Roytman-gov-sent-ltr_1(2)
A note on the U.S. criminal case against Leonid ROYTMAN.
Names mentioned:
Leonid ROYTMAN
Monya ELSON
Arkady SHTEINBERG
Vyacheslav and Aleksandr KONSTANTINOVSKY (“Brothers”) (in the document, Aleksandr is mistakenly named Igor).
The text of the document has been extracted automatically and may contain errors.
### Text extracted from: https://tbcarchives.org/wp-content/uploads/Roytman-gov-sent-ltr_12.pdf
U.S. Department of Justice
United States Attorney
Eastern District o f New York
156 Pierrepont Street
Brooklyn, New York 11201
May 2, 2007
CP:PEN
roytmansentence.wpd
The Honorable Brian M. Cogan
United States District Judge
Eastern District of New York
225 Cadman Plaza East
Brooklyn, NY 12201
Re: United States v. Leonid Roytman
Criminal Docket No. 06 CR 594 (BMC)
Dear Judge Cogan:
The defendant Leonid Roytman is currently scheduled for
a sentencing proceeding on April 27, 2007. This letter is
written in response to the defendant’s letter to the Court, dated
April 29, 2006, urging the Court to sentence him to a term of
incarceration of no greater than that of his co—conspirator Monya
Elson, who pleaded guilty to a separate information United States
E_: Monya Elson, 06 CR 793 (BMC), which is anticipated to be a
seven-year term of incarceration.
A . Background
During the 1990’s, the defendant was a member of
Russian organized crime who was affiliated with a violent gang
headed by a man called “Kadik” (identified as Arkady Shteinberg)
and other close associates. As part of that gang, Roytman was
involved in multiple murder conspiracies and participated in
murder himself. Recently Roytman was living in the Ukraine and
providing protection to two former members of Kadik’s gang, Slava
and Igor Konstantinovsky, the two victims in this case who are
often referred to as the Brothers Karamasov (hereinafter referred
to as the “Brothers”). The Brothers currently run a business
empire in the Ukraine. However, according to the defendant, his
relationship with the Brothers recently soured and the Brothers
were seeking to have him killed.
During the 1990s, Monya Elson was the leader of
“Monya’s Bridge,” a violent gang which competed with Kadik’s
group, while each was operating in the New York area. Elson and
2
his Brigade were responsible for many violent crimes, including
murder. Power struggles developed between Kadik and his
associates and Elson over competing illegal business interests
and, as a result, Kadik, et al., plotted to kill Elson. The
defendant was involved in several failed attempts to hunt Elson
down and kill him. In 1993, Elson and his wife were ambushed at
their home by gunmen but survived despite multiple gunshot
wounds.
In late 2005, the defendant met Elson by chance in an
airport and confirmed to Elson that the Brothers, himself and
others were involved in plots to kill Elson in the early 1990s.
Elson and Roytman therein hatched a plan to kill the Brothers.
Roytman sought to kill the Brothers for him own safety and Elson
sought to kill them for revenge. According to the defendant, he
and Elson both hoped to benefit from the Brothers’ murder by
inheriting their vast business empire in the Ukraine. Elson made
arrangements for Roytman to meet an individual in the Ukraine who
Elson represented could be paid to carry out the murders.
Roytman traveled to the Ukraine to meet this individual, and he
paid that individual a monetary advance to commit the crime.
Roytman arranged for this financing. In the end, Elson’s contact
pocketed the money given to him/her as an advance and then
informed Ukrainian law enforcement about the scheme. Those law
enforcement officers contacted FBI agents in New York who
continued the investigation with the Ukrainian authorities and
eventually made arrests in this case.
The defendant pleaded guilty to a violation of 18
U.S.C. § 1985 (murder for hire) which has a statutory maximum
sentence of ten-years incarceration. The defendant’s sentencing
guideline range is a level 36, which carries a sentence of
incarceration of 188 to 235 months. Monya Elson pleaded guilty
to a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371, conspiracy to commit Murder
for Hire, which has a statutory maximum sentence of five-years
incarceration. Elson’s sentencing guideline range is also a
level 36, which, with his criminal history of III, carries a
sentence of incarceration of 235 to 293 months. Elson recently
received a two-year sentence of incarceration, which was imposed
by the Judge Koeltle in the Southern District of New York for a
violation of supervised released based on the arrest in this
case. Elson has agreed that this sentence should run consecutive
to that imposed by the Court for the instant offense.
B . Argument
With regard to the defendant’s assertion that he should
receive a sentence equal to that of Monya Elson, the government
finds this matter a bit difficult to respond to at this time
because Elson has not been sentenced. However, the government
does wholeheartedly agree that the defendant and Elson are
equally culpable for the offense. The actions of both defendants
significantly contributed to the plot to murder the Brothers.
Elson’s claimed motive of revenge for his wife’s injuries,
thirteen years after the crime occurred, does not provided basis
to reduce his culpability, particularly in light of the fact that
it was Elson’s own criminal conduct which caused a rival criminal
gang to attempt to murder him. Nonetheless, in allowing each
defendant to plead guilty to a crime which provides a statutory
maximum sentence that is, at minimum, nearly half of what a
guideline sentence would require, the government has already
provided each defendant with lenient treatment. Accordingly, a
three-year disparity in sentence between a contemplated ten-year
statutory maximum sentence for the defendant and Elson’s
potential seven-year sentence is meaningless. Therefore, on this
basis alone, the government asserts that a downward departure of
the defendant’s statutory maximum sentence is not warranted.
With regard to the defendant’s motion pursuant to
U.S.S.G. 5K2.0, the government would agree that the defendant
provided extraordinary acceptance of responsibility. The
defendant engaged in multiple proffer sessions with the
government. Much of the defendant’s criminal background detailed
above was not previously known to the government was only learned
through information provided by the defendant. During these
proffer sessions, the defendant provided the government with
information regarding numerous murders and murder conspiracies
conducted by members of Russian organized crime. However, many
of the participants of these crimes are now dead as a result of
continued feuding between rival gangs. Many other targets are
now living outside the United States. The information provided
by the ^ defendant about these targets was provided to FBI
authorities in the Ukraine and disseminated as they deemed
appropriate. However, it is not known how the Ukrainian
authorities may use this information. Of those few remaining
targets, the information provided by the defendant remains
largely uncorroborated. Although the government does not doubt
the veracity of the defendant’s information, given the
defendant’s criminal history, we do not believe that viable
charges could be brought against other individuals without
developing such corroboration. Thus, because the information
4
provided by the defendant could not be used anytime in the near
future, we did not find a basis to provide the defendant with a
cooperation agreement. Although the government has already
provided the defendant with a substantial reduction in sentence
by allowing him to plead to the murder for hire charge with a
ten-year maximum sentence, the government would not oppose a
downward departure from the statutory maximum ten—year sentence
but would oppose a sentence lower than seven years.
Respectfully Submitted,
ROSLYNN R. MAUSKOPF
United States Attorney
By: ____________
Patricia E. Notopoulos
Assistant U.S. Attorney
cc: Clerk of Court (BMC)
Jonathan Marks, Esq.