Sunday, November 22, 2009

Former California Software Exec Indicted In $1 Million Embezzlement Case

Ethan Farid Jinian, 49, of San Francisco, California was indicted last week on charges he embezzled more than $1 million from Bricsnet FM America Inc. where he had served as chief executive officer. According to prosecutors, Jinian allegedly misappropriated the funds between November 2006 and September 2008 by directing other Bricsnet employees to issue him checks for cash he claimed was owed to him. Jinian was indicted on 14 counts of wire fraud and faces up to 20 years for each count if convicted, plus fines and restitution.

Read the story here.

Read the DOJ's announcement here.

Read the indictment here.

Update (10/28/11): Jinian, now 51, has been sentenced to 64 months in prison and ordered to pay $1,587,860 in restitution to Bricsnet FM America Inc., where he had served as CEO. 

110 comments:

Anonymous said...

Ethan Fard Jinian changed his name from Farid Khoujinian. In 2000, he was forced to leave as CEO of Luna because he lied about his credentials -- saying he graduated from Harvard when he didn't even have a college degree. See the story here:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2000/07/14/MN30328.DTL

and here:

http://www.sfgate.info/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2000/07/18/BU2776.DTL

In the first article - note the quote from a venture capitalist who states that if someone boldly lies on their resume, how would you know they wouldn't take your money. Well that was certainly true, wasn't it?

Anyone else with information and experiences with this man should post them here. There is a lot more this guy was into aside form he counts on this case. The only way of knowing the true extent of his deception and the people he effected would be to see those people come forth and post them here.

Anonymous said...

I'll start with a common tactic of Farid Jinian's. He owned a company named Voyage 7 which was basically out of business and he kept it as shell. If you have ever given Farid money to invest in a private equity fund, you may have been asked to write the check to the fund, and the fund's name would be Voyage 7. You may have been told something like there was a hot prospect that was going to go public, and the fund was closed to new investments, so you had to invest through Farid. Usually the amounts were in the neighborhood of $60-80k

Well, the name "Voyage 7" sounds like an investment company, so you may have thought it made sense.

If you never received any returns on that investment it would make sense because those funds would go into and out of Voyage 7 for Farid's personal use.

I know of 3 people who gave Farid money based on this scam, and I know of 2 more people who were approached by him with this scheme who (luckily) did not put money in.

I think this is the tip of the iceberg and there are probably many more individuals with imilar stories -- if you have any stories like this about Farid Jinian (aka Ethan Jinian, Ethan Farid Jinian, Farid Khoujinian), you should post them so we can see the extent of his wrong doings and get a feel for how many people he has effected.

Calendar: said...

MORE LINKS ON FARID'S EMBEZZLEMENT INDICTMENT:

http://sanfrancisco.fbi.gov/dojpressrel/pressrel09/sf111909.htm
http://www.pr-inside.com/bricsnet-declares-unequivocal-support-for-r1597599.htm

Anonymous said...

THE FOLLOWING IS AN EXCERPT FROM THE GOVT'S APPEAL FOR WITHHOLDING RELEASE OF FARID JINIAN, IT LISTS FACTS FOUND IN THEIR INVESTIGATION (ABBREVIATED TO FIT INTHIS POST):

• the facts of the case are serious, in that the defendant stole more than $1,000,000 and the government is unaware if the defendant has placed some of that money beyond the government’s detection;
• the defendant also borrowed $200,000 from Bricsnet that he failed to repay … and the government is unaware if the defendant has placed some of that money beyond the government’s detection;
• the defendant has no known assets;
...
• the defendant is 49 years old and does not have a criminal history, but he has a history of fraud: i.e. the Bricsnet fraud alleged herein; he was fired by a previous employer (Luna) for lying about possessing degrees from prestigious universities; and he “borrowed” $300,000 from another previous employer (Dimensia) that he failed to repay;
...
• the defendant “purchased” a company in early 2009, Simple Earth ...;
• Simple Earth is supposedly about to receive $340,000 in investor money in “about a week” according to the defendant. …, the defendant has already exhibited that he has no qualms stealing from business partners and apparently can still disburse amounts less than $10,000 by himself.

Stephen Seto said...

I am an attorney representing a client that was defraud by Mr. Jinian in the "Voyage 7" scam. My client has initiated a fraud action against Mr. Jinian in California Superior Court. If you have been been similarly defrauded or know of someone that has been, my client and I would very much appreciate discussing the matter with you further. I can be reached at scs@sbllp.com or 925-944-9700. Thank you.

Stephen Seto, Esq.

Stephen said...

I am an attorney representing a client that has been defrauded by Mr. Jinian in the "Voyage 7" scam. My client has initiated a fraud action in California Superior Court. If you have been similarly defrauded or know someone who has, we would appreciate discussing the matter with you further. I can be reached at scs@sbllp.com or 925 944-9700. Thank you.

Stephen Seto, Esq.

Anonymous said...

He might not have assests listed in his name, but it is very likely that they are under his wife's name....now the question is how can they verify that?

Stephen said...

Thanks, Anonymous. I have additional information regarding Jinian's assets. Please contact me at scs@sbllp.com or 925-944-9700to discuss.

Anonymous said...

Any updates on this case?

Stephen said...

Yes. Please call me at 925-944-9700. Thanks. Steve

Anonymous said...

Farid was a shady character. Working with him at Bricsnet he had a arrogant and bitter air about him. He made a lot of promises to the employees in terms of raises and options once the new funding arrived. Lies. I'm glad to hear he will be brought to justice. I cannot believe how evil he actually was. We were in the presence of a true con man and didn't know it

Anonymous said...

Any news on a trial date?

Anonymous said...

Looks like 3/18.....

Anonymous said...

I'd be willing to pay a portion of the costs for someone to blog the trial real-time.

Steve said...

Not a bad idea. Any ideas on finding such a person?

Steve

Anonymous said...

Any news on the trial?

Anonymous said...

Thursday 04/29/2010

02:30 PM (r)CR-09-1103-JSW
United States v. Ethan Farid Jinian
Further Status / Trial Setting
AUSA: Jeffrey Finigan
DEF: Petra Reinecke / Douglas Schwartz

Anonymous said...

Any news? There's no updates on the case...suddenly there's too much silence around it.

Anonymous said...

Any news on this?

Anonymous said...

It's been awhile...any news on this?

Anonymous said...

My father loaned Farid a few hundred dollars back in 1983 while Farid and I were both students at Lehigh University. He stated that money was coming in from Iran "next week" to pay back the loan. It was always next week. He never paid back the loan. Guess we got off easy compared to others that gave him lots more money. What he did at Luna and Bricsnet is no surprise.

Anonymous said...

Thursday 07/29/2010
11:00 AM CR09-1103 JSW Ethan Jinian, Bail Review Hearing

Anonymous said...

Ethan Farid Jinian is free on


$500.000 bail

Anonymous said...

Monday 10/18/2010
02:00 PM (r)CR-09-1103-JSW
United States v. Ethan Farid Jinian
Pretrial Conference
AUSA: Jeffrey Finigan
DEF: Petra Reinecke / Douglas Schwartz

Anonymous said...

Monday 11/01/2010

08:00 AM (r)CR-09-1103-JSW
United States v. Ethan Farid Jinian
Jury Trial
AUSA: Jeffrey Finigan
DEF: Petra Reinecke / Douglas Schwartz

bshirota said...

Does anyone know what happened at the trial?

Anonymous said...

Yes, I was wondering the same thing.

Anonymous said...

http://www.extranetevolution.com/extranet_evolution/2011/01/that-bricsnet-embezzlement-case.html

Anonymous said...

One can only hope that this con man will be put away for a long time for swindling so many people out of so much money for so many years.

Anonymous said...

I heard the court date has been pushed back to April because Jinian got new counsel. Looks like a stall tactic. This must be his 3rd or 4th representation cycle. I recall his 1st attorney was dubious about his character. I think these attorneys start catching on to the fact that they are being conned as well, then they form a distaste for Jinian and drop his case. Probably about the time they draw the line in terms of not getting paid from Jinian, and start seeing though his lies.

Expose said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Expose said...

I would like to talk to some folks off line about farid jinian. I think if we pool our information, some enlightening things may become clear. I lost almost all my life's savings to farid - and let me tell you he is rotten to the core, a master at manipulation, and the most selfish person I've ever met.

I know about several variations of the "Voyage 7" scam farid would pull.

I am especially interested in communicating with the fellow who posted about being a student w/ farid at Lehigh University. I know a bit about farid's story at Lehigh, and 'd be interested in cross checking some of what he told me about Lehigh. I can't believe he was stealing money since way back then. I thought he went wrong somewhere down his professional career path, but looks like he's just born to be worthless scam artist, leaching off the lives of others.

Contact me at faridjinianJustice@gmail.com to talk offline. If you're not comfortable divulging who you are yet, create an anonymous email account like I have. If we are comfortable w/ our communications, I can send you my personal email address or phone number. I have tons of information on this guy.

Anonymous said...

Monday, Apr 4 2011

02:00PM
3:09-cr-01103-JSW - USA v. Ethan Jinian
Pretrial Conference

Anonymous said...

Monday, Apr 25 2011

08:00AM
3:09-cr-01103-JSW-1 - USA v. Ethan Farid Jinian
AUSA: Jeffrey Finigan / DEF: Douglas Schwartz
Jury Trial

Anonymous said...

Guilty! Guilty! Guilty! How could a jury come back with anything but this verdict,

Anonymous said...

Monday, Apr 25 2011

08:00AM
3:09-cr-01103-JSW - USA v. Ethan Jinian
Jury Selection

Anonymous said...

Trial postponed most likely to week of May 16th, due to defense motion.

Anonymous said...

Monday, May 16 2011
08:00AM
3:09-cr-01103-JSW-1 - USA v. Ethan Farid Jinian
(T) AUSA: Denise Barton / DEF: Ethan Balogh
Jury Trial
Tuesday, May 17 2011

08:00AM
3:09-cr-01103-JSW-1 - USA v. Ethan Farid Jinian
(T) AUSA: Denise Barton / DEF: Ethan Balogh
Jury Trial
Wednesday, May 18 2011

08:00AM
3:09-cr-01103-JSW-1 - USA v. Ethan Farid Jinian
(T) AUSA: Denise Barton / DEF: Ethan Balogh
Jury Trial
Thursday, May 19 2011

08:00AM
3:09-cr-01103-JSW-1 - USA v. Ethan Farid Jinian
(T) AUSA: Denise Barton / DEF: Ethan Balogh
Jury Trial

Anonymous said...

FARID JINIAN
aka FARID KHOUJINIAN
aka ETHAN JINIAN
aka ETHAN FARID KHOUJINIAN
aka ETHAN FARID JINIAN

has been found GUILTY on all 14 counts!

Sentencing scheduled for September 1st.

Anonymous said...

Farid Jinian was found GUILTY on all 14 counts!

There is justice !!

Do the crime do the time

He hurt and damage many people's finances,life and careers and now gets what he deserves. Only if some of us who got hurt can show up to the sentencing hearing and let the judge know how bad this Farid really is so they keep him lock up for many years. I will be there and hope some of you show up as well.

Steve Seto said...

Anonymous, if you want people to step up and appear at the sentencing, may I suggest you reveal your identity. I think that people are more likely to rally around someone with whom they can identify.

Anonymous said...

farid found not guilty....

Anonymous said...

judge overturned conviction against ethan jinian viva ethan

Anonymous said...

no, that is not correct. the judge rejected farid's 3 appeals to overturn the conviction. the new sentencing hearing is set for october 27th. they wouldn't set a sentencing hearing if the conviction was overturned.

Anonymous said...

clarification - the judge rejected 2 of the 3 motions which farid's attorney made. the third motion was rejected tentatively. which means the judge is still considering it - that is a motion for a new trial. that one could go either way, but for now it is not going in favor of farid and that's why the sentencing hearing is still set to move forward on 10/27.

Anonymous said...

What is the latest?

Anonymous said...

Thursday, Oct 27 2011

02:00PM
3:09-cr-01103-JSW-1 - USA v. Ethan Farid Jinian
AUSA: Denise Barton / DEF: Ethan Balogh PO: Christina Carrubba
Sentencing

Anonymous said...

HOT OFF THE PRESS...

Farid Jinian Khoujinian Ethan Jinian Whatever....

Sentenced to 5 years and 4 months in federal prison and $1.5MM in restitution and remanded to custody by federal marshals immediately following sentencing in federal court today!

Details to follow.

Justice is served!

Anonymous said...

NICE!

Barbara said...

It is nice to know that justice has finally been served. I truly wish I could have been there to see him taken into custody.

I hope that this brings peace to all of the people caught in his narcissistic path of destruction.

~ The Real Luna

Anonymous said...

OK - I'm going to post some public documents from the Jinian trial here - they are large documents and may be difficult to read - but there is some great info in there.

If you copy and paste the text from the posts into a word doc, it may help with readability.

Anonymous said...

Pre-Sentencing Arguments from the Prosecution

Posted in 3 parts...

Anonymous said...

Sorry - more like 10 parts...

Anonymous said...

PRE-SENTENCING PROSECUTION ARGUMENTS
(Page 1 & 2 of 21)
---
MELINDA HAAG (CABN 132612)
United States Attorney
MIRANDA KANE (CABN 150630)
Chief, Criminal Division
DENISE MARIE BARTON (MABN 634052)
Assistant United States Attorney
450 Golden Gate Avenue
San Francisco, California 94102
Telephone: (415) 436-7232
Facsimile: (415) 436-7234
Email: denise.barton@usdoj.gov
Attorney for Plaintiff
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.
ETHAN FARID JINIAN,
a/k/a Farid Khoujinian,
Defendant.

Criminal No. CR 09-1103 JSW
UNITED STATES’ SENTENCING
MEMORANDUM
Date: October 27, 2011
Time: 2:00 p.m.
Judge: Hon. Jeffrey S. White
U.S. Sentencing Memo
CR 09-1103 JSW
Case3:09-cr-01103-JSW Document326 Filed10/18/11 Page1 of 21
---
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. Introduction.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
II. Summary of Pertinent Evidence. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
A. Facts Underlying the Charges. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
B. Additional Conduct Related to Fraud and the Defendant’s Character. . . . . 6
i. Additional Stolen Money. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
a. Unpaid Loan From Bricsnet to the Defendant. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
b. Bricsnet Money Used to Pay Shinn. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
c. Personal Expenses Charged By the Defendant to Bricsnet Credit
Card. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
ii. Additional Facts Related to the Defendant’s Character. . . . . . . . . . . 8
III. Guidelines Calculation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
A. Loss Calculation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
B. Obstruction of Justice Enhancement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
C. Abuse of Trust Enhancement.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
IV. Objections. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
V. Restitution.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
VI. Sentencing Recommendation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
VII. Remand Upon Sentencing Or Setting a Surrender Date.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
VIII. Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
U.S. Sentencing Memo
CR 09-1103 JSW i
Case3:09-cr-01103-JSW Document326 Filed10/18/11 Page2 of 21

Anonymous said...

PRE-SENTENCING PROSECUTION ARGUMENTS
(Page 3 of 21)
---
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
FEDERAL CASES
United States v. Contreras, 581 F.3d 1163 (9th Cir.2009).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
United States v. Contreras, 593 F.3d 1135 (9th Cir.2009).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
United States v. Degeorge, 380 F.3d 1203 (9th Cir. 2004). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
United States v. Dowie, 411 Fed.Appx. 21, 30 (9 Cir. 2010)(unpublished).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

United States v. Gilchrest, No. 09–10250, --- F.3d ----, 2011 WL 4537789
(9 Cir. October 03, 2011). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

United States v. Handy, 761 F.2d 1279 (9th Cir. 1985). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
United States v. Mercado, 474 F.3d 654 (9th Cir. 2007). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
United States v. Montoya, 908 F.2d 450 (9th Cir. 1990). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
United States v. Reynolds, 956 F.2d 192 (9th Cir. 1992). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
United States v. Thornton, 511 F.3d 1221 (9th Cir. 2008). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
United States v. Watts, 519 U.S. 148 (1997). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
United States v. Grice, 319 F.3d 1174 (9th Cir. 2003).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
FEDERAL STATUTES
18 U.S.C. §§ 3663 et seq.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
18 U.S.C. § 1343.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
18 U.S.C. § 3143(b). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
18 U.S.C. § 3143(b)(1). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
U.S. Sentencing Memo
CR 09-1103 JSW ii
Case3:09-cr-01103-JSW Document326 Filed10/18/11 Page3 of 21

Anonymous said...

PRE-SENTENCING PROSECUTION ARGUMENTS
(Page 4 of 21)
---
I. Introduction
On May 25, 2011, the defendant was found guilty after a jury trial of 13 counts of wire
fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343. In its probation sentencing report (“PSR”), the Probation
1
Department (“Probation”) calculates the defendant’s total offense level to be 27, with a
corresponding prison sentence range of 70 – 87 months. PSR ¶ 56. Probation then recommends
a sentence of 70 months. PSR, Sentencing Recommendation. The United States agrees with
Probation’s guideline calculation but disagrees with the sentencing recommendation. For the
reasons set forth herein, the United States respectfully requests that the Court impose a sentence
of 87 months in prison followed by three years on supervised release with the conditions set forth
in the PSR, including $1,734,858.00 in restitution.
II. Summary of Pertinent Evidence
A. Facts Underlying the Charges
From approximately January 2007 through September 2008, the defendant embezzled
more than $1,000,000 while he was the CEO of a small software company in San Francisco,
Bricsnet FM America, Inc. (“Bricsnet”). During the defendant’s tenure at Bricsnet, the company
was headquartered in San Francisco, but its main investors were based in Europe.
The defendant began working for Bricsnet as a contractor in late 2004 and became an
employee and the CEO pursuant to a written contract in November 2006. His contract called for
an annual salary of $200,000 and the potential for a $10,000 quarterly bonus depending upon
whether the company hit certain quarterly goals specified in the contract. He could have also
earned an additional $120,000 annual bonus if Bricsnet met or exceeded certain yearly goals
specified in the contract. Bricsnet was never profitable and never came close to satisfying any of
the prerequisites to the defendant’s bonuses during the entire time he was under contract. He was
terminated for embezzling in September 2008.
The defendant was found not guilty on one count. It was apparent from a question from
1
the jury that their not guilty verdict was based on a misunderstanding that the defendant could not
be found guilty if a check charged in the indictment was for both stolen and non-stolen funds.
Nevertheless, the fact that the defendant was acquitted on this count does not matter for sentencing
purposes and this check and conduct may, and should, be considered as relevant conduct. United
States v. Mercado, 474 F.3d 654, 657 (9 Cir. 2007), citing United States v. Watts, 519 U.S. 148

(1997).
U.S. Sentencing Memo
CR 09-1103 JSW 2
Case3:09-cr-01103-JSW Document326 Filed10/18/11 Page4 of 21

Anonymous said...

PRE-SENTENCING PROSECUTION ARGUMENTS
(Page 4 of 21)
---
The defendant carried out his embezzlement by instructing Bricsnet’s Finance Manager,
Leon Brown II, to issue wire transfers and checks to the defendant that were never authorized.
See Spreadsheet Titled “Check Request Forms and Checks Issued” (Trial Exhibit 58). The
defendant told Brown that the payments were advances that had been approved by Hector
Rodriguez, who was the Chairman of the Board of Directors (“BOD”) for Bricsnet during
the time period of the defendant’s embezzlement. Neither Rodriguez nor anyone else on
Bricsnet’s BOD approved the advances. Rodriguez and the rest of the BOD were located
in Europe and Rodriguez only came to Bricsnet’s office in San Francisco every 6 weeks
or so. This lack of daily oversight and involvement by the BOD and Rodriguez facilitated
the defendant’s commission of the crime. The defendant was in charge in San Francisco
and Bricsnet had significant operating costs of approximately $500,000 – 700,000 per
month. Thus, the embezzled funds did not stand out and the defendant was able to
conceal his thefts.
Bricsnet hired Leon Brown in 2005 as an accounting temp and then permanently as
the Finance Manager pursuant to a written contract on November 1, 2006. The
defendant told Brown that the aforementioned payments were all authorized by
Rodriguez. Specifically, the defendant told Brown that (1) the checks the defendant was
requesting were money due to him per an agreement he had with Rodriguez and (2) the
checks were advances on the money Rodriguez promised to pay the defendant in the
future. It was also Brown’s understanding that the defendant would repay the advances,
which is why Brown booked them in Bricsnet’s records as Accounts Receivable. Brown
said he checked with Rodriguez when the defendant first requested one of these checks in
approximately January 2007 and again on one other occasion. However, Brown did not
tell Rodriguez what the check was for or that he was writing multiple checks to the
defendant. Brown simply asked Rodriguez about “a” check. According to Brown, on
both occasions Rodriguez said something along the lines of “Anything with money,
Jinian speaks for me” or “when it comes to money, treat it as if it’s coming from me.”
Rodriguez does not recall a specific conversation with Brown regarding a check to the
U.S. Sentencing Memo
CR 09-1103 JSW 3
Case3:09-cr-01103-JSW Document326 Filed10/18/11 Page5 of 21

Anonymous said...

PRE-SENTENCING PROSECUTION ARGUMENTS
(Page 6 of 21)
---
defendant, but says he would not be surprised if he had said something along those lines
because the defendant was running the company and Rodriguez did not need to be
consulted regarding each check. Nevertheless, Rodriguez was never told such a check
was for a “bonus” because he would have never authorized it. Brown asked the
defendant for documentation of the alleged agreement with Rodriguez but the defendant
never gave Brown any – of course, because none existed.
The defendant manipulated Brown in several ways to accomplish his scheme to
defraud Bricsnet. Although most employees described the defendant as very difficult to
work for, the defendant befriended Brown and hired Brown’s sister as the defendant’s
executive assistant at $60,000 per year. The defendant also authorized bonuses for
Brown beyond other employees, most of whom received no bonuses at all. Brown’s
contract called for an annual salary of $100,000 and the potential for an annual bonus of
an additional $10,000. Although Bricsnet was losing millions of dollars, the defendant
authorized Brown to receive his $10,000 bonus for 2007 in December 2007. On February
8, 2008, the defendant increased Brown’s potential annual bonus to $15,000. The
defendant then authorized bonus payments to Brown in 2008 as follows: $3,000 on
2/20/2008; $3,000 on 3/17/2008; $6,000 on 4/30/2008; and $3,000 on 5/31/2008. Brown
was (and is) in the Army Reserves and he left Bricsnet in August 2008 for deployment to
Iraq. Thus, Brown received his entire 2008 bonus no later than June of 2008 for less than
a full year of work, and at a time when other employees were not receiving any bonus.
Shortly before Brown left Bricsnet, Bricsnet employees became suspicious of the
payments to the defendant. As a result of that suspicion, John Hathaway, who had
worked in the Finance Department with Brown, met with Bricsnet’s general counsel,
Mark Casillas, to describe the questionable payments going to the defendant. Hathaway
gave Casillas a copy of the Bricsnet check register evidencing payments to the defendant
from January 2006 through August 2008 and Casillas subsequently reported his findings
to Rodriguez. Hathaway also informed Casillas that the defendant used to go by the name
Farid Khoujinian and that he had made false statements about his credentials to a previous
U.S. Sentencing Memo
CR 09-1103 JSW 4
Case3:09-cr-01103-JSW Document326 Filed10/18/11 Page6 of 21

Anonymous said...

PRE-SENTENCING PROSECUTION ARGUMENTS
(Page 8 of 21)
---
falsely show that the $200,000 salary in his contract was much lower than what the
defendant made with Dimensia before joining Bricsnet and that Hector Rodriguez
promised to make up the difference by allowing him additional money. Thus, in the email
sent to Horio, the defendant claimed the following:
• that he was a “principal” at Dimensia before joining Bricsnet;
3
• that when he first negotiated Dimensia’s consulting agreement with
Bricsnet, their deal was that he alone would get $30,000 per month;
• that Bricsnet changed the initial agreement with Dimensia at the last minute
and said the $30,000 monthly payment had to go to Dimensia as a company;
• that Horio was involved in several discussions with Hector Rodriguez,
Oscar Coen (the Chairman of the BOD until approximately August 2006),
and the defendant regarding converting the defendant to full time status at
Bricsnet;
• that the defendant’s income at Dimensia was $450,000 per year; and
• that the defendant also made $2,500 per day from another Dimensia client.
All of those statements were false. Not only did Mr. Horio establish the falsity of these
statements at trial, but the defendant’s own tax returns did as well. For example, the
defendant’s 2005 and 2006 tax returns do not indicate income anywhere near the level he
tried to get Horio to lie about. After the defendant sent this email to Horio, an attorney
working for the defendant called Horio about the email and Horio declined to sign a
document setting forth the matters in the email. The defendant called Horio shortly after
and was upset with Horio for not agreeing to sign a document. Horio continued to refuse.
B. Additional Conduct Related to Fraud and the Defendant’s Character
i. Additional Stolen Money
a. Unpaid Loan From Bricsnet to the Defendant
Dimensia was the name of Kevin Horio’s company and the defendant was working for
3
Dimensia in late 2004 when Dimensia was hired by Bricsnet to assess Bricsnet’s business.
U.S. Sentencing Memo
CR 09-1103 JSW 6
Case3:09-cr-01103-JSW Document326 Filed10/18/11 Page8 of 21

Anonymous said...

PRE-SENTENCING PROSECUTION ARGUMENTS
(Page 9 of 21)
---
In addition to embezzling from Bricsnet, the defendant “borrowed” $200,000 from
Bricsnet that he never intended to repay and never repaid. Shortly before signing his
employment agreement, on November 14, 2006, the defendant signed a secured note
promising to repay Bricsnet $200,000 for loans Bricsnet made to him between November
2005 and November 2006. The defendant requested the loans claiming that he could not
borrow any more money against his house, his wife had a family emergency (allegedly),
and his wife was starting a new business. The Bricsnet BOD hesitated, but decided it was
best for the company to assist the defendant, so it approved the loans. The defendant
never paid any of these loans back.
b. Bricsnet Money Used to Pay Shinn
Rather than use the money for the purposes claimed by the defendant, in fact, a
significant portion of the November 2006 loans were used to repay a personal debt the
defendant owed to Jerry Shinn, another Bricsnet employee. Prior to November 2006, the
defendant had convinced Shinn to “invest” approximately $80,000 in a bogus investment
with the defendant. When Shinn demanded his money back shortly thereafter, the
defendant stalled and made excuses. Shortly before receiving the loan, the defendant
gave Shinn a personal check for $55,000 as partial repayment and the check bounced.
Then, after obtaining approximately $140,000 from Bricsnet in connection with the
November 2006 loans, the defendant almost immediately thereafter paid back $55,000 to
Shinn. This payment to Shinn had nothing to do with the stated reasons for the loan and
the defendant never told Bricsnet he owed Shinn this money.
After paying Shinn $55,000 with loan proceeds, the defendant again stole from
Bricsnet by using Bricsnet money to repay the balance of the defendant’s personal debt to Shinn.
The $55,000 payment in November 2006 did not fully reimburse Shinn. So, the defendant
subsequently repaid Shinn the balance of what the defendant owed Shinn through Bricsnet’s
payroll and advised Shinn that he could do so because the money represented a bonus that was
U.S. Sentencing Memo
CR 09-1103 JSW 7
Case3:09-cr-01103-JSW Document326 Filed10/18/11 Page9 of 21

Anonymous said...

PRE-SENTENCING PROSECUTION ARGUMENTS
(Page 10 of 21)
---
allegedly owed to the defendant. The defendant authorized the following two fraudulent
4
payments to Shinn in furtherance of this portion of his scheme. Specifically, on December 31,
2006, Jinian gave Shinn a $15,000 “bonus” that Shinn received via wire from Bricsnet’s bank
account on or about January 8, 2007. This payment was thereafter processed via payroll as
“Bonus – Supplemental” and grossed up to include benefits/taxes/etc. so that Shinn’s pay stub
reflected a payment of $22,271. On or about February 15, 2007 the defendant authorized another
payment through Bricsnet’s payroll disguised as a bonus to Shinn for $12,000 to pay off the
defendant’s remaining debt to Shinn. Thus, the defendant embezzled another $34,271.71 in
repayment of his debt to Shinn.
c. Personal Expenses Charged By the Defendant to Bricsnet Credit Card
The defendant also stole from Bricsnet by making personal purchases with Bricsnet credit
cards. See Spreadsheet Titled “Personal Expenses Charged By Defendant on Bricsnet Credit
Cards” (Trial Exhibit 30). The defendant routinely used a car service to chauffeur himself and
family members and placed the charges on Bricsnet’s credit card. He also took numerous
personal trips with his family that he charged to Bricsnet. The total loss to Bricsnet for these
charges in 2008 alone was over $32,000. It is noteworthy that Bricsnet only analyzed 2008 due
to limited resources to investigate further. Bricsnet also gave the defendant the benefit of every
doubt when calculating these losses and did not include any charge even potentially related to
business. Finally, Bricsnet did not include numerous personal charges for meals and
miscellaneous items such as flowers due to the amounts not justifying the resources of
investigation.
ii. Additional Facts Related to the Defendant’s Character
The defendant failed to pay taxes on the money he stole from Bricsnet in 2007. With
respect to the money the defendant stole in 2008, he declared the amount on his tax returns, but
Mr. Shinn initially advised the FBI that the defendant authorized these payments to Shinn
4
and told Shinn they would just call them bonuses to Shinn if anyone asked. Shinn later said he
recalled the defendant mentioning the money was owed to the defendant. Either way, the defendant
stole the money from Bricsnet because neither the defendant nor Shinn were owed the money as
bonuses from Bricsnet.
U.S. Sentencing Memo
CR 09-1103 JSW 8
Case3:09-cr-01103-JSW Document326 Filed10/18/11 Page10 of 21

Anonymous said...

PRE-SENTENCING PROSECUTION ARGUMENTS
(Page 11 of 21)
---
only after Bricsnet sent him and the IRS a Form 1099. See 2007 & 2008 Tax Returns (Trial
Exhibit 23). Bricsnet did so because it was obligated by law to report the money, even though it
was stolen. Had Bricsnet not alerted the IRS via the Form 1099 for 2008, it is fair to infer that
the defendant would not have reported the money. More importantly, the defendant lied when he
reported the money for 2008 and appears to have also falsely reported expenses against this
money in order to avoid paying taxes on the money. Specifically, instead of reporting the money
as income from Bricsnet, he reported it as “self employment income” and then listed expenses
related to self employment of more than $86,000. See EJ001659 within Trial Exhibit 23. The
government is unaware of the defendant having any employment other than as CEO of Bricsnet
during this time period. Bricsnet witnesses have confirmed this fact and the defendant stated
many times in email correspondence during the time period of the indictment that he was
devoting a tremendous amount of time to his job at Bricsnet. Thus, the expenses the defendant
claimed on his tax returns appear to be yet more false statements by the defendant.
The conduct set forth herein is by no means aberrant. In fact, it is a very accurate
portrayal of how the defendant conducts his life. He steals from other people to finance a
lifestyle far beyond his means. As one example, the defendant is being sued in Contra Costa
County Superior Court by Timothy Pearson. A copy of Mr. Pearson’s letter is attached as
Exhibit 2. Mr. Pearson sets forth an extremely egregious and disturbing scenario whereby the
defendant befriended Mr. Pearson in order to steal his life savings and then abandoned Mr.
Pearson when he needed his money back to cope with significant personal problems.
The defendant also stole approximately $350,000 from Kevin Horio. While at Dimensia,
which was owned by Horio and a few other individuals, the defendant borrowed approximately
$350,000 from Horio’s company and Horio personally. The defendant gave Horio numerous
explanations about why he needed the money, such as for expenses related to assisting a relative
in Iran. The defendant never repaid Horio any of his money. Mr. Horio testified at trial that his
5
In paragraph 36, the PSR sets forth familial information that was presumably provided by
5
the defendant. Of note, witnesses in this case advised that the defendant said the following regarding
his family, which appears to be in contrast to information provided by the defendant concerning his
family’s immigration and naturalization history.
U.S. Sentencing Memo
CR 09-1103 JSW 9
Case3:09-cr-01103-JSW Document326 Filed10/18/11 Page11 of 21

Anonymous said...

PRE-SENTENCING PROSECUTION ARGUMENTS
(Page 12 of 21)
---
life has been “chaos” since meeting the defendant and the defendant’s theft from Mr. Horio had a
significant negative impact on his life that is still being felt today.
The defendant owes yet another Bricsnet employee, James Wheeler, approximately
$8,000. While at Bricsnet, the defendant persuaded Wheeler to make personal purchases for the
defendant on Wheeler’s personal credit card by promising that he (the defendant) would
reimburse Wheeler. The defendant instructed Wheeler to make more than $100,000 in purchases
for him. However, as of September 2008 when he was fired from Bricsnet, the defendant still
owed Wheeler approximately $8,000 and he has not paid that back.
Another witness from the trial, Hal Spitz, loaned the defendant $10,000 several years
before joining Bricsnet. Spitz worked with the defendant at another company in the early 1990's
and does not recall exactly when he loaned the defendant the money. Nevertheless, the defendant
never repaid Spitz.
Finally, the defendant borrowed $163,000 from his former company, Sugarmade, in 2010
while facing these charges. See Dkt. 286, 289, and 290. The government is mindful of the fact
that the Court declined to give much weight to this evidence when addressing the remand issue
after trial. The Court should be apprised that since the hearing on remand, Sugarmade has filed
an additional financial filings providing further details concerning this loan to the defendant. In
its September 28, 2011, the Company reported:
In 2010, Sugarmade-CA loaned money to Ethan Farid Jinian in exchange for a note
payable secured by shares of stock in our Company. At the time of the loan, Mr. Jinian
was a former director and executive officer of Sugarmade-CA and was a 5% stockholder.
The loans bore interest at a rate of 14 percent per annum. The largest amount outstanding
under the loan was $163,000. On April 30, 2011, with the Mr. Jinian unable to repay the
- Hector Rodriguez stated that several weeks before the company discovery of the
stolen funds, the defendant asked for a loan of $750,000 to get his mother out of jail in Iran.
(FJ00009)
- Kevin Horio stated that when the defendant asked for and received loans while
working at Dimensia, as a reason for the loan, the defendant stated that his brother was about
to get deported and the money was needed for legal fees. (FJ000037).
This information was provided by the United States to Probation Officer in response to the draft PSR.
The United States’ information was included in the Final PSR in paragraph 36, but incorrectly notes
that this information was obtained from witnesses who testified at trial. In fact, these statements were
made pre-trial during witness interviews, memoranda of which were produced to the defendant.
U.S. Sentencing Memo
CR 09-1103 JSW 10
Case3:09-cr-01103-JSW Document326 Filed10/18/11 Page12 of 21

Anonymous said...

PRE-SENTENCING PROSECUTION ARGUMENTS
(Page 13 of 21)
---
balance of the note and with his concurrence, we foreclosed on all principal and accrued
interest owed to our Company, taking back the shares of our common stock we held as
security for all borrowings. The cancellation of the borrower’s stock held as security for
his borrowings resulted in a reduction of the note receivable balance and stockholders’
equity totaling $35,977. The remaining balance of borrowings outstanding and the
related accrued interest due to our Company were fully reserved, resulting in a charge of
$159,902 recorded in the quarter ended June 30, 2011.
Diversified Opportunities, 10-K, dated , Item 13, attached as Exhibit 3. Further, in connection
with this company, the PSR notes reported income by the defendant of $10,000 per month in
stock. See PSR, ¶ 46. However, in the September 28, 2011 10-K, in contrast to the defendant's
claim that he was compensated $10,000 per month in stock, the Company reported the following
as cash and non-cash salary to the defendant: in 2010, $50,000 and in 2011, $0. Diversified
Opportunities, 10-K, dated , Items 11 and 13, attached as Exhibit 3. Further, the compensation
stated by the defendant, far exceeds that reported for current officers in the 10-K. With full
regard to the Court’s prior consideration of this information, the United States submits that when
taken in context with the additional conduct discussed herein, the defendant’s activities at
Sugarmade and statements relating to those activities are relevant in assessing the defendant’s
history and characteristics. The defendant reportedly repaid Sugarmade by tendering stock back
to the company instead of cash.
All of the conduct discussed above should be taken into consideration in sentencing
pursuant to Guideline §1B1.4 and 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1).
III. Guidelines Calculation
A. Loss Calculation
The losses in this case start with trial Exhibit 58, i.e. the spreadsheet detailing the wire
transfers and checks. The total amount received was $1,023,000. For purposes of calculating
loss amount, that total should be reduced by $19,000 because check #6066 for $22,000 only
contained $3,000 related to the defendant’s scheme to defraud. However, other amounts must be
added because the defendant also stole from Bricsnet in the following manners: (1) charging
personal expenses on Bricsnet credit cards; (2) taking loans from Bricsnet he never intended to
repay and has not repaid; and (3) paying back a personal debt to Jerry Shinn with Bricsnet funds.
Thus, the total loss amount is:
U.S. Sentencing Memo
CR 09-1103 JSW 11
Case3:09-cr-01103-JSW Document326 Filed10/18/11 Page13 of 21

Anonymous said...

PRE-SENTENCING PROSECUTION ARGUMENTS
(Page 14 of 21)
---
Stolen Money via Wire Transfers & Checks $1,004,000.00
Personal Expenses on Bricsnet Credit Cards 33,930.73
Loans from Bricsnet 200,000.00
Personal Debt to Jerry Shinn 34,271.71
TOTAL $1,272,202.44
In connection with the preparation of the Presentence Report, the United States provided
the Probation Officer with the above calculation for loss / restitution. Thereafter, with
submission of its Victim Impact Statement, Bricsnet identified additional loss amounts, for a
total of $1,734,858. The difference between the amounts presented by the United States and
Bricsnet is $462,656.60. The United States does not dispute the Bricsnet numbers. Rather, it
did not have the benefit of the Bricsnet calculation at the time it submitted its loss calculation to
the Probation Department. The amount of loss submitted by Bricsnet, even if considered for a
loss calculation, does not impact the Guideline calculation. The same Guideline calculation
would apply for either loss figure. See U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(1)(I) (loss more than $1,000,000) vs.
U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(1)(J) (loss more than $2,500,000). Accordingly, the United States submits
that the figure provided to the United States should be considered for loss calculation and the
figure submitted by the victim, Bricsnet, should be considered for restitution.
Based on this loss amount, the defendant’s Guidelines should be calculated as follows:
U.S.S.G. Section Level/Points
Base offense level 2B1.1 7
Specific offense characteristics 2B1.1(b)(1)(I)
(loss amount > $1M)
3B1.3
(abuse of trust)
3C1.1
(obstruction of
justice)
16
2
2
Total offense level 27
Criminal History Category I
U.S. Sentencing Memo
CR 09-1103 JSW 12
Case3:09-cr-01103-JSW Document326 Filed10/18/11 Page14 of 21

Anonymous said...

PRE-SENTENCING PROSECUTION ARGUMENTS
(Page 16 of 21)
---
the purpose of the email was to have Horio join the defendant in his efforts to present false
information relating to his compensation in an effort to bolster his claims of entitlement to
Bricsnet monies.
C. Abuse of Trust Enhancement
For the reasons set forth by the Probation Officer in the response to the defendant’s
objection to Objection No. 5 as well as those set forth herein, the United States supports the
application of the two-point enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.3.
As a result of the defendant’s position as the Chief Executive Officer of Bricsnet, he was
able to exercise his discretion, as a manager, to have his employees directly and indirectly
commit fraudulent acts on his behalf. The Bricsnet Board of Directors was located out of the
country and the defendant, the lead manager in the United States, was given substantial discretion
to manage the operations of the company. The defendant’s position as a manager, his discretion
over company operations, and his use of his role to commit the fraud warrant application of the
enhancement. See United States v. Contreras, 581 F.3d 1163, 1165 (9th Cir.2009)(“the
‘decisive factor’ in determining whether the defendant holds a “position of trust” is whether the
position is characterized by “professional or managerial discretion”), adopted in relevant part by,
United States v. Contreras, 593 F.3d 1135 (9th Cir.2009) (en banc); United States v. Thornton,
511 F.3d 1221, 1227 (9 Cir. 2008) (“The abuse of trust enhancement applies where the abuse of

a position of trust ‘facilitate[s] significantly the commission or concealment of a crime.’ USSG §
3B1.3, cmt. background. A position of trust is ‘characterized by professional or managerial
discretion.... Persons holding such positions ordinarily are subject to significantly less
supervision than employees whose responsibilities are primarily nondiscretionary in nature.”);
United States v. Dowie, 411 Fed.Appx. 21, 30-31 (9 Cir. 2010) (unpublished) ( U.S.S.G. §

3B1.3 enhancement properly applied where defendant was a manager, had managerial authority,
and exercised discretion in connection with the offense conduct).
IV. Objections
The United States response to Objections 3, 4, and 5 are set forth above.
Objection No. 6
U.S. Sentencing Memo
CR 09-1103 JSW 14
Case3:09-cr-01103-JSW Document326 Filed10/18/11 Page16 of 21

Anonymous said...

PRE-SENTENCING PROSECUTION ARGUMENTS
(Page 17 of 21)
---
In responding to the draft Presentence Report, the defendant objected to the paragraph,
see PSR para. 52, which identified Mr. Scott Lantz, the defendant’s current employer, as a
colleague from Voyage 7, a venture the United States believes to be another fraud perpetrated by
the defendant. Counsel stated “we disagree that Mr. Jinian had any relationship with Scott Lantz
regarding Voyager 7, as the two men had not even met each other as of that time.” Letter by Mr.
Balogh to Probation dated September 30, 2011.
Again, the defendant is presenting false information. As the discovery provided in this
case shows, in December 2008, Mr. Lantz wired the defendant in two transactions a total of
$21,500 from “Scott Lantz - Ncompass Inc - Fund II - Capital Fund - Voyage 7.” See Exhibit 4,
FJ00588-590. Defendant’s claim, through counsel, that he had not even met Mr. Lantz is clearly
belied by the fact that Mr. Lantz was wiring him money in connection with the very entity -
Voyage 7 - that he contends Mr. Lantz had no association with. While not a critical fact in the
offense conduct at issue in this case, this is yet one more instance of the defendant endeavoring to
obfuscate the truth and is indicative of the defendant’s character.
V. Restitution
Bricsnet, as the victim of the defendant’s scheme, is entitled to restitution. See 18
U.S.C. §§ 3663-3664. As set forth above, the United States provided the Probation
Officer with its calculation for loss / restitution. Thereafter, with submission of its Victim
Impact Statement, Bricsnet identified additional loss amounts that are properly included
as restitution. The difference between the amounts presented by the United States and
Bricsnet is $462,656.60. The United States does not dispute the Bricsnet numbers.
Rather, it did not have the benefit of the Bricsnet calculation at the time it submitted its
loss calculation to the Probation Department.
In addition to the amounts presented by the United States, Bricsnet identified
$215,408 for legal fees and $101,250 for expenses incurred in connection with the
investigation and prosecution. See Bricsnet Victim Impact Statement. The attorneys fees,
and administrative fees, incurred by the company were the direct result of the defendant’s
fraud and are therefore compensable as restitution. See United States v. Degeorge, 380
U.S. Sentencing Memo
CR 09-1103 JSW 15
Case3:09-cr-01103-JSW Document326 Filed10/18/11 Page17 of 21

Anonymous said...

PRE-SENTENCING PROSECUTION ARGUMENTS
(Page 18 of 21)
---
F.3d 1203,1221-22 (9 Cir. 2004) (attorney’s fees paid as a result of defendant’s criminal

conduct was properly included as restitution). See also United States v. Grice, 319 F.3d
1174, 1178 (9 Cir. 2003)(restitution properly included charged and uncharged conduct

that reflected losses to the victim that were as a result of the fraud).
Bricsnet also lists the amounts of stolen money via checks and wires as
$1,168,200. Further, Bricsnet included additional funds as personal expenses charged to
Bricsnet credit cards. The documentation in support of these figures and explanation
detailing how these expenses were the direct result of the defendant’s fraud was presented
by Bricsnet with its Victim Impact Statement.
VI. Sentencing Recommendation
For the reasons set forth herein, this Court should impose a sentence of 87 months
imprisonment, 3 years supervised release, the conditions recommended by Probation, and
restitution of $1,734,858.00 to Bricsnet.
Simply put, the defendant is a thief and an extreme narcissist who stole from any victim
he could without regard for direct or indirect consequences upon his victims. For example, the
defendant was well aware that Bricsnet was routinely letting employees go because it did not
have money to pay their salaries. Unbeknownst to Bricsnet and the unfortunate terminated
employees, Bricsnet did not have the money because the defendant was stealing it. The
defendant feels entitled to a life of luxury and has no regard for the manner in which he achieves
that desired result. He refuses to express any remorse or accept any responsibility for his crimes.
Further, the defendant’s fraud was not a one-time act, he perpetrated this crime over an
approximately twenty month period, using his position as the Chief Executive Officer to commit
this crime and make employees his unwitting accomplices to his fraud. The punishment
recommended herein fits the defendant’s crimes and society deserves to be protected from the
defendant for a significant period of time.
VII. Remand Upon Sentencing Or Setting a Surrender Date
The government also requests that the Court remand the defendant into custody at the
time of sentencing. By the sentencing date, the defendant will have had over five months to get
U.S. Sentencing Memo
CR 09-1103 JSW 16
Case3:09-cr-01103-JSW Document326 Filed10/18/11 Page18 of 21

Anonymous said...

PRE-SENTENCING PROSECUTION ARGUMENTS
(Page 19 of 21)
---
his affairs in order to begin serving his sentence. There is no reason to delay justice any further.
If this Court is considering voluntary surrender, a surrender date should be set and the
defendant’s sentence should not be further delayed by his likely appeal.
Title 18, United States Code, Section 3143(b)(1) provides, in relevant part:
[T]he judicial officer shall order that a person who has been found
guilty of an offense and sentenced to a term of imprisonment, and
who has filed an appeal . . . , be detained, unless the judicial officer
finds —
(A) by clear and convincing evidence that the person is not
likely to flee or pose a danger to the safety of any other person or
the community if released under section 3142(b) or (c) of this title;
and
(B) that the appeal is not for the purpose of delay and raises
substantial questions of law or fact likely to result in —
(i) reversal,
(ii) an order for a new trial,
(iii) a sentence that does not include a term of
imprisonment, or
(iv) a reduced sentence to a term of imprisonment less than
the total of the time already served plus the expected duration of
the appeal process.
18 U.S.C. § 3143(b)(1) (emphasis added). Accordingly, to obtain release, the defendant must
show three things: (1) that, by clear and convincing evidence, she does not pose a flight risk or
danger to the community; (2) that the appeal is not for purposes of delay; and (3) that it raises a
substantial question of law that is likely to result in reversal, an order for new trial, a sentence of
no imprisonment, or a sentence reduced to a term of imprisonment less than the time expected
for the duration of the appeal. 18 U.S.C. § 3143(b). The defendant bears the burden to overcome
the presumption that she should be detained while her appeal is pending. United States v.
Montoya, 908 F.2d 450, 451 (9 Cir. 1990).

The defendant has already been deemed a sufficient flight risk to require a substantial
bond. Further, upon imposition of a sentence, the consequences of the crime which the
defendant steadfastly maintains his innocence will be that much more real, increasing the
incentive to flee. As set forth herein and as presented at trial, the defendant has a remarkable
facility to connect with individuals and to convince them to loan or give him access to large sums
U.S. Sentencing Memo
CR 09-1103 JSW 17
Case3:09-cr-01103-JSW Document326 Filed10/18/11 Page19 of 21

Anonymous said...

PRE-SENTENCING PROSECUTION ARGUMENTS
(Page 20 & 21 of 21)
---
of money. This history, his current assets, and his continued inability to be truthful regarding his
history and present employment circumstances present not only a risk of flight but an economic
danger. In addition, the defendant’s wife’s access to cash, which was used in the past to repay
persons who loaned the defendant money (Shinn and Pearson) is of concern and presents an
additional risk of flight. This concern is exacerbated by the fact that the defendant was “unable
to provide a value” of his wife’s spa business, a business she has owned for years. See PSR, ¶
50, Note A. See United States v. Reynolds, 956 F.2d 192 (9 Cir. 1992)(economic harm may
justify denial of bail pending appeal).
If the Court finds by clear and convicting evidence that “is not likely to flee or pose a
danger to the safety of any other person or the community ,” before concluding that the
defendant is entitled to bail pending appeal, the Court must decide whether (1) the
appellate issue raised by the defendant is “substantial” and (2) whether the issue is “likely
to result in reversal.” United States v. Handy, 761 F.2d 1279, 1280–81 (9 Cir. 1985).

The Ninth Circuit has explained that “the word ‘substantial’ defines the level of merit
required in the question raised on appeal, while the phrase ‘likely to result in reversal’
defines the type of question that must be presented.” Id. A defendant does not overcome
the presumption that she be detained, and thereby secure release, by merely identifying an
issue that is non-frivolous. Rather, a “substantial question” is “one of more substance
than would be necessary to a finding that it was not frivolous.” Id. at 1283 (internal
quotation marks and citations omitted) (emphasis added). In other words, the issues
raised must be more than simply arguable. The assertion of error must have some
minimal level of merit, or raise a novel question of law. As set forth in briefing on the posttrial motions, the claims raised by the defendant here simply do not rise to this level.
Accordingly, the defendant should begin serving his prison sentence immediately following
sentencing, or on a short date set for voluntary surrender.
VIII. Conclusion
U.S. Sentencing Memo
CR 09-1103 JSW 18
Case3:09-cr-01103-JSW Document326 Filed10/18/11 Page20 of 21
---
For all these reasons, the United States requests that the Court impose a sentence of 87
months imprisonment, 3 years supervised release, the conditions recommended by Probation, and
restitution of $1,734,858.00 to Bricsnet.
DATED: October 17, 2011 Respectfully submitted,
MELINDA HAAG
United States Attorney
______/s/__________________________
DENISE MARIE BARTON
Assistant United States Attorney
U.S. Sentencing Memo
CR 09-1103 JSW 19
Case3:09-cr-01103-JSW Document326 Filed10/18/11 Page21 of 21

Anonymous said...

That last document is a great summary of the findings of the prosecution. Along with letters from other victims, Jinian was put away immediately, escorted by federal marshals into the holding cells behind the courtroom.

I will post other documents as time allows.

I won't be posting letters from other victims as they contain rather personal information. They can post their letters here if they wish people to read their perspectives. But I can tell you, there are many many victims of this man that I have communicated with by email, phone, or met in person. This man's frauds crimes go back decades - to the late 70s!

Farid Jinian deserves all the punishment he gets!

Kevin Horio said...

I'll post my letter to the sentencing committee. I think it's good for people to see this. But first, some background...

I testified at his trial. This guy is a con man. I've been contacted by a number of people who were defrauded or negatively effected by this man - he is self-centered, selfish, and a narcissist - not to mention he is a flat our liar and cheat!

When Farid was fired from Bricsnet, he wrote a document and asked me to sign it to support his case. The document was full of lies. He asked me to correct the "mistakes" in the document, but it was so full of lies, I gave up. I spoke to him on the phone instead and he was upset and angry that I would not support his document.

Farid owed me and my company hundreds of thousands of dollars that we loaned him based upon lies he had told me and my partners. He tried to get me to sign his document by pointing out that I would not get paid back if he were in prison. He also tried to get me to join a legal suit against Bricsnet, implying that I could get money from the suit as my company had provided services that were not paid for by Bricsnet. Later, I found out Bricsnet had no money to pay us because Farid was stealing it!

My partners and I knew Farid was telling us lies for years - we just didn't know before we loaned him the bulk of the money. So we were able to monitor his tactics for years. He's a slippery character, no doubt. It was difficult to maintain a charade of trust and friendship with Farid, knowing about all the lies he was telling us. Sometimes it just made me sick. Which turned out to be a good thing, because when I got sick of him, I'd start talking to people, risking my cover w/ Farid as he had to think I was not onto him. And in this talking, I started to uncover other frauds he had been perpetrating - and I even managed to derail a couple of them.

Anyhow, the one thing Farid miscalculated was that I was going to do everything in my power to make sure justice was done and he was going to be put away for his crimes. I already knew he was never going to repay his loans to us. So there was no need to maintain his trust in me. And it was this trust that I maintained that was the only reason that Farid wrote that document of lies for me to sign. You see, Farid rarely puts anything that risky into writing. And he only did that because he trusted me. Now, that document was not his crime, but it was a strong statement of his character to show how he had lied to support his crimes and tried to get me to support it as well. I am happy that this might have been helpful to put this crook away and potentially save other people from his criminal activities.

Next, I'll post my letter to the sentencing board...

Kevin Horio said...

My letter to the sentencing board,
Part 1 of 3...

The Honorable Jeffrey S. White
Judge, United States District Court, Northern District of California

Re: Case No. CR-09-1103 JSW, USA vs. Ethan Farid Jinian

Dear Judge White,

I am writing to request that the maximum possible sentence be imposed upon Mr. Jinian for his crimes. Mr. Jinian has exacted atrocious wrongs against me, and many others – albeit beyond the scope of this case. But I am not seeking retribution. I have made as much peace with this as possible, and continue to do so. Rather, I feel Mr. Jinian will continue to exploit others and be a negative force within our society. I feel that Mr. Jinian being kept away from society for a longer period of time will serve to protect more people from his tactics. He has shown no remorse for his actions and I have witnessed an escalation in the severity of his exploits over the 9 years which I’ve known him.

When I met Farid (Mr. Jinian) in late 2002, he presented himself as a pauper to me, bankrupt, and the hapless victim of business mishaps that culminated in lawsuits which robbed him of his wealth. This coupled with a very public disgrace as CEO of Luna Information Systems over false statements about earning a bachelor’s degree from Harvard and a master’s degree and Ph.D. from Columbia, left him crippled in terms of his credibility and earning potential.

Farid addressed his situation as a victim of unscrupulous investors and executives that put him in compromising positions which led to his misfortune. He did not imply that he was totally innocent in all of this, but he seemed truly remorseful for any part he had played in it. He had seemed to reinvent himself with a much stronger moral fiber, working to turn his life around, be a force of good, and repair the financial damage that he’d undergone so he could help his family. He was completely convincing and I met a number of his associates who seemed to trust him innately and spoke highly of him – folks who had known and worked with him for 20+ years. I am still close with many f these people today, and they are indeed upstanding and ethical folks. They simply did not know of Farid’s fraudulent practices, and sadly, many of them were victims of his deceit as well.

At the time I met Farid, my business was seeing a downward trend after a number of quite promising years. At best, I saw a mediocre trajectory in our future, and our broader plans for new product development seemed unattainable. I considered closing the company and discussed this with my partners. In hindsight it would have been much better for all involved, partners and employees, had we simply closed the company. But Farid appeared on the scene and seemed to have the expertise and relationships to expand our business. He promised annual revenues which would enable us to retain our employees and expand the business in pursuit our broader product plans. His promises seemed viable with a list of prospects to which he had personal access, he had stellar references and we even had conference calls with some of the prospective clients. What he wanted in return was a $125,000 loan for 6 months to help in a family situation where his brother was being deported back to Iran (something we’ve never been able to corroborate), and a commission schedule where Farid would be paid well for any sales he closed, but the arrangement did not place a salary burden on the company. We would also cover travel and marketing costs that we would authorize on a case-by-case basis, and we would discuss terms for Farid becoming a partner if things went well.

Kevin Horio said...

My letter to the sentencing board,
Part 2 of 3...

What we found out over time was that beyond direct contact we had with prospects, many (if not all) of the other prospects were fabrications and that most of the marketing jaunts Farid went on by himself were for his personal pleasure or to seek new business arrangements or employment for himself. We also found that Farid was not in such dire financial straits as he led us to believe initially – one indication was that the home he said he “rented from an overbearing landlord” in Walnut Creek was in fact owned by his sister! It is our belief that he moved this asset into his sister’s name to hide it. Fariba, his sister, did not earn enough to afford this property. I also think that there are many more examples of this type of asset hiding under the names of other family members.

Before we had begun to discover Farid’s deceits, it became apparent that he was unable to live under the arrangement he had made with us and needed further loans to pay his bills each month. Since we had already invested a substantial amount of money and effort into funding Farid’s business development efforts, and it always seemed as though sales were close to closing, we continued to loan Farid money with the expectation that his sales efforts would gain traction and he would be able to repay his loans.

In total, we loaned Farid roughly $350,000, none of which has been repaid. Although Farid would always promise that payment would come, there was only delay and excuses. Clearly, some things just didn’t make sense. So we started cross-checking his stories and needless to say, once we started to uncover his lies, we were extremely concerned and dubious about ever being repaid. We decided not to let Farid know that we knew of his lies. Instead we became much more fastidious in terms of scrutinizing his stories, looking for discrepancies, and that’s when we started to find so many more flaws in his facade. We started to see all sorts of machinations forming – attempts of Farid’s to channel money from Bricsnet to himself, through us. It took a lot of effort to block Farid’s attempts while maintaining his trust in us so as not to let on that we knew of his lies. Nonetheless, we managed to keep things straight on our end.

Even when Farid was making large sums of money at Bricsnet, he still had excuses as to why he had no money to pay us. I can’t tell you how disheartened we were when we found him to be still acting as a pauper to us while CEO at Bricsnet, and to discover that he bought a multi-million dollar home in San Francisco and a high-end Mercedes, among other things.

It was about this time that we discovered that Farid was running a scam where he would have people invest through his account at a private equity firm known as Voyage 7. He would have these folks cut checks to Voyage 7, indicating that Voyage 7 was investing in a company that was about to execute an IPO (initial public offering) – an event that oftentimes makes pre-IPO investors large profits. What these people didn’t know was that Farid owned a company called Voyage 7 and he had bank accounts in that company’s name. So Farid took those checks and deposited the money into his Voyage 7 account and used the funds as his own. Then Farid would tell them that the IPO did not work out and the money was lost. From what I learned from the people who wrote these checks to Farid, he would get them to give him roughly $60-75k each. I have confirmed with 5 people that Farid approached them with this scam and 3 of them actually gave Farid the money for this. I was able to short-circuit one of these attempts. There may be many more victims of this.

Kevin Horio said...

My letter to the sentencing board,
Part 3 of 3... (one more to follow)

There was also a pilot project my company was engaged in at New York Life. If this project was successful, we would create a new company which would be owned by my company, Farid, and Mr. Harold Piskiel (an associate active in the implementation of this project). The company would be called nCompass, and the product borne out of our project would be called nLighten. Without the knowledge of Mr. Piskiel, me, or the other partners within my company, Farid took our business plans and presented it to people as an investment opportunity. Mr. Timothy Pearson, an orthodontist practicing in the bay area invested roughly $180k into this company – which did not exist yet! I found out about this when Mr. Pearson’s attorney, Stephen Seto, contacted me. Needless to say, Mr. Piskiel and I were totally shocked.

I also found out that Farid had run up substantial amounts of debt on Mr. Jim Wheeler’s credit cards. Mr. Wheeler was an employee at Bricsnet and he did not make enough money to absorb the levels of debt that Farid placed upon him. Farid tried to do the same with me, purchasing things for Bricsnet on my cards, but I made sure to follow up with Bricsnet on those purchases right away. There was a lot of confusion related to those purchases and I knew that they were not authorized based on the response I received from Bricsnet’s VP of Finance at the time, but I was able to be reimbursed and refused to make any more Bricsnet purchases on behalf of Farid from then on. This was just one of the many machinations I found where Farid would try to siphon money over to himself from Bricsnet through other people. I thought it ended there, but clearly Farid just moved on to someone else. I don’t know what happened to Mr. Wheeler as I can’t seem to get in touch with him anymore. I hope he has weathered through this. He was a cancer survivor and I worry that the stress of this may have taken further toll on his health.

I know of 4 others who loaned Farid money to help with his brother being deported – no one knows if those stories of deportation were true or not. I even met a person that went to Lehigh University with Farid whose father had loaned money to Farid for tuition and they never got repaid. Same story, Farid would always say the money was coming – but only delay tactics came.

And one final interesting tidbit – when Farid explained the Harvard and Columbia debacle to me, he told me in actuality, he went to Lehigh University and earned a Ph.D. there in computer science, focusing on artificial intelligence and robotics. He said they didn’t actually present the Ph.D. to him for some financial reasons. We checked on this – seems he doesn’t even have a bachelor’s degree from Lehigh. I did confirm he attended Lehigh based on the friend whose father loaned him money, but it doesn’t look like he completed any degree there. So, it seems he’s been lying to me from day one.

Just based upon what I know about, Farid has damaged the lives of too many, some more than others. Farid Jinian has caused the demise of companies, loss of jobs, loss of life’s savings, and frivolous waste as he’s consumed years of people lives, wasted on false goals perpetuated by him to obfuscate his fraudulent activities in a futile attempt to fulfill his insatiable greed. How selfish. And with no remorse – still lying today, claiming his innocence.

Kevin Horio said...

My letter to the sentencing board,
Part 4 of 3... (had an extra section)

Just based on what I have learned, Farid has defrauded a number of people totaling roughly $2MM. And those may be a small fraction of what he’s actually done. I can only imagine the countless number of people he has hurt, some not even knowing they were defrauded. For myself alone, he has set me back roughly 20 years. He has robbed me of my life’s savings to the point where I can’t adequately care for my 83 year old father – something I told Farid about when he wasn’t repaying the initial loans, and all he did was erupt at me in indignation that I would blame him for such a thing. This is what I get from a man who came to me as a self-proclaimed pauper, who I helped when he was down as I tried to keep my company together for my partners and employees. He has no remorse. I was a trusting soul, not so much now.

I ask to keep people safe from this man. I ask for the maximum sentence for Farid Jinian, with no opportunity for parole.

Anonymous said...

Aura Skin Spa in San Francisco may have been partially funded by this man's crimes. Jinian hides his assets with family members and his wife, Claudia Cardinalle, is part owner of Aura Skin Spa. She had nothing when she met Jinian, seems she may have benefited from his criminal life.

Anonymous said...

PRE-SENTENCING PROSECUTION ARGUMENTS
(Page 7 of 21) -- MISSED ABOVE
---
employer, Luna Information Systems. Casillas researched that issue and found an article
from the Chronicle reporting that Jinian had in fact lied on his resume about receiving
degrees from Harvard and Columbia and was fired from Luna because of that in July
2000. See articles attached as Exhibit 1. According to the articles, the defendant
2
admitted the lies but said he completed the course work informally and simply didn’t pay
for it to get the degrees.
On September 18, 2008, the defendant began a business trip to Europe. Having
learned of the illegal payments from Casillas, Rodriguez instructed the defendant to meet
Rodriguez in Madrid on September 21, 2009. On September 21, 2009, Rodriguez met the
defendant at a hotel near the Madrid airport and advised him of the findings at Bricsnet
regarding the unauthorized payments. Rodriguez said he expected full restitution. The
defendant cried and apologized. Rodriguez did not immediately fire the defendant.
Rodriguez advised the defendant that he would be fired but that Rodriguez would wait
until his business trip was done and that he would not make a big public display of it to
spare the defendant. Rodriguez did not immediately fire the defendant, in part, because
firing him immediately would have undermined a business opportunity for the company.
The defendant was fired on September 29, 2008. After he was fired, the defendant
sent an email to Kevin Horio on October 9, 2008, asking Horio to lie for the defendant in
connection with his embezzlement from Bricsnet. See Trial Exhibit 32. The defendant
solicited Horio to commit perjury by asking him to sign a document full of false
statements in support of the defendant’s manufactured defense to the allegations. In order
to support his false claim of having been promised the stolen money as compensation, the
defendant made up a story about how he made hundreds of thousands of dollars per year
in income before joining Bricsnet and that he only agreed to join Bricsnet as an employee
in November 2006 because Hector Rodriguez promised him extra compensation in
addition to the $200,000 in his written contract. In other words, the defendant tried to
The Exhibits to the Sentencing Memorandum will be filed under separate cover to permit
2
redactions to those exhibits containing personal information that should not be filed in a public
document. Unredacted copies will be provided to the Court and defense counsel.
U.S. Sentencing Memo
CR 09-1103 JSW 5
Case3:09-cr-01103-JSW Document326 Filed10/18/11 Page7 of 21

rpessoa said...

Hello everyone. Let me introduce myself. My name is Ryan and most of you may know me. I am Claudia’s brother and Farid’s brother-in-law. Much like most of you, I was surprised and shocked to find out the scheme this man was running behind the scenes and the many lives he has affected, both directly and indirectly. I am not here to defend or judge this man as I think he is already suffering the consequences of the choices he has made. I would like to point out that some of the allegations that Claudia has benefited from this man’s criminal life are not true. Her business and professional life have no financial ties to this man’s actions. Claudia is a hard workingwoman with strong character and values and would not have allowed for this to happen. The reality is that WE ALL have been duped by this man. He possesses an amazing gift of persuading and manipulating people. I am certain that many of you relate to this and even agree with my words. Again, I am not here to crucify this man as I can only hope he finds redemption; I just wish for discretion and respect as some individuals may make comments about Claudia based on erroneous facts and information. I assume a lot of people are hurting in one way or another by this man’s action. Some have suffered enormous financial losses, and others have invested time and effort in establishing a fictitious friendship with this man. We all have lost something; I personally have been lied to for years, and I never thought (on my wildest of dreams) that any of this could possibly be real. Although I have strong and harsh feelings towards this man, I am searching in my heart to forgive him. I don’t know if I will ever be able to forgive but I am taking a step in the right direction and moving on with my life and I wish many of you may move forward with your lives as well. Thank you.

Anonymous said...

She certainly was at his side throughout the legal process. If she was defrauded, why would she support him? If he had got off, she would have been back in the green. . . .

Anonymous said...

According to my documented sources, (Khou)Jinian checked into a hotel in Amalfi coast (off Naples, Italy), as Mr. & Mrs. Jinian, in Sep 2009 -- a couple did check in but I am afraid Ms. Cardinalle was not there. So much for the family-man with a baby back home!!! 2 months later he was exposed and was fired. He did buy some art though in his little trip and so wrote on the guest book ... some of the folks on this blog might have financed his philanthropy http://www.mcpiccadilly.com/GuestBook.html

rpessoa said...

I don't think she knew half the things we all eventually found out recently. Now that all this information is out there, if she chooses to believe these facts are not true, then she is in complete denial...I would be interested in finding out more information if anyone would like to share (offline).

Anonymous said...

is there any ...photo of ethan... jinian

Kevin Horio said...

Hey Ryan, I appreciate your comments. You're being a good brother and you love your sister. You're right that this man has negatively effected all of us. Some much more than others. We were all conned, even Claudia. She never knew Farid was what he was when she married him. But she did marry the illusion he put forth - he represented the life she wanted.

You can't deny that she benefited from the relationship. The documents of the case state that Farid borrowed money from Bricsnet for Claudia's business - this money was never paid back. The prosecution noted that Farid transferred assets to family members and the FBI is still in the process of tracking down his assets and figuring out where all the money went. A wife is family.

Many were conned, but only a few benefited. And Claudia is one of the few. I know the hundreds of thousands of dollars I loaned Farid fueled his lifestyle, and Claudia lived that lifestyle as well. Farid lied to me and made me think that although he had a facade of riches, he was barely eeking out a living each month and collectors were always after him. But what did I find? I found, among other things, that he bought a multi-million dollar house in San Francisco and had a team of people customizing it. And Claudia lived in that house - lived that lifestyle. So to me, she was living off my money as well. And I'm not the only one who feels this way. I'm just one of the few that will come out and say it.

And that business she built, we know it was at least partially fueled by Bricsnet money, and probably my money, and money from the others Farid defruaded at that time as well.

To think that Farid's wife didn't benefit from Farid's activities is naive at best.

The only way I would change my opinion of Claudia is if she stood behind her endorsement of Farid to the court. If she truly thinks he is a morale and ethical man, a wonderful husband and father - then I'd like to see her remain married to him. If she's still married to Farid when he finishes his sentence, if she sticks by his side through these dark times, if she lives her life out with this man - then I'll change my opinion of her. If not, then her words of endorsement of Farid were just simply words - the same tool of lies that Farid used to ruin so many other lives.

Anonymous said...

Hey KEVIN HORIO my man snap out of it he got 64 months sentence for his crime ...you should go visit him in prison if that makes you calm and happy this is not 18Th century AMERICA he will do his time and he will be out...

Anonymous said...

Kevin,
Thank you for your comments and keeping us all up on the details of this case. I agree with what you said about Claudia. She most certainly did benefit from her husband's many con jobs. It will be interesting to see what the FBI discovers as to hidden funds.

Anonymous said...

Regarding comment from November 14, 2011 4:43 PM.
Do they allow Farid Ethan to use computers in prison?

Kevin Horio said...

@ comment from November 14, 2011 4:43 PM:

I was responding to Ryan. I respect Ryan for having the courage to stand up for his sister. And he has every right to make his points. I was simply highlighting some facts and making some counterpoints.

If you are going to address someone directly on this blog, you should at least have the courage to show who you are. Feel free to email me at kevinhorio@yahoo.com and we can discuss it offline.

Anonymous said...

Hey KEVIN HORIO i told you what to do please read my comment from November 14, 2011 4:43 PM agian there are few directions for you my man piano piano or go see DUKE... HIGH NOON... SALOON... put some water for your horse.... Take it easy my man...i am not trying to upset you..... please next time be more careful... check first... then give money...

Kevin Horio said...

It's not just about being careful, it's about trust and betrayal. To say it's just about being careful is an insult to the countless victims of Ethan Farid (Khou)Jinian. These were victims of his fraud whose cases were not tried. Frauds that were just below the threshold of cost it would take to prosecute, or too difficult to prosecute, or whose victims were not even aware they had been defrauded.

Judge White stated during the sentencing that Farid was a liar, a cheat, and a sociopath, and how this man's actions had hurt so many. I am thankful that Judge White could see through this man's veil of lies, and that he understood that there were so many more out there who were wronged by him.

Sociopaths don't usually change, so I put my story on this blog in the hopes that others will find it if they come across Farid after he gets out, or perhaps this will even protect some of his prison mates. I wish these stories were out there when I met Farid. Well, they're out there now, and hopefully they will help someone steer clear of him.

Another comment above asked about a photo - not a bad idea. Seeing as how Farid has changed his name in the past. That might help people, too.

Everyone - let's not allow the aimless provocations of a nameless and faceless coward derail this blog. This blog has a higher purpose!

Kevin Horio said...

If you come across this blog and you have been conned or defrauded by Ethan Farid (Khou)Jinian, put your story here so that others can learn from it. Let's amass all the stories here for all to see. Many of you have been emailing me directly - place your stories here. You don't need to put your name to it, although that would make it more powerful. But put it down. You may be helping someone down the road.

Anonymous said...

Yes, I agree that pictures would help. Surprising that there are no pictures easily found on the web considering the positions that he's held. I don't think Farid Ethan would have access to a plastic surgeon in jail as he did on the outside.

Anonymous said...

Kevin,

Sorry to hear about your problems with Farid. I was an employee at Bricsnet when Farid took over as CEO. It was clear to me that he had an agenda right from the start. He forced out most of management team by making them work overtime through the holidays and making it difficult for the employees. He made promises to most of the employees but clearly didn't deliver on them. I think many of the Bricsnet employees knew there was something very wrong about Farid. But he was able to con many into believing his lies by offering promises salary and stock options. I'm glad I did not believe any of them.

Anonymous said...

Hey my man KEVIN HORIO you see that person is very smart didnot believe ETHAN.... when you hear or see promise of STOCK OPTIONS or BIG MONEY ... just walk away ...please read it again...
good luck next time

Kevin Horio said...

You were at Bricsnet when Farid took over? I probably have met you, yes? Email me, we can talk more - kevinhorio at yahoo.com.

It's too bad, we had a great team at Bricsnet. A lot of good people's time wasted. If only the focus was on making the company successful, I think we could have done it. It's sad that one man's corruption would cripple the possibilities of so many.

I was not an employee at Bricsnet, so I didn't know about stock options or salary increases - I'm sorry he made things difficult there for you. I was consulting as CTO at Farid's request. I would've come onto Bricsnet full-time, but I was suspicious of Farid. I had a feeling he had lied to me about a lot of things, but I had no proof. I didn't want to place 100% of my livelihood under his control, so I stayed arms length as a consultant. I never thought he'd steal from Bricsnet though. I'm amazed at the number of people I am still discovering that tell me of how Farid defrauded them.

I'm glad you moved on and found something safer and better.

Cheers,
k

Anonymous said...

So what prison did this monster end up in? I might like to visit him just to see how miserable it is for him.

Anonymous said...

He's in the united states penitentiary in Atwater, CA (http://www.bop.gov/locations/institutions/atw/index.jsp).

He was in a holding patter in Dublin, CA until a few days ago, then he was moved to Atwater.

You can go here to track his movements: http://www.bop.gov/iloc2/LocateInmate.jsp

Just use the "Search by Name" method on the right and use ETHAN for the first name and JINIAN for the last.

Anonymous said...

Ethan Farid Jinian gets 64 months for embezzling $1.5M: http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/news/2011/10/28/bricsnet-ceo-ethan-farid-jinian.html

Anonymous said...

FBI Announcement - Ethan Farid Jinian sentenced to 64 months in prison:
http://www.fbi.gov/sanfrancisco/press-releases/2011/former-ceo-of-bricsnet-fm-america-inc.-sentenced-to-64-months-in-prison-for-embezzling-more-than-1-million

Anonymous said...

http://www.mcpiccadilly.com/GuestBook.html

Dear Giuseppe,
Thank you for the correspondence as well as your v-mail.
Thank you for the great art and the diligence. I will be back in Positano in late September and will stop by to say hello.
Please extend my regards to Alex and thank him for his help and great customer service.
Best,
Farid Jinian

Anonymous said...

CLAUDIA CARDINALLE, an individual; and ETHAN FARID JINIAN, an individual Plaintiffs, vs. U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION...

http://www.scribd.com/doc/46239256/Complaint-05282010

Anonymous said...

I don't think a prison sentence will change his ways. Bricsnet is probably not the "final" victim. There will not doubt be more.

Anonymous said...

I worked with Farid Khoujinian at KPMG during during the 1980's and he was a liar and manipulator way back then also. Farid had convinced KPMG and Sybase, Inc. that he had earned a Ph.D from Columbia and a Masters from Harvard. Farid was hired by David Flaxman also formerly of Sybase, Inc. at KPMG. This liar came in an wrecked my career at KPMR and borrowed money when ever he could from employees.

Anonymous said...

The woman that is Farid's mother is the key to his hidden wealth. She is not his mom and he uses her to hide his funds.

Anonymous said...

sorry to hear about your kpmg experience. so many similar experiences - it's amazing how many people this guy effected. dave flaxman is a good and moral guy, though - i've met him through farid. it's also amazing how many good and moral people this fraud knows. i guess he just uses people for whatever he can get - money, people to vouch for him, etc.

Anonymous said...

that comment about farid's mother is really strange. how do you know this? i really thought that was his mother. pretty weird.

Anonymous said...

ethan he is out of prison

Anonymous said...

oh joy.

Anonymous said...

False. Ethan Farid Jinian is still locked up as it shows in the website.

Anonymous said...

Conviction Affirmed http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2013/03/26/11-10593.pdf