplier to purchase parts for Rosatom, Russia’s state-owned nuclear technology company. To conceal his activities, Gugnin regularly obfuscated invoices by digitally “whiting out” the names and addresses of his Russian customers.

Gugnin also failed to implement Evita’s own purported anti-money laundering program and failed to file suspicious activity reports, as required under the Bank Secrecy Act. Although Gugnin represented to banks and cryptocurrency exchanges that Evita followed rigorous anti-money laundering and know-your-customer requirements, in practice he flouted those requirements, as well as the requirement to file reports of suspicious activities with the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN). Gugnin ultimately registered Evita Pay as a money transmitter with FinCEN and the state of Florida but did so by making materially false statements to the state of Florida about Evita Pay’s business. Gugnin used that fraudulently obtained state license to induce a cryptocurrency exchange to process transactions on his behalf.

In the course of his scheme, Gugnin conducted web searches that confirmed his awareness that he was breaking the law, including searches for “how to know if there is an investigation against you”; “evita investments inc. criminal records search”; “Iurii Gugnin criminal records”; “money laundering penalties US”; and “penalties for sanctions violations EU luxury goods.” He also visited website pages titled, respectively “am I being investigated?”; “signs you may be under criminal investigation”; and “what are the best ways to find out if you’re being investigated and what can someone do when they think they might be under investigation.”

If convicted, Gugnin faces a maximum penalty of 30 years in prison for each count of bank fraud; a maximum penalty of 20 years in prison for each of the wire fraud, IEEPA, money laundering, and related conspiracy counts; a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison for failure to implement an effective anti-money laundering program and failure to file suspicious activity reports; and a maximum penalty of five years in prison for conspiracy to defraud the United States and operating an unlicensed money transmitting business.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Matthew Skurnik for the Eastern District of New York and Trial Attorney Dallas Kaplan of the National Security Division’s Counterintelligence and Export Control Section are prosecuting the case. Assistant U.S. Attorney Laura Mantell for the Eastern District of New York’s Asset Recovery Section is handling forfeiture matters.

Today’s actions were coordinated through the Justice and Commerce Departments’ Disruptive Technology Strike Force. The Disruptive Technology Strike Force is an interagency law enforcement strike force co-led by the Departments of Justice and Commerce designed to target illicit actors, protect supply chains, and prevent critical technology from being acquired by authoritarian regimes and hostile nation-states.

An indictment is merely an allegation. All defendants are presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.