Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

U.S. v. BOND

United States District Court, S.D. New York

September 22, 2005.


The opinion of the court was delivered by: LEONARD SAND, Senior District Judge



  On February 11, 2003 this Court sentenced Alan Bond to a term of imprisonment of 151 months covering the case before this Court (01 Cr. 1140 (LBS)) at which Bond was convicted after a jury trial and another case before Judge Griesa (99 Cr. 1235(TPG/LBS)) in which Bond pled guilty following his conviction in the case before me.

  The sentence reflected our best judgment as to what was appropriate in light of the magnitude of the crime, the harm inflicted on the employee benefit plans victimized by Bond's criminal actions, and Bond's blatant perjury at his trial. There is no need to detail now those painful circumstances.

  Approximately two months after his sentencing Bond began providing information to the United States Attorney's Maryland Office regarding the investigation of Nathan Chapman, a Baltimore investment banker and pension fund manager. Mr. Bond had been led by Chapman to invest improperly funds of public and private employee benefit funds in a Chapman-related company. "The overall loss to the DEN-MET [the employee benefit trust] was $5.652 million, of which $4.724 was allocated to the State Pension System and the balance to Banker's Trust." Letter of Marc L. Mukasey, Assistant U.S. Attorney, S.D.N.Y., September 16, 2005, p. 9. Bond testified at the Chapman trial on July 7-8, 2004 and was able to furnish important evidence, which was corroborated by documents, with respect to the DEN-MET transactions. Chapman was convicted and was sentenced to 90 months incarceration.

  The Maryland United States Attorney's Office has written a letter describing Bond's role and testimony at the Chapman trial on the basis of which the U.S. Attorney for the S.D.N.Y. how now moved pursuant to Fed.R.Crim.P. 35(b)(2)(B) for reduction of Bond's Sentence.

  The Motion

  There is no question that this Court has jurisdiction to reduce Bond's sentence pursuant to Rule 35(b)(2)(B) which provides that:

Upon the government's motion made more than one year after sentencing, the court may reduce a sentence if the defendant's substantial assistance involved:
. . .
(B) information provided by the defendant to the government within one year of sentencing, but which did not become useful to the government until more than one year after sentencing.
  Bond began proffering within one year of sentencing and the information did not become useful to the government until his testimony more than one year later.

  We are not impressed by the amount of time that Bond has devoted to his cooperation because this entailed little hardship to him, but we do take into account the fact that as a consequence of his role in the Chapman case he was "housed in the `supermax' (a maximum security state prison) in Maryland for approximately four months. While in this facility he was locked in a jail cell for approximately twenty hours per day. Further, even while at FCI Ft. Dix he was housed in a `low' facility despite a security classification which qualified him to be in a prison camp." Memorandum in Support of Motion, p. 19.

  The Chapman case was a high profile case in Maryland and Bond's cooperation was the subject of considerable media attention which raised valid concerns for the welfare of his family. Supporting the motion is extensive documentation of his behavior as a model prisoner rendering considerable services as a teacher and helper to his fellow inmates. Bond received nine certificates of appreciation at Ft. Dix, where he is now incarcerated, for such services as building a computer lab, teaching classes, developing adult education programs and being the "house electrician."

  The motion is further supported by the many family members, friends and neighbors who renew the views they ardently expressed at the time of his initial sentencing. Mrs. Bond writes poignantly of the adverse impact which Bond's incarceration has had on their children.

  Giving weight to all of the showing that has been made of Bond's cooperation, rehabilitation, and good deeds, we conclude that a reduction of sentence is warranted. We cannot, however, lose sight of the extensive nature of Bond's criminal behavior and the enormous harm which it caused.

  On balance we reduce the combined sentence of 151 months by 60 months i.e., to 91 months. Bond has already served approximately 39 months. He will therefore have to serve an additional 52 months, a not insignificant period of time but one which we believe will appropriately reflect all the circumstances brought to the Court's attention.

  Amended judgments will be entered reflecting this reduction of sentence.



© 1992-2005 VersusLaw Inc.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.