Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw
United States of America v. Kevin Lee Co
Case Number: 2:16-cr-00167-TLN
Judge: Troy L. Nunley
Court: United States District Court for the Eastern District of California (Sacramento County)
Plaintiff's Attorney: Brian A. Fogerty and Kevin C. Khasigian
Donald Herbert Heller
Description: Sacramento, CA - Rocklin Man Pleads Guilty to Fraud and Money Laundering Charges - Former Controller of Holt of California Admits Embezzling $4.8 Million
Kevin Lee Co, 45, of Rocklin, pleaded guilty to wire fraud and money laundering for embezzling approximately $4.8 million from his employer.
According to court documents, Co was employed by Holt of California, where he served as the controller and managed the company’s accounting department. During his tenure at Holt, from May 2008 until March 2015, Co embezzled approximately $4.8 million from the company. Co used the money he embezzled to purchase, among other things, luxury cars, home furniture, and NFL football and NBA basketball season tickets. In addition, Co spent approximately $1 million on player fees for an online video game. Co also engaged in a money laundering scheme involving a portion of the embezzled funds, which was designed to conceal the origin of the money he embezzled.
This case is the product of an investigation by the IRS Criminal Investigation and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Assistant United States Attorneys Brian A. Fogerty and Kevin C. Khasigian are prosecuting the case.
Co is scheduled to be sentenced by United States District Judge Troy L. Nunley on May 26, 2017. Co faces a maximum statutory penalty of 20 years in prison and a $250,000 fine for the wire fraud charge. For the money laundering charge, Co also faces a maximum statutory penalty of 20 years in prison and a fine of up to $500,000, or twice the value of the property involved in the money laundering transactions. The actual sentence, however, will be determined at the discretion of the court after consideration of any applicable statutory factors and the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, which take into account a number of variables.