A lawyer convicted of defrauding victims in a global cyber scam, including the fraudulent sale of a property in Kenya, has lost his appeal to reduce an 87-month prison sentence by a US court.
A US appeals court has upheld both the jail term and a restitution order exceeding $2 million (Sh258 million) against Hassan Abbas, a Belgian and Lebanese national holding an Illinois law license.
The US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit ruled Abbas played a central role in orchestrating romance scams and business email compromise schemes, funnelling millions of dollars through shell companies and American banks.
In a January 29 decision, the three-judge panel affirmed the district court’s 2024 sentencing judgment "across the board," dismissing Abbas’s appeal.
The case stemmed from Abbas’s involvement in a transnational fraud network that exploited victims through deceptive wire transfers.
A key transaction tied him directly to Kenya. Court records revealed that $973,276.01 (approximately Sh125 million) from the sale of Pak Sum Low’s Kenyan property was wired by a Nairobi law firm to an Illinois bank account controlled by Abbas.
Investigators determined that an impostor posing as Low had manipulated the transaction, diverting the proceeds without the seller’s knowledge.
"An FBI agent’s interview with Low confirmed that someone impersonating him emailed his lawyers, instructing them to transfer the funds to Abbas’s account," the judgment stated. "Low never received any proceeds from the sale."
Abbas contested the restitution order, arguing that the loss was "wholly foreign" and beyond US jurisdiction because the wire fraud statute does not criminalise "purely foreign conduct." He argued that the $2 million-plus restitution duty was legally excessive.
His defense team insisted that "not everything touching the United States constitutes wire fraud merely because it involves foreign entities."
But the appellate court rejected this reasoning unanimously. The judges emphasised that wire fraud hinges on the "abuse of domestic wires"—a threshold met when illicit funds enter US accounts as part of a criminal scheme.
"Domestic conduct through domestic wires suffices," the ruling held, quoting the sentencing judge’s observation that Abbas’s receipt of the Kenyan proceeds in Chicago was integral to the fraud.
The court also upheld the district judge’s loss calculations, which triggered a 16-level sentencing enhancement after determining total losses fell between $1.5 million and $3.5 million.
Evidence showed Abbas had established shell companies and bank accounts to launder money stolen via phishing emails and fake romantic overtures. Despite warnings from bank investigators, he continued siphoning funds for personal use.
"Mr Abbas wasn’t a passive participant," the judges noted. "He leveraged his law license and US banking access to lend the scheme a patina of legitimacy while actively dispersing stolen funds."
This marked Abbas’s second failed appeal. A 2024 ruling had upheld his convictions for wire fraud and money laundering conspiracy but remanded the case for resentencing due to procedural errors in calculating penalties.
The revised 87-month term—21 months shorter than his original 108-month sentence—remained below federal guidelines, which recommended 108–135 months.
In his latest appeal, Abbas contested the sentencing base level, disputed two money-laundering enhancements, and sought classification as a "zero-point offender" to reduce his penalty.
The panel rebuffed each argument, ruling that the severity of his crimes justified the enhancements.
"The guidelines prioritise proportionality," the decision stated. "Base level seven applies here because Abbas laundered proceeds from serious frauds."
The court affirmed additional increases for "sophisticated laundering" and his conspiracy conviction, noting both aligned with trial evidence.
Abbas further claimed his sentence was disproportionately harsh compared to that of his co-defendants, asserting he never interacted directly with the victims.
Defiance of bank warnings
The judges dismissed this, citing three aggravating factors: his abuse of attorney credentials, defiance of bank warnings, and failure to repay victims.
"Disparity review applies only to identically situated offenders," the judges wrote, concluding his sentence was "plausible, defensible, and sufficiently deterrent."
The court ruled Pak Sum Low eligible because his losses for the Kenyan property —though originating abroad—were foreseeable and flowed through US channels.
"Congress intended MVRA to cover all directly harmed scheme participants," the court stressed.
