UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 09x. 213 (DC) BERNARD L. MADOFF, Defendant, GOVERNMENT'S SENTENCING MEMORANDUM LEV L. DASSIN ‘Acting United States Attorney forthe Souther District of New York MARC LITT LISA A. BARONT Assistant United States Attomeys = Of Counsel -‘TABLE OF CONTENTS Relevant Facts Discussion 1. Applicable Law TL Analysis A. Application OF The Section 3553 Factors 1. The Nature and Circumstances ofthe Offense 2, History and Characteristics of the Defendant 3. "The Need To Afford Adequate Deterrence 4. "The Need To Avoid Unwasranted Sentence Disparities 5. The Need To Provide Restitution 6 ‘The Contentions ofthe Defense Lack Merit B. Application of Sentencing Guidelines 1 Loss 2, More Than 250 Victims 3, Substantial Part Of The Fraudulent Scheme ‘Commited From Outside The United States 4, Endangering Solvency And Financial Security 5. Registered Broker-Dealer/investment Adviser 6. Leadership Role Conclusion B “4 16 18UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, : 09 Cr. 213 (DC) BERNARD L. MADOFF, Defendant. GOVERNMENT'S SENTENCING MEMORANDUM “The Government respectfully submits this memorandum in connection with the sentencing of defendant Berard L. Madoff, scheduled for June 29,2008, at 10200 a.m Defendant Madoft’s crimes were of extraordinary dimensions. For example, the fraud Joss known to date, whichis greater than §13 billion, is more than tiny: times the baseline level of loss that would carry a sentence of life under the US. Sentencing Guidenes, (CUSS.G"), Heengaged in wholesale fraud for more than a generation; his so-called investment advisory” business was a fraud; hs frauds affected thousands of investors in the United States and worldwide; and he repeatedly lied underoath and filed false documents to conceal his frand. The scope, duration and nature of Madof's crimes render him exceptionally deserving of the maximum punishment allowed by law, and the Guidelines advise a sentence of 150 years (consisting of consecutive terms ofthe maximum term of imprisonment for each count ‘of conviction, as discussed below). Further, comparisons of this ease with the many large and egregious fraud cases in this District, only underscore the enormity of MadofT’s offenses. ‘Accordingly, we respctflly submit that a reasonable Sentence inthis case would be the Guidelines sentence of 150 years or, alternatively aterm of years that both would assure that