Case 1:18-cr-00204-NGG-VMS Document 966 Filed 10/27/20 Page 1 of 20 PageID #: 17462
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
`UNITED STATES,
`-against-
`KEITH RANIERE,
`
`Defendant.
`
`SENTENCING MEMORANDUM
`18-CR-204 (S-(cid:21)) (NGG)
`
`NICHOLAS G. GARAUFIS, United States District Judge.
`
`This sentencing statement concerns Defendant Keith Raniere.
`Following a six-week trial over which I presided, Mr. Raniere was
`convicted of racketeering, racketeering conspiracy, wire fraud
`conspiracy, forced labor conspiracy, sex trafficking conspiracy,
`and two counts of sex trafficking.
`
`CACLULATION OF OFFENSE LEVEL & GUIDELINES
`RANGE
`
`The Probation Department recommends that I calculate the Total
`Offense Level for Mr. Raniere’s sentence as 52. (Presentence In-
`vestigation Report (“PSR”) ¶ 292.) The Government agrees with
`the PSR’s calculation. (See Gov’t Sentencing Mem. (“Gov’t
`Mem.”) (Dkt. 914) at 36.) Mr. Raniere objects to numerous as-
`pects of the PSR, and suggests that the correct Total Offense
`Level is 37. (Def. Sentencing Mem. (“Def. Mem.”) (Dkt. 925) at
`65-82.) For the following reasons, I find that the appropriate To-
`tal Offense Level is 49.
`
`Let me begin by addressing Mr. Raniere’s objections to the PSR’s
`Guidelines calculations.
`
`First, Mr. Raniere objects to the application of a four-point role
`enhancement under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines (“U.S.S.G.”)
`§ 3B1.1(a), which applies “[i]f the defendant was an organizer
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cr-00204-NGG-VMS Document 966 Filed 10/27/20 Page 2 of 20 PageID #: 17463
`
`
`
`or leader of a criminal activity that involved five or more partici-
`pants or was otherwise extensive.” The Second Circuit has held,
`in United States v. Ivezaj, 568 F.3d 88 (2d Cir. 2009), that when
`calculating the Guidelines for a RICO offense, a § 3B1.1 role en-
`hancement should be applied to the base offense level, “on the
`basis of the defendant’s role in the overall RICO enterprise,” ra-
`ther than “on the basis of his participation in discrete
`racketeering acts.” 568 F.3d at 99.
`
`Mr. Raniere asks this court to distinguish the Second Circuit’s
`holding in Ivezaj on the grounds that this case, unlike Ivezaj, does
`not involve a “traditional organized crime enterprise” engaging
`in violent criminal acts. (Def. Mem. at 66-67.) That argument
`lacks merit, because the Second Circuit’s analysis in that case was
`not based on the “traditional” nature of the enterprise at issue or
`the violent nature of the predicate acts. Rather, the Second Cir-
`cuit’s conclusion that “it makes little sense to allow a defendant
`who acts in a leadership capacity in a wide-ranging criminal en-
`terprise to have his offense level adjusted” based on his degree of
`participation in each predicate racketeering act applies with
`equal force in this case. Ivezaj, 568 F.3d at 99. Accordingly, I re-
`ject Mr. Raniere’s objections to the application of the four-point
`role enhancement in paragraphs 181, 189, 197, 203, 209, 215,
`221, 228, and 252 of the PSR.
`
`Next, Mr. Raniere objects to two aspects of the calculation for
`Counts 1 and 2, Racketeering Act 2, which concerns the sexual
`exploitation of Jane Doe 2. First, he objects to the application of
`a two-point increase, subject to U.S.S.G. § 2G2.1(b)(2)(A), for
`an offense that involved the commission of a sexual act or sexual
`contact. He argues that the offense at issue involves the porno-
`graphic photographs that he took of Jane Doe 2 when she was a
`minor, and that because the photographs themselves do not depict
`a sexual act or sexual contact, the two-level increase is improper,
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cr-00204-NGG-VMS Document 966 Filed 10/27/20 Page 3 of 20 PageID #: 17464
`
`
`
`notwithstanding evidence that Mr. Raniere did engage in an ille-
`gal sexual relationship with Jane Doe 2 beginning when she was
`15 years old. (Def. Mem. at 70-81.)
`
`Both the Second Circuit and at least one other circuit court have
`determined that the Guidelines allow for a base offense level to
`be increased under § 2G2.1(b)(2)(A) on the basis of a defend-
`ant’s sexual contact with the victim in grooming her for the
`offense, even where the photographs that are the subject of the
`offense depict no sexual contact. See United States v. Weisinger,
`586 F. App’x 733, 739 (2d Cir. 2014); United States v. Holt, 408
`F. App’x 229, 238 (11th Cir. 2010). Jane Doe 2 has made the
`courageous choice to speak up in connection with this sentenc-
`ing, and her victim impact statement corroborates the ample
`evidence in the trial record that Mr. Raniere took these photo-
`graphs in the context of an ongoing sexual relationship, through
`which Mr. Raniere groomed her for the offense of conviction. I
`therefore find that the two-point increase applies.
`
`I agree with Mr. Raniere’s objection to a two-level enhancement
`on Racketeering Act 2 subject to U.S.S.G. § 2G2.1(b)(5), which
`applies if the defendant was the minor’s parent, relative, or legal
`guardian, or if the minor was otherwise in the defendant’s cus-
`tody or care. While Jane Doe 2 was living in Nxivm-affiliated
`housing with adults other than her parents in November 2005,
`she was not living with Mr. Raniere. (Raniere Trial Tr. (“Tr.”) at
`2465-73.) This enhancement seems to be aimed primarily at sit-
`uations in which the defendant is either the victim’s parent or
`guardian or else plays an analogous custodial role. While Jane
`Doe 2 was entrusted to the care of the Nxivm community, led by
`Mr. Raniere, I do not think the record demonstrates that Mr. Ra-
`niere took on the kind of custodial role contemplated by the
`Guidelines. I therefore decline to apply this enhancement.
`
`I also agree with Mr. Raniere that the record does not support a
`two-level enhancement on Racketeering Acts 9(a) and 9(b),
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cr-00204-NGG-VMS Document 966 Filed 10/27/20 Page 4 of 20 PageID #: 17465
`
`
`
`which concern the trafficking of Jane Doe 4, on the grounds that
`she suffered serious bodily injury. See U.S.S.G. § 2H4.1(b)(1)(B).
`While the circumstances of Jane Doe 4’s confinement clearly had
`a serious adverse impact on her physical health, including the
`denial of medical care for a severe toothache, and on her mental
`health, I find that the bodily injury she suffered was not of the
`type or severity contemplated by the Guidelines in providing for
`this enhancement.
`
`I disagree with Mr. Raniere’s objection to the cross-reference to
`the sex trafficking Guidelines on Counts 1 and 2, Racketeering
`Act 12(b), and Count 6, which concern the forced labor of Jane
`Doe 5. Mr. Raniere argues that the cross-reference creates a prob-
`lem of “double counting,” because Mr. Raniere is also being
`sentenced for sex trafficking of Jane Doe 5. But as the Second
`Circuit has made clear, the Guidelines sometimes allow the court
`to “apply multiple Guidelines provisions based on the same un-
`derlying conduct where that is the result clearly intended by
`Congress and the Sentencing Commission.” United States v. Malo-
`ney, 406 F.3d 149, 152 (2d Cir. 2005). In this case, the so-called
`“double counting” that Mr. Raniere objects to is contemplated by
`U.S.S.G. § 2H4.1(b)(4)(B), and is a Guidelines calculation that
`“involve[s] ‘double counting’ in a literal sense, [but] do[es] not
`involve[] impermissible double counting.” Maloney, 406 F.3d at
`152.
`
`I agree with Mr. Raniere that the Government has not estab-
`lished, by a preponderance of the evidence, that either Sylvie or
`Additional DOS Victim 1 were victims of sex trafficking or a con-
`spiracy to commit sex trafficking. I therefore decline to include
`those acts in the Guidelines calculations.
`
`I disagree with Mr. Raniere that he is entitled to a three-point
`reduction under U.S.S.G. § 2X1.1(b)(1) with respect to his con-
`viction of attempted sex trafficking of Jane Doe 8. (See PSR ¶¶
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cr-00204-NGG-VMS Document 966 Filed 10/27/20 Page 5 of 20 PageID #: 17466
`
`
`
`279-284.) Section 2X.1(b)(1) provides for a three-point reduc-
`tion in the case of attempt convictions, “unless the defendant
`completed all the acts the defendant believed necessary for suc-
`cessful completion of the substantive offense.” For the offense of
`conviction of sex trafficking, that exception would therefore ap-
`ply if Mr. Raniere completed all the acts he believed necessary to
`“recruit[], entice[], harbor[], transport[], provide[], obtain[],
`maintain[], patronize[], or solicit[]” Jane Doe 8 for the purposes
`of engaging in commercial sex acts, regardless of whether Jane
`Doe 8 actually performed those acts. See 18 U.S.C. § 1591.
`
`I find that the preponderance of the evidence supports such a
`finding. The evidence at trial established that, in approximately
`November 2016, Jane Doe 8 was recruited into DOS, which she
`was told was a “women’s-only organization.” (Tr. at 4324.) Her
`recruitment followed a pattern in which Mr. Raniere directed
`“first line” DOS slaves to recruit their own slaves, and instructed
`them to conceal from the recruits that he was involved with DOS
`in any way. Shortly after being recruited, Jane Doe 8 was given
`a “special assignment” by her “masters” to “seduce” Mr. Raniere,
`and to allow Mr. Raniere to take a photograph to prove she had
`completed the “assignment.” (Tr. at 4416-20.) I find Jane Doe 8’s
`testimony credible, and reject Mr. Raniere’s contention that she
`somehow “misunderstood the assignment to sleep with Raniere.”
`(Def. Mem. at 80.) Thus, while Jane Doe 8 ultimately refused to
`engage in a sex act with Mr. Raniere, I find that the preponder-
`ance of the evidence establishes that Mr. Raniere “completed all
`the acts [he] believed necessary for successful completion of the
`substantive offense.” Accordingly, a three-point reduction under
`§ 2X1.1(b)(1) is not warranted.
`
`I disagree with Mr. Raniere’s objection to a five-level enhance-
`ment under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.5(b)(1) for engaging in a “pattern of
`activity involving prohibited sexual conduct.” Under the Guide-
`lines, a defendant engages in a pattern of activity involving
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cr-00204-NGG-VMS Document 966 Filed 10/27/20 Page 6 of 20 PageID #: 17467
`
`
`
`prohibited sexual conduct “if on at least two separate occasions,
`the defendant engaged in prohibited sexual conduct with a mi-
`nor.” Application Note 4(B)(i); see also United States v.
`Broxmeyer, 699 F.3d 265, 284 (2d Cir. 2012). The evidence es-
`tablishes that Mr. Raniere began a sexual relationship with Jane
`Doe 2 in or about September 2005, when she was fifteen years
`old. The evidence also establishes that, on at least two occasions,
`Mr. Raniere took photographs of Jane Doe 2 constituting child
`pornography. (See PSR ¶¶ 60-64; see also Oct. 27, 2020 Camila
`Victim Impact Statement (“Camila Statement”) (Dkt. 965-1).)
`That is sufficient to establish a “pattern of activity involving pro-
`hibited sexual conduct,” and the enhancement under §
`4B1.5(b)(1) is therefore warranted.
`
`Having addressed Mr. Raniere’s objections to the PSR’s Guide-
`lines calculation, I will now calculate the Guidelines range for
`Mr. Raniere’s sentence, using the 2018 Guidelines Manual. (See
`U.S.S.G. § 1B1.11.)
`
`On Count 1(a), for Visa Fraud, the base offense level is 19 and a
`four-point role enhancement applies, for an adjusted total of 23.
`(See U.S.S.G. §§ 2E1.1(a)(2), 2L2.1, 3B1.1(a).)
`
`On Counts 1 and 2, Racketeering Acts 1(a) and 1(b), for Conspir-
`acy to Commit Identity Theft and Unlawfully Possess Jane Doe
`1’s Identification, the base offense level is 19 and a four-point
`role enhancement applies, for an adjusted total of 23. (See
`U.S.S.G. §§ 2E1.1(a)(2), 2L2.1, 3B1.1(a).)
`
`On Counts 1 and 2, Racketeering Acts 2 and 4, for Sexual Exploi-
`tation of Jane Doe 2 on November 2, 2005, the base offense level
`is 32. (See U.S.S.G. §§ 2E1.1(a)(2), 2G2.1).) I apply a two-level
`increase because Jane Doe 2 was older than 12 but younger than
`16, a two-level increase because the offense involved sexual con-
`tact, and a four-point increase for the defendant’s leadership role,
`for an adjusted total of 40. (See U.S.S.G. §§ 2G2.1(b)(1)(B),
`(b)(2)(A), 3B1.1(a).)
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cr-00204-NGG-VMS Document 966 Filed 10/27/20 Page 7 of 20 PageID #: 17468
`
`
`
`On Counts 1 and 2, Racketeering Acts 3 and 4, for Sexual Exploi-
`tation of Jane Doe 2 on November 24, 2005, the computation is
`the same as the one I just described, with an adjusted offense
`level of 40. (See U.S.S.G. §§ 2E1.1(a)(2), 2G2.1, (b)(1)(B),
`(b)(2)(A), 3B1.1(a).)
`
`On Counts 1 and 2, Racketeering Acts 5(a) and 5(b), for Conspir-
`acy to Commit Identity Theft of James Loperfido, the base
`offense level is 19 and a four-point role enhancement applies, for
`an adjusted total of 23. (See U.S.S.G. §§ 2E1.1(a)(2), 2B1.1,
`3B1.1(a).)
`
`On Counts 1 and 2, Racketeering Acts 5(a) and 5(c), for Conspir-
`acy to Commit Identity Theft of Edgar Bronfman, Sr., the base
`offense level is 19 and a four-point role enhancement applies, for
`an adjusted total of 23. (See U.S.S.G. §§ 2E1.1(a)(2), 2B1.1,
`3B1.1(a).)
`
`On Counts 1 and 2, Racketeering Act 6, for Conspiracy to Alter
`Records for Use in an Official Proceeding, the base offense level
`is 19 and a four-point role enhancement applies, for an adjusted
`total of 23. (See U.S.S.G. §§ 2E1.1(a)(2), 2J1.2, 3B1.1(a).)
`
`On Counts 1 and 2, Racketeering Act 7, for Conspiracy to Commit
`Identity Theft of Jane Doe 3, the base offense level is 19 and a
`four-point role enhancement applies, for an adjusted total of 23.
`(See U.S.S.G. §§ 2E1.1(a)(2), 2B1.1, 3B1.1(a).)
`
`On Counts 1 and 2, Racketeering Acts 9(a) and 9(b), for Traf-
`ficking and Document Servitude of Jane Doe 4, the base offense
`level is 22, and I apply a three-level increase because the victim
`was held in peonage or involuntary servitude for over a year, and
`a four-level increase for the defendant’s leadership role, for an
`adjusted total of 29. (See U.S.S.G. §§ 2E1.1(a)(2), 2H4.1,
`(b)(3)(A), 3B1.1(a).)
`
`On Counts 1 and 2, Racketeering Act 10, for Extortion, the base
`offense level is 19 and a four-point role enhancement applies, for
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cr-00204-NGG-VMS Document 966 Filed 10/27/20 Page 8 of 20 PageID #: 17469
`
`
`
`an adjusted total of 23. (See U.S.S.G. §§ 2E1.1(a)(2), 2B3.2,
`3B1.1(a).)
`
`On Counts 1 and 2, Racketeering Act 12(a), and Counts 8 and 9,
`for Sex Trafficking of Jane Doe 5, the base offense level is 30 and
`a four-point role enhancement applies, for an adjusted total of
`34. (See U.S.S.G. §§ 2E1.1(a)(2), 2G1.1, (c)(1), 2A3.1(a)(2),
`3B1.1(a).)
`
`On Counts 1 and 2, Racketeering Act 12(b), and Count 6, for
`Forced Labor of Jane Doe 5, the base offense level is 32 and a
`four-point role enhancement applies, for an adjusted total of 36.
`(See U.S.S.G. §§ 2E1.1(a)(2), 2H4.1, (b)(4)(B), 3B1.1(a).)
`
`On Counts 1 and 2, Racketeering Act 14, for Conspiracy to Com-
`mit Identity Theft of Jane Doe 7, the base offense level is 19 and
`a four-point role enhancement applies, for an adjusted total of
`23. (See U.S.S.G. §§ 2E1.1(a)(2), 2B1.1, 3B1.1(a).)
`
`On Counts 1 and 7, for Wire Fraud Conspiracy, the base offense
`level is 19 and a four-point role enhancement applies, for an ad-
`justed total of 23. (See U.S.S.G. §§ 2E1.1(a)(2), 2B1.1,
`3B1.1(a).)
`
`On Counts 1, 8, and 10, for Attempted Sex Trafficking of Jane
`Doe 8, the base offense level is 34, and a four-point role enhance-
`ment applies, for an adjusted total of 38. (See U.S.S.G. §§
`2E1.1(a)(2), 2G1.1, 3B1.1(a).)
`
`I then compute the multiple count adjustment, which requires
`that I assign one unit to the group with the highest offense level,
`and one additional unit to each group that is equally serious or
`1-4 levels less serious. The two groups related to sexual exploita-
`tion of Jane Doe 2 have the highest adjusted offense level, at 40.
`I assign one unit to each of those groups, one unit to the group
`covering sex trafficking and forced labor of Jane Doe 5, and one
`unit to the group covering attempted sex trafficking of Jane Doe
`8. That yields a total of four units. (See U.S.S.G. § 3D1.4.) I then
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cr-00204-NGG-VMS Document 966 Filed 10/27/20 Page 9 of 20 PageID #: 17470
`
`take the greater of the adjusted offense levels, which is 40, and
`increase the level by 4 points, based on the unit calculation. (Id.)
`That would yield a Total Offense Level of 44.
`
`Finally, because the offense of conviction is a covered sex crime,
`the defendant engaged in a pattern of activity involving prohib-
`ited sexual conduct, the defendant is not a career offender, and
`§ 4B1.5(a) of the Guidelines does not apply, I increase the offense
`level by five points, to a total of 49. (See U.S.S.G. § 4B1.5(b)(1).)
`The Total Offense Level is therefore 49.
`
`Having determined the Total Offense Level, I will now calculate
`the Guidelines Range. The defendant is in Criminal History Cat-
`egory I, and his Total Offense Level is 49. Using the Guidelines
`table, I calculate that the applicable Guidelines range is life im-
`prisonment.
`
`SENTENCE
`
`Having calculated the Guidelines range, I now turn to the factors
`outlined in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Under § 3553(a), I must con-
`sider several factors in imposing a sentence, including the nature
`and circumstances of the offense; the defendant’s history and
`characteristics; the need for the sentence to reflect the serious-
`ness of the offense, to promote respect for the law, and to provide
`just punishment for the offense; the need for the sentence to af-
`ford adequate deterrence; and the need to protect the public.
`
`Before turning to an analysis of the § 3553(a) factors, it is im-
`portant to say a word about what I will be considering in that
`analysis. First, I have reviewed the parties’ sentencing submis-
`sions. I have read the 56 letters submitted in support of Mr.
`Raniere. Many of these letters express the genuine belief that
`Nxivm and Mr. Raniere played a positive role in people’s lives. Of
`course, I have also reviewed the many victim letters that have
`been submitted, and I have listened carefully to the victim state-
`ments made here today in court. I have heard and considered
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cr-00204-NGG-VMS Document 966 Filed 10/27/20 Page 10 of 20 PageID #: 17471
`
`
`
`counsel’s arguments. And I have also considered the testimony
`adduced at Mr. Raniere’s trial.
`
`After a six-week trial over which I presided, a jury found Mr. Ra-
`niere guilty of Racketeering Conspiracy, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
`§§ 1962(d), 1963(a); Racketeering, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§
`1962(c), 1963(a); Forced Labor Conspiracy, in violation of 18
`U.S.C. § 1594(b); Wire Fraud Conspiracy, in violation of 18
`U.S.C. §§ 1349, 1343; Sex Trafficking Conspiracy, in violation of
`18 U.S.C. §§ 1594(c), 1591(b)(1), and two counts of Sex Traf-
`ficking, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1591(a)(1), (b)(1). Mr.
`Raniere was convicted of all eleven racketeering acts submitted
`to the jury, to wit: (1) Conspiracy to Commit Identity Theft and
`Unlawfully Possess Identification of Jane Doe 1; (2) two acts of
`Sexual Exploitation of a Minor, Jane Doe 2; (3) Possession of
`Child Pornography; (4) Conspiracy to Commit Identity Theft; (5)
`Conspiracy to Alter Records for Use in an Official Proceeding; (6)
`Conspiracy to Commit Identity Theft of Jane Doe 3; (7) Traffick-
`ing and Document Servitude of Jane Doe 4; (8) State Law
`Extortion; (9) Sex Trafficking and Forced Labor of Jane Doe 5;
`and (10) Conspiracy to Commit Identity Theft of Jane Doe 7. (See
`PSR ¶¶ 4-22.)
`
`The context in which Mr. Raniere committed these egregious
`crimes is by now well known. Mr. Raniere is the founder of an
`organization called Nxivm, a self-styled executive coaching and
`self-help organization that functioned as a pyramid scheme in
`which members paid thousands of dollars for various “work-
`shops” and new members were recruited via the promise of
`payments or services for enrolling others into the scheme. (PSR
`¶¶ 29-34.) Mr. Raniere made members of Nxivm call him “the
`Vanguard,” and he maintained a rotating group of fifteen to
`twenty female Nxivm members with whom he had sexual rela-
`tionships. (Id.) These women were not permitted to have sexual
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cr-00204-NGG-VMS Document 966 Filed 10/27/20 Page 11 of 20 PageID #: 17472
`
`
`
`relationships with anyone but Mr. Raniere or to discuss with oth-
`ers their relationship with Mr. Raniere. (Id.)
`
`In 2015, Raniere created a secret society called “DOS” or “the
`Vow.” (Id. ¶ 35.) As the PSR explains:
`
`DOS was comprised of all female masters (who were Nxivm
`members) who recruited and commanded groups of all fe-
`male slaves. When identifying prospective slaves, masters
`often targeted women who were experiencing difficulties in
`their lives, including dissatisfaction with the pace of their ad-
`vancement in Nxivm. Each DOS slave was expected to
`recruit slaves of her own, who in turn owed service not only
`to their masters but also to masters above them in the DOS
`pyramid. Raniere alone formed the top of the pyramid as the
`highest master. Other than Raniere, all participants in DOS
`were women. Raniere's status as head of the pyramid was
`concealed from all newly recruited slaves, other than those
`directly under Raniere. DOS masters persuaded slaves to join
`DOS by falsely describing it as a secret women's empower-
`ment group and that the goal of DOS was to eradicate
`weaknesses in its members. Prospective slaves were required
`to provide collateral to prevent them from leaving the group
`or disclosing its existence to others. Collateral included sex-
`ually explicit photographs and videos of themselves, rights
`to financial assets, and videos or letters of (true or untrue)
`confessions that would be damaging to the prospective
`slave's family members and friends. After joining DOS, slaves
`were required to provide additional collateral, including sex-
`ually explicit photographs, and to pay tribute to their
`masters, including by performing tasks that would otherwise
`be compensable. In addition, several DOS slaves were di-
`rected to have sex with Raniere to maintain membership.
`
`(Id.)
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cr-00204-NGG-VMS Document 966 Filed 10/27/20 Page 12 of 20 PageID #: 17473
`
`
`
`In other words, DOS operated to abuse and exploit young women
`for sex, labor, and financial gain.
`
`I now turn to the § 3553(a) factors. The nature and circum-
`stances of Mr. Raniere’s conduct, as well as his history and
`characteristics and the need for his sentence to reflect the seri-
`ousness of the offense, all warrant a significant sentence. The
`evidence before me makes clear that Mr. Raniere’s conduct was
`particularly egregious because he targeted and exploited girls
`and young women. He continued this abuse over the course of
`many years. And his abuse inflicted unimaginable trauma and
`damage on his victims.
`
`Take, for instance, his sexual exploitation of Camila (Jane Doe
`2). Mr. Raniere first met Camila when she was 13 years old—in
`their first conversation alone, they spoke about how Camila had
`just placed second in her eighth grade spelling bee contest. (Ca-
`mila Statement at 1.) Mr. Raniere began a sexual relationship
`with Camila two years later, when he was 45 and she was 15.
`(PSR ¶¶ 60-64; Camila Statement at 1.) He took naked pictures
`of 15-year-old Camila, something she describes as being “seared
`into my memory.” (Camila Statement at 1-2.) Years after they
`met, Mr. Raniere told Camila he knew she was “special” ever
`since they first met each other when she was 13. (Camila State-
`ment at 1.)
`
`Mr. Raniere exerted control over this child in every way imagi-
`nable. As she puts it, “[h]e used my innocence to do whatever he
`wanted with me—not just sexually but also psychologically. He
`manipulated me into what he wanted, for his own reasons [and]
`for his own pleasure.” (Id. at 2.) Mr. Raniere directed Camila to
`overstay her visa, thereby giving him additional leverage over
`her, and he put her up in an apartment where he would, “come
`in the house, have sex, and leave.” (Id.) He controlled and ma-
`nipulated her in every way. He told her he needed a “vow of
`absolute obedience,” and that she had “to be happy whenever
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cr-00204-NGG-VMS Document 966 Filed 10/27/20 Page 13 of 20 PageID #: 17474
`
`
`
`you are with me because my time means that much.” (Gov’t Ex.
`A. (Dkt. 914-1.) at 239.) In one message, Mr. Raniere wrote her:
`
`If you want me to come tonight, I will under these condi-
`tions: there will be no talking. You will meet me at the door
`in the outfit you think I would find sexiest. You will arouse
`me, we will make love for my satisfaction and pleasure. You
`will do everything you can to provide that. I will finish and
`leave. Do you agree yes or no?
`
`(Gov’t Ex. A. at 96.) When Camila had a relationship with an-
`other man, Mr. Raniere “punished [her] emotionally,
`psychologically, and sexually.” (Camila Statement at 3.) He
`branded her. As Camila tells the court:
`
`I hold scars on my body from him that can never be erased.
`They carry immense emotional and psychological pain. They
`are a reminder of his cruelty and manipulation. He knew ex-
`actly what he was doing, even asking me at some point if
`having his initials on my body would keep me from being
`with other people. He drew pleasure from knowing he had
`marked me—I was his. Even when I got a tattoo to cover his
`mark, it was not enough to disguise the pain and shame it
`reminds me of.
`
`(Id.)
`
`Mr. Raniere’s abuse of Camila was cruel to the point of inhu-
`mane. He made her ask his permission for almost everything,
`including to contact her family and to cut her hair. (Gov’t Mem.
`at 43.) At one point, Camila messaged Raniere, “I feel like I have
`a gun pointed at me and I’m [] just trying to say what you want
`to hear so you won’t shoot but I don’t know what it is you want
`to hear.” (Id. at 45.) Simply put, the harm he inflicted upon her
`is incalculable.
`
`Mr. Raniere had many other victims. Mr. Raniere, along with oth-
`ers, trafficked Daniela (Jane Doe 4) into the United States, and
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cr-00204-NGG-VMS Document 966 Filed 10/27/20 Page 14 of 20 PageID #: 17475
`
`
`
`she began working for Raniere. (PSR ¶ 66.) Mr. Raniere initiated
`a sexual relationship with Daniela when she was 18 years old; as
`he did with many of the girls and women he had sexual relation-
`ships with, Mr. Raniere instructed Daniela to keep their
`relationship a secret. When Daniela developed feelings for an-
`other man, Mr. Raniere told her parents that she had committed
`an “ethical breach.” (PSR ¶ 67.) To punish Daniela, Mr. Raniere
`ordered that she be confined to a room in her parents’ home with-
`out human contact. At Mr. Raniere’s instruction, Lauren
`Salzman, one of the “First Line” DOS members, threatened Dan-
`iela that if she left the room, she would be sent to Mexico without
`any identification documents. Id. Like his treatment of Camila,
`Mr. Raniere’s treatment of Daniela was particularly cruel because
`of the psychological harm he inflicted on her at such a young age.
`Forced to remain in her room for months and months on end,
`Daniela testified that one of the worst aspects of her kidnapping
`was the feeling that, “I’m in a world where nobody cares that I’m
`losing my life,” and thinking that “it was clearly never [going to]
`end.” (Tr. at 2905.)
`
`It is necessary for me to mention at this juncture a letter submit-
`ted in support of Mr. Raniere that I received from Hector, the
`father of Daniela and Camila. I am frankly baffled why anyone
`thought this letter would help Mr. Raniere. In the letter, Hector
`waxes nostalgic about how Mr. Raniere helped him run a mara-
`thon, before turning to slandering his own daughter, Daniela,
`calling her a liar and a thief, and implying she had no one but
`herself to blame for what happened to her. Let me be clear: I find
`Hector’s letter, in support of the man who abused his own daugh-
`ters, a disgrace. And, to Daniela, who is here today in the
`courtroom, let me also be clear: what happened to you is not
`your fault, and I am deeply impressed with your courage and re-
`silience. And that goes for all the victims who have spoken today,
`either in-person or by video or audio.
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cr-00204-NGG-VMS Document 966 Filed 10/27/20 Page 15 of 20 PageID #: 17476
`
`
`
`Turning back to Mr. Raniere, his operation of DOS to exploit
`women was ruthless and unyielding. One “slave” was ordered to
`“seduce” Mr. Raniere by sending him naked photographs of her
`every day. (PSR ¶ 101; Tr. at 219.) She was later taken to his
`house where he performed unwanted oral sex on her and took
`more photographs of her. Mr. Raniere blindfolded another
`“slave,” and tied her down to a table while a third person per-
`formed unwanted oral sex on her. (Tr. at 3921-29.) Several
`former DOS “slaves” testified that they were terrified to leave or
`speak out against DOS out of fear that their “collateral” would be
`released. All the while, Mr. Raniere also benefitted financially, as
`DOS “slaves” were coerced into providing labor and services for
`their “masters” and Mr. Raniere. (PSR ¶¶ 84-96.) Mr. Raniere
`perpetrated these crimes over the course of many years, and his
`conduct harmed a great many people. More than 90 individuals
`have submitted victim impact statements to the court in coneec-
`tion with this sentencing, describing the harm that his criminal
`conduct inflicted on them.
`
`What is clear to me, from all of this, is that the offenses of which
`the jury convicted Mr. Raniere are cruel, perverse, and extremely
`serious. They targeted the most vulnerable among his commu-
`nity, and they inflicted untold damage. As one of Mr. Raniere’s
`victims wrote:
`
`I can never fully explain how much damage Keith Raniere
`has caused me and so many others. The psychological impact
`of his twisted teachings permeate my brain even after 2+
`years of consistent therapy. His sexual abuse and humiliation
`of me, lives in my body and wreaks havoc with my soul if I
`am not completely diligent. Nightmares fill my head almost
`weekly, and the things he taught me to think about myself
`have made me neglect my health and cause myself undue
`pain on countless occasions.
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cr-00204-NGG-VMS Document 966 Filed 10/27/20 Page 16 of 20 PageID #: 17477
`
`
`
`(Sylvie Supp. Victim Impact Statement.) Taking account of the
`nature of the offenses of conviction, as well as Mr. Raniere’s his-
`tory and characteristics and the seriousness of his offenses,
`makes abundantly clear that a significant sentence is not just ap-
`propriate, but necessary.
`
`In determining an appropriate sentence, I also consider the need
`for the sentence that I impose to reflect the seriousness of the
`offense, promote respect for the law, and provide general and
`specific deterrence. I find that a review of these factors also coun-
`sels in favor of a significant sentence. Despite everything that has
`happened and despite the countless victims who have given voice
`to their great pain, Mr. Raniere remains unmoved. Indeed, he
`maintains his innocence. (See Def. Mem at 1 (“Keith Raniere con-
`tinues to assert his complete innocence to these charges.”). To
`him, the brave victims who have spoken out about the abuse suf-
`fered at his hands—including those who spoke today—are liars.
`(Id. at 5.) The women who have courageously testified to his sex-
`ual exploitation of them are liars, too; in fact, they all just wanted
`to be with him. (Id. at 13-15.) And the six-week trial he was af-
`forded before a jury of his peers was simply inconsequential.
`
`Mr. Raniere has therefore not only failed to demonstrate remorse
`for his conduct, but he also maintains to this day that he has done
`nothing wrong. As recently as November 2019, he described DOS
`as “good—not just good and even noble, but great—and vitally
`important for women and humanity.” (Gov’t Mem. at 51.) Hav-
`ing presided over his trial, and having sat here today and listened
`to Mr. Raniere’s victims, I find it deeply troubling that he thinks
`of DOS in those terms. To make matters worse, he and his coun-
`sel, funded by an unlimited war chest courtesy of co-conspirator
`Clare Bronfman, are engaged in a public relations campaign to
`cast doubt on the integrity of the judicial system and the jury ver-
`dict. Ultimately, Mr. Raniere’s lack of remorse, coupled with his
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cr-00204-NGG-VMS Document 966 Filed 10/27/20 Page 17 of 20 PageID #: 17478
`
`
`
`view that the conduct for which he was convicted was actually
`“noble,” strongly suggests th