Case 3:12-cr-00171-EBB Document 113 Filed 12/23/14 Page 1 of 18

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

:
:
:
:
:

v.
DAVID J. CRESPO

Crim. No. 3:12CR171 (EBB)

December 23, 2014

GOVERNMENTS POST-HEARING SUPPLEMENTARY SENTENCING

MEMORANDUM
The Court has scheduled a final sentencing hearing in this matter for January 6, 2015.
This Memorandum is submitted in connection with the evidence presented during the evidentiary
hearing held on December 17 and 18, 2014, and supplements the Governments Sentencing
Memorandum filed on October 16, 2014. (Doc. No. 99) (Governments Memorandum).
At the evidentiary hearing, the Government called as its witnesses: FBI Special Agent Kurt
Suizdak; Jan Ehernwerth; Robert Marullo; Mark Lewis; and FBI Special Agent Vicki Woods.
The defendant called Nancy Hurlbert, M.D., and testified on his own behalf.
Based on the evidence at the hearing and the full record of this case, for the following
reasons, the Government respectfully submits that the defendants objections to the PSR should
be overruled, and that the Court should determine the defendants sentencing guidelines as
follows: the defendants base offense level is seven (7). U.S.S.G. 2B1.1(a)(1). 14 levels are
added since the loss is more than $400,000 but less than $1,000,000. U.S.S.G.
2B1.1(b)(1)(H). 1 Two (2) levels are added since the offense involved ten or more victims.
1

The Governments evidence at the hearing as to fraud was limited to purported Picasso and
Chagall artwork. Even with respect to that art, although the Government believes that the
Court could find the loss under the guidelines in this case exceeded $1,000,000, it asks the Court
to apply the more conservative loss calculation presently identified in the Presentence Report.
1

Case 3:12-cr-00171-EBB Document 113 Filed 12/23/14 Page 2 of 18

U.S.S.G. 2B1.1(b)(2)(A). Two (2) more levels are added since the defendant obstructed or
impeded the administration of justice. U.S.S.G. 3C1.1. Given the defendants denial of his
guilt and other perjurious testimony at the sentencing hearing (as well as his statements during
the September 16, 2014 chambers conference that he was in a coma and abused by the agents
when he was interviewed on November 12, 2010), the defendant should not be accorded credit
for acceptance of responsibility pursuant to U.S.S.G. 3E1.1. Accordingly, the defendants total
offense level is 25. At Criminal History Category I, the defendants guideline range is 57-71
months, with a fine range of $10,500 to $100,000, and a term of supervised release of two to
three years. The defendant also must be assessed the $100 special assessment and be ordered to
pay restitution to the victims of the offense which, as agreed to in the plea agreement, is not
limited to the Court of conviction. 2
This memorandum summarizes the evidence supporting each of the guideline findings, and
then briefly discusses the other factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. 3553(a). In that connection, the
evidence at the hearing showed Crespo to, in fact, be a serial fraudster who sold numerous fake
artworks to unsuspecting customers for hundreds of thousands of dollars, and forged numerous
documents in order to provide authentication or provenances of the fakes to his victims. The
evidence also established that Crespo is totally without remorse or contrition. Accordingly, the
Government respectfully submits that a sentence of imprisonment at least within that advisory
guideline range.

The Government would ask that the Court order restitution in this case and further order that the
Government provide a proposed restitution order within ninety days of the sentencing. See 18
U.S.C. 3554(a)(5). Doing so will provide the Government an opportunity to ascertain from the
victims whether they want to seek restitution, or to retain or seek return from the Government of
the items purchased by them which are in the Governments possession.
2

Case 3:12-cr-00171-EBB Document 113 Filed 12/23/14 Page 3 of 18

I.

GUIDELINES
A. Objections
By letter dated September 9, 2014, signed by the defendant and his counsel, the

defendant objects to virtually the entirety of the offense conduct in the Presentence Report.
Specifically, the defendant objected to paragraphs 9, 10, 12, 14, 15, 17, 18, 20, 21, 22, 24, 25, 27,
28, 29, 30, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 40, 3 41, and 43 of the PSR. The Government submits that
the evidence adduced at the hearing, in particular, SA Suizdaks testimony which confirmed that
the offense conduct detailed at pages 4-13 of the Governments Memorandum is substantially
accurate, supports this Court overruling the objections.
However, in making its findings as to the guideline calculations, the Court need not rely
on the entirety of the offense conduct but, rather, should make specific findings relating to
evidence adduced during the hearing outlined below which support the guideline calculations
noted above.
B. Loss
1. Legal Standard
As discussed in the Governments Memorandum, loss to the victims or gain to the
defendant is defined under the Guidelines as part of the conduct to which the defendant pleaded
guilty and the defendants relevant conduct, that is, losses and gains as a result of acts and
omissions that were part of the same course or conduct or common scheme or plan as the offense
of conviction. See U.S.S.G. 1B1.3(a)(2). Offenses constitute part of a common scheme or plan
where they are substantially connected to each other by at least one common factor, such as
common victims, common accomplices, common purpose, or similar modus operandi. See
U.S.S.G. 1B1.3, Application Note 9. Moreover, [o]ffenses that do not qualify as a common
3

Paragraph 40 relates to the count of conviction.

3

Case 3:12-cr-00171-EBB Document 113 Filed 12/23/14 Page 4 of 18

scheme or plan may nonetheless qualify as part of the same course of conduct if they are
sufficiently connected or related to each other as to warrant the conclusion that they are part of a
single episode, spree, or ongoing series of offenses. U.S.S.G. 1B1.3, Application Note 9(B).
The commentary to Section 2B1.1 defines loss as the greater of actual loss or intended
loss. U.S.S.G. 2B1.1, Application Note 3. Actual loss is the reasonably foreseeable
pecuniary harm that resulted from the offense, while intended loss is the pecuniary harm
that was intended to result from the offense. U.S.S.G. 2B1.1, Application Note 3(A).
Moreover, loss need not be determined with precision; instead, the court need only make a
reasonable estimate of the loss. U.S.S.G. 2B1.1, Note 3(C).
As acknowledged in the plea agreement, the standard of proof at the sentencing hearing
as to disputed factors (such as loss), is proof by a preponderance of the evidence. See McMillan
v. Pennsylvania, 477 U.S. 79, 91-93 (1986); United States v. Rios, 2014 WL 4290339 at *6 (2d
Cir. Sep. 2, 2014); United States v. Babel, 662 F.3d 610, 646 (2d Cir. 2011).
2. Proposed Findings
The evidence at the hearing from the Government and the defendant presented two
starkly different stories. The Governments witnesses and evidence established that the Picasso
and Chagall artwork sold to the victims were not genuine as Crespo had represented them to be
and that total loss exceeded at least $400,000. The defendant, on the other hand, testified that
the artwork was genuine and that the victims received exactly what they paid for, if not more.
The Government respectfully submits that the Governments witnesses -- SAs Suizdak
and Woods, Dr. Ehernwerth, and Messrs. Marullo and Lewis -- were credible and their

Case 3:12-cr-00171-EBB Document 113 Filed 12/23/14 Page 5 of 18

testimony was supported by the other evidence in the case. The Government further submits that
the defendants testimony should not be credited. 4
a. Crespos Statement
First, both SAs Suizdak and Woods testified about the statement Crespo provided to them
on the date of the search on November 12, 2010. Based on their testimony, the Court should
conclude that the statement was knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently given, and not as a
result of the defendant being in some sort of diabetic trance or shock, as the defendant testified. 5
The Court should also conclude that the defendant was not in custody, not threatened, and was
free to leave during the course of the interview. He was offered food, drink and the opportunity
to take medication, and took the agents up on their offer of water. The agents testimony should
be credited and the defendants testimony to the contrary should be rejected.
Crespos statement, a summary of which is reproduced in Exhibit 1 to the Governments
Memorandum, in relevant part, began with Crespo first claiming not to have purchased artwork
from Collectart4less, although he eventually agreed that he purchased between 16 to 20 Picassos
from that entity for about $2,000 each. Crespo admitted that the Picasso drawings he purchased
from Collectart4less were fakes. Indeed, Crespo signed a statement written on the back of one of
the purported Picasso drawings which stated: This came from Collect Art4Less. I received it in
or around 2006 from Hector Pinera. This piece is not real. I knew it when I purchased it on
4

The Government does not have the transcripts from the hearing and the recitation of facts is
based on a review of the exhibits, notes, and counsels recollection.
5
Dr. Hurlbert, the defendants treating internist, was called by Crespo. She testified as to the
possible effects that lack of medication and sustenance might have on a diabetic. However, her
testimony was that those effects were generally applicable to Type I diabetes whereas Crespo has
Type II diabetes and is hyperglycemic and, in any event, would likely be noticeable to persons
interacting with the defendant. Furthermore, she did not treat Crespo (nor did anyone else for
that matter), on the November 12, 2010 after he left the Brandon Gallery. Indeed, Crespo did not
see Dr. Hurlbert from November 5, 2010 (seven days before the search) until February 2012,
some 15 months after the interview.
5

Case 3:12-cr-00171-EBB Document 113 Filed 12/23/14 Page 6 of 18

EBay. I bought 15 or 16 from Hector Pinera. Pinera provided the provenance. I paid about
$24,000 for the whole collection. I am willing to testify about the fact that this art is fake and
Pinera sold it on EBay. As testified to by both Special Agents Suizdak and Woods, Crespo
signed the statement willingly, and was not forced to sign the statement and was not threatened
with arrest were he not do so.
Crespo proceeded to identify pieces of artwork on display for sale as fake by directing the
agent to put a red sticker on the artwork. Crespo agreed that all of the purported Picasso artwork
which supposedly originated from the Arruza collection 6 was fake.
Crespo also admitted that the purported Olga Picasso drawing which was on sale for
$725,000 was a fake. Crespo stated that he had purchased the piece on the internet for about
$12,000.
Crespo admitted that he owed Jan Ehernwerth $100,000 which Dr. Ehernwerth had
invested for the purchase of the Picassos from the Arruza collection. Crespo stated that he had
never advised Dr. Ehernwerth that the paintings were fake and acknowledged feeling guilty that
he had not done so.
As to the Chagall prints, Crespo admitted that the lithographs were not genuine, noting
that it was possible to tell a fake Chagall lithograph he obtained from Gallery 25 since the owner
of that Gallery, Philip Coffaro, used a handwriting authenticator named Herman Darvick, to
authenticate the art. Crespo listened to a portion of the undercover recording and acknowledged
that his story to the undercover agent that the Chagall prints originated from estate of Richard
Riskin was fabricated.

The term Aruzza [sic] collection was actually coined by the defendant. See Hg Exh. D.
6

Case 3:12-cr-00171-EBB Document 113 Filed 12/23/14 Page 7 of 18

b. Additional Evidence
In addition to Crespos statement, ample other evidence supports a finding that neither
the Picassos nor the Chagalls are authentic, and that the victims were defrauded out of the money
they paid for the pieces to own or to invest in.
i.

Picassos Purchased From Hector Pinera

As to the purported Picassos Crespo obtained from Hector Pinera, 7 first, for example, is
that fact that by December 2005 (Exhibit 4 to the Governments Memorandum), Crespo reported
in an email to Pinera that [t]he people at Sothebys (who I have dealt with before and sold two
Picasso originals years ago) said they were NOT originals but were printed on paper.
(Emphasis in original). Crespo went on to write that if I sold any one of these works and
someone brought them to Sothebys and the[y] said the same thing (that they were
reproductions) I could lose my business. Although Crespo sought assurances from Pinera to the
contrary, the latter replied, [a]bout your drawings. You know I can not certify them. Thus, by
December 2005, Crespo knew from Sothebys that the Picasso pieces obtained from Pinera were
not authentic.
Further, seized during the search of the Brandon Gallery were the letters of provenance
which Pinera had actually provided to Crespo. They were in the form of letters from
Collectart4less addressed: DEAR EBAYER: THANKS FOR PURCHASING. What the
victims received from Crespo, however, were letters of provenance created by the defendant.
While those letters of provenances contained information which had been on the Collectart4less

As noted above, Crespo told the agents that he paid about $2,000 per purported Picasso piece he
acquired from Pinera. Crespo testified that he paid more than that, the checks to Collectart4less,
Just Collect Art, and Hector Pinera, which were endorsed and deposited by Pinera, totaled
$49,000. See Defendant Ex. D.
7

Case 3:12-cr-00171-EBB Document 113 Filed 12/23/14 Page 8 of 18

provenances, they were on the letterhead of one Hector Pinera as the Symposium Director of
the Fine Arts Miami,: and were purportedly signed by one Dr. Pinera.
As testified by SA Suizdak, Mr. Pinera denied producing and signing those provenances.
Moreover, a draft letter from Pinera to the victims Tom and Maureen Scott, as well as a draft
Symposium Director Fine Arts Miami provenance, were found on Crespos computer at the
Brandon Gallery. See Exhibit 13 to Governments Memorandum. In addition, during the search
of the Brandon Gallery, the agents seized several documents appearing to contain practice
signatures of Mr. Pinera. See Ex. 12 to Governments Memorandum; Hg Ex. 14). While the
defendant denied that it was he who had been practicing Pineras signature, he admitted that
Pinera had never been to the gallery (indeed, he conceded that he had never met him), and had no
credible explanation for who else or why someone else might have done so.
Mark Lewis testified at the hearing about his interactions with Crespo and his purchase of
what Crespo represented to him to be an authentic original drawing by Picasso. Hg Ex. 23. Mr.
Lewis testified that he went to the Brandon Gallery where he met with the defendant. The
defendant represented to Mr. Lewis that Exhibit 23 was an authentic Picasso drawing. On that
representation, Mr. Lewis purchased Exhibit 23 by trading him an Erte painting valued as
$30,000 and charging an additional $35,000 on his credit card. See also Hg Exs. 24-26. Crespo
subsequently provided Mr. Lewis, inter alia, with a fraudulent letter of Provenance from Fine
Arts Miami with the forged signature of Dr. Pinera, instead of a Collectart4less provenance
Crespo had obtained from Mr. Pinera. Had he known that Crespo had acquired Exhibit 23 on the
internet from Collectart4less, Lewis testified he would not have purchased the piece. Lewis
testified that, after he was advised by the FBI that he drawing he had acquired was likely a
forgery, he was able to confirm that fact by opening up the back of the drawing.

Case 3:12-cr-00171-EBB Document 113 Filed 12/23/14 Page 9 of 18

ii.

Jan Ehernwerth

Jan Ehernwerth testified that, in addition to his former investment with Crespo in Miro
paintings, 8 he had paid Crespo $78,000 in checks (Hg Ex. 33), to aid Crespo in acquiring the
purchase of the Arruza collection.. The nature of the investment was documented in receipts
provided to him by Crespo (Hg. Exhs. 31 and 32). Dr. Ehernwerth believed that he was
investing in genuine Picasso drawings, and would not have invested if he knew they were fakes
or had been acquired over the internet by Crespo from Collectart4less. In a recorded telephone
call with Dr. Ehrernwerth (Hg. Ex. 35T), Crespo confirmed the authenticity of the Picasso
drawings and in a subsequent email to Dr. Ehernwerth (Exhibit 7 to Governments
Memorandum), Crespo documented the 18 pieces in the collection which he valued at well over
$1,000,000. And even though Crespo sold pieces from the collection to other victims such as
Thomas and Maureen Scott and Mr. Lewis, Dr. Ehernwerth never received any proceeds from
those sales.
iii.

Olga

Mr. Lewis testified that Crespo attempted to sell him and his wife the Olga painting for
$725,000. While the painting was on sale for that price, Crespo was willing to negotiate the
price down. Mr. Lewis testified that, fortunately, he was unable to afford the painting.
With respect to Olga, Mr. Crespo testified that the painting was valued at about $75,000
in Madison, Connecticut but could have sold for $725,000 in New York. However, he also
confirmed an email from Christies to the Brandon Gallery on July 2, 2009 (Hg. Ex. 49A), which
advised that the authenticity of that paintings was dubious. The request for authenticity was

Dr. Ehernwerth had invested $54,000 for the Miro pieces and testified that he had received
approximately $1,500 back on that investment.
9

Case 3:12-cr-00171-EBB Document 113 Filed 12/23/14 Page 10 of 18

purportedly sent to the Brandon Gallery email account purportedly by Robert J. Faulker,
Crespos brother-n-law and Madison school system employee, who did not work at the gallery.
iv.

Chagalls

As to the Chagall lithographs, the recording of the undercover purchase of a Chagall

lithograph purchased by the undercover FBI agent (Hg. Ex. 21; transcript attached as Exibit19 to
Governments Memorandum), makes clear that Crespo advised the agent that the lithograph she
purchased was an original limited edition Chagall lithograph produced through the use of a stone
plate. Robert Marullo testified to similar representations Crespo made to him in connection with
his purchase of a number of Chagall lithographs.
In fact, the lithographs purchased by the undercover agent and the other victims were
photographical reproductions. A blowup of the piece purchased by the undercover agent made
clear this fact (Hg. Ex. 5), and Mr. Marullo testified that he was able to see the dots on a Chagall
lithograph he purchased from Crespo when given a magnifying glass by the agent.
In addition, invoices from Gallery 25 -- copies of which are Exhibit 17 to the
Governments Memorandum -- specifically identified the prints as signed Chagall book pages.
As reflect in those invoices, the cost for these pages cost somewhere in the neighborhood of
$350 to $400 depending upon their size.
As testified to by Special Agent Suizdak and as reflected in the FBI laboratory report
attached as Exhibit 20 to the Governments Sentencing Memorandum, the laboratory determined
that prints which Crespo had represented to have been produced through use of stone or metal
plates were, in fact, images which had been printed using a photo lithographic print process that
employs varying patterns of cyan, magenta, yellow and black (CMYK) dots to form an image.
In other words, the images were essentially produced on a dot matrix printer. And far from

10

Case 3:12-cr-00171-EBB Document 113 Filed 12/23/14 Page 11 of 18

limited edition original lithographs from the estate of Martin (or, as he claimed, the non-existent
Richard) Riskin collection produced on stone plates under the supervision of Marc Chagall, what
Crespo sold to his victims were book pages consistent with pages removed from a book,
Daphnis and Chloe by Longus (George Braziller 1977). See Hg. Ex. 22. As to their
provenance, Crespo had acquired them from Phillip Coffaro, the owner of Gallery 25, who
Crespo testified knew had himself been convicted of art fraud.
Finally, although certain of the Chagall lithographs were accompanied by a certification
of the authenticity by purported autograph authenticator Herman Darvick (Hg. Ex. 47), during
the course of search of the Brandon Gallery, an invitation to an event there was found with
practice signatures of Marc Chagall. See Hg. Ex. 15. While Crespo denied that it was he who
had practiced those signatures, he could only speculate who else at the gallery might have done
so or why.
c. Loss
Given the sales and attempted sales of fraudulent Picasso artwork and Chagall artwork, a
reasonable (and quite conservative) estimate of the actual loss or intended loss to the victims of
the offense is between $400,000 and $1,000,000. 9
C. Number of Victims
The Government respectfully submits that there were ten or more victims of the
defendants scheme or artifice to defraud. Those persons (who Crespo admitted selling or
9

In his Memorandum, Crespo challenges the fraud guidelines as flawed. See Defendants
Memorandum in Aid of Sentencing (Doc. No. 100) at 3-5. The Government respectfully submits
that the guideline in this case provides an appropriate measure of the defendants conduct. In
United States v. Corsey, 723 F.3d 366 (2d Cir. 2013) (per curiam), the court did not adopt Judge
Underhills concurring opinion to which Crespo cites, which opined that the sentence there was
shockingly high. Corsey remanded the matter for resentencing where the record was not clear
as to how the court reached its 20-year sentence and to ensure that the court treated the
guidelines as advisory.
11

Case 3:12-cr-00171-EBB Document 113 Filed 12/23/14 Page 12 of 18

investing in such artwork) included the individuals listed in the Presentence Report and Second
Addendum to whom Crespo admitted selling Picassos and Chagalls.
D. Obstruction of Justice
U.S.S.G. 3C1.1 provides for a two-level enhancement if the defendant willfully
obstructed or impeded, or attempted to obstruct or impeded, the administration of justice with
respect to the, inter alia, sentencing of the offense of conviction, and the obstructive conduct
related to the offense of conviction and any relevant conduct. Application Note 4(F) provides
that an example of conduct constituting obstruction of justice would be providing materially
false information to a judge. In this connection, perjury requires an enhancement. See United
States v. Dunningan, 507 U.S. 87, 98 (1993). The Court must find that the defendant
intentionally made specific false assertion of material fact. See 507 U.S. at 85. The finding of
obstruction of justice must be established by a preponderance of the evidence. See United States
v. Greer, 223 U.S. 41, 62 (2d Cir. 2000).
The examples of perjury by the defendant are far too numerous to exhaustively list here.
Perhaps the most glaring example was the defendants testimony that his statement to the agents
on November 12, 2010 was obtained through coercion and threats, and/or that it was not
willfully and knowingly made since it was given while the defendant was in a coma or trance.
As discussed above, the agents who interviewed the defendant testified that there were no threats
or coercion. As they also testified, the defendant intelligently, coherently, and appropriately
responded to their questions. He did not appear to them to be suffering any medical or mental
condition much less a coma arising out of diabetic shock and he did not seek treatment for
his medical condition again for at least for over a year after the interview. In the Governments
view, it is clear why the defendant made the claims at the hearing that he did: The statement he

12

Case 3:12-cr-00171-EBB Document 113 Filed 12/23/14 Page 13 of 18

provided to the agents on November 12, 2010 was completely contrary to his claim at the
hearing that he did not know the artwork was fake.
Another example of perjury at the hearing related to Crespos denial that he created the
false Fine Arts Miami provenances, and the practice Pinera and Chagall signatures. With respect
provenances, Hector Pinera supplied provenances from his company Collectart4 less. As
testified by SA Suizdak, an email from Crespo to Pinera requested provenances with the
Collectart4less name removed.
The reasonable indeed, the only inference can be from the evidence is that Crespo
created the Fine Arts Miami provenances to deceive buyers as to the origin of the artwork. And
the practice signatures for Pinera and discovery of a Fine Arts provenance on a Brandon Gallery
computer, confirm that it was Crespo who created the fraudulent provenances. Crespos denial
of these facts was material and an effort to mislead the Court (as with his customers) as to the
legitimacy of the Fine Arts Miami provenances. His testimony that some other person or persons
in the gallery had the motive and opportunity to create the provenances, defies credulity.
Similarly, the notion that some children happened to be in the gallery and happened to be
practice Chagalls signature, as Crespo testified at the hearing, is ridiculous.
E. Acceptance of Responsibility
U.S.S.G. 3E1.1 provides for credit for acceptance of responsibility [i]f the defendant
clearly demonstrates acceptance of responsibility for his offense. Application Note 1(A)
provides that credit is warranted where the defendant truthfully admits the conduct comprising
the offense of conviction, and truthfully admitting or not falsely denying any additional relevant
conduct for which the defendant is accountable under 1B1.3 (Relevant Conduct).

13

Case 3:12-cr-00171-EBB Document 113 Filed 12/23/14 Page 14 of 18

Credit can be denied where the defendant engages in any acts, unknown at the time of the
plea indicating that the defendant has not terminated or withdrawn from criminal conduct or
associations (Sentencing Guideline ' 3E1.1); (2) could provide a basis for an adjustment for
obstructing or impeding the administration of justice (Sentencing Guideline ' 3C1.1); or (3)
constitute a violation of any condition of release.
Here, the defendant should be denied credit for acceptance of responsibility for at least
three reasons. First, despite having pled guilty under oath, the defendant denied his guilt when
he was asked at the hearing under oath if he was guilty of the offense charged. Crespo testified
at the hearing that, while the Government may have had enough evidence to prove him guilty, he
was, in fact, not guilty. However, Crespos plea was not one of nolo contendre but, rather, a plea
of guilty and based on an admission that he had knowingly and willfully made a false statement
in connection with a scheme or artifice to defraud..
Second, as noted above, the defendant obstructed justice by his testimony at the hearing
which was, in a number of material respects, false, and designed to mislead this Court. Finally,
the defendant admitted and the Court found that the defendant had violated the terms and
conditions of his release by retaliating against a Government witness by placing disparaging
comments on the witness Wikipedia page, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section
1513(e), and by indirectly contacting the witness in violation of the condition of release that the
defendant not have contact, either directly or indirectly, with any witness.
Accordingly, the defendant should not be accorded credit for acceptance of
responsibility.

14

Case 3:12-cr-00171-EBB Document 113 Filed 12/23/14 Page 15 of 18

II.

18 U.S.C. 3553(a) FACTORS

As the Court is well aware, the advisory sentencing guidelines are only one factor to be

considered in determining an appropriate sentence. In the end, it is the difficult task of a

sentencing court to impose a reasonable sentence which is sufficient, but greater than necessary,
to satisfy the goals of sentencing.
In this regard the Government acknowledges that the defendant is a 60 year old male with
no prior criminal convictions. 10
However, the offense here is serious. Crespo committed multiple acts of fraud on a
number of victims over a substantial period of time. The scheme was carried out by Mr. Crespo
with deception, calculation and cunning.
Moreover, this is not a victimless crime. In addition to the substantial financial losses
incurred by the victims who paid for what they thought to be genuine art, there were other effects
as well. For instance, as Mr. Lewis testified, he lost not only money and his prized Erte painting
but also his dignity having been duped by the defendant.
Further, there is the need of the sentence to deter others from committing this kind of
fraud which has been described as saturating certain sectors of the art marker. See Patricia
Cohen, A Picasso Online for Just $450? Yes, It is a Steal, N.Y. Times, Sep. 3, 2012
(http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/03/arts/design/growth-in-online-art-market-brings-morefraud.html). A substantial sentence here may help convince another person who is tempted to
knowingly sell fake art that it is simply not worth the risk.

10

Crespo also argues at pages 6-7 of his Sentencing Memorandum that his incarceration will
have collateral consequences on his family. While, perhaps, true, incarceration inevitably
impacts on family life and family members. United States v. Londono, 76 F.3d 33, 36 (2d Cir.
1996)
15

Case 3:12-cr-00171-EBB Document 113 Filed 12/23/14 Page 16 of 18

Of great importance in this case is the need of the sentence to provide just punishment for
the defendant and his crime, and to deter him from engaging in future criminal conduct. To
date, Crespo has not shown one shred of contrition or remorse. Indeed, his testimony was that it
is HE who is victim, and that his customers (who he claims are not victims) should be happy
with their purchases from him.
His anger at the hearing directed at the agents and witnesses was palpable. He blames
them not himself for the predicament he now finds himself in. Such a view, in the
Governments view, merits an appropriate response from this Court. And it belies Crespos
claim in his Memorandum at pages 5-6, that he is unlikely to recidivate.
As noted above, Crespo repeatedly committed perjury at the hearing. Further, in August
2014, Crespo lashed out against a Government witness (Ive been through four years of hell
because of that person (Chambers Conference Tr. at 9)) by editing the witness Wikipedia page
to disparage the witness and damage the witness reputation in the art world. The Government
respectfully submits that this is not the conduct of someone who has learned his lesson and will
become a law-abiding citizen.
III.

CONCLUSION
Accordingly, the Government respectfully submits that a sentence within the advisory

16

Case 3:12-cr-00171-EBB Document 113 Filed 12/23/14 Page 17 of 18

guideline range of 57to 71 months would be reasonable, and sufficient but not greater than
necessary to satisfy the goals of sentencing. 11
Respectfully submitted,
DEIRDRE M. DALY
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
/s/
ANTHONY E. KAPLAN
ASSISTANT UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
Federal Bar No. ct08083
157 Church Street, Floor 25
New Haven, Connecticut 06510
(203) 821-3700

11

The terms and conditions of the defendants supervised release should include the condition
that he not engage in the sale of art while on supervised release. A search condition to ensure
that the defendant is not engaging in such conduct should also be included. The Court may also
want to consider mental health treatment and counseling at the discretion of the Probation Office.
17

Case 3:12-cr-00171-EBB Document 113 Filed 12/23/14 Page 18 of 18

CERTIFICATION
I hereby certify that on December 23, 2014, the foregoing Governments Post-Hearing
Supplementary Sentencing Memorandum was filed electronically. Notice of this filing will be
sent by e-mail to all parties by operation of the Courts electronic filing system or by mail to
anyone unable to accept electronic filing. Parties may access this filing through the Courts
system.

/s/
ANTHONY E. KAPLAN
ASSISTANT UNITED STATES ATTORNEY

18