UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

┐ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, │ Plaintiff-Appellee, │ > No. 23-3109 │ v. │ │ RAYMOND A. ERKER, │ Defendant-Appellant. │ ┘

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio at Cleveland. No. 1:20-cr-00478-1—Dan A. Polster, District Judge.

Argued: October 29, 2024

Decided and Filed: March 3, 2025

Before: STRANCH, THAPAR, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

_________________

COUNSEL ARGUED: Benton C. Martin, FEDERAL COMMUNITY DEFENDER OFFICE, Detroit, Michigan, for Appellant. Jason Manion, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Cleveland, Ohio, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Benton C. Martin, FEDERAL COMMUNITY DEFENDER OFFICE, Detroit, Michigan, for Appellant. Jason Manion, Stephanie Wojtasik, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Cleveland, Ohio, for Appellee. _________________

OPINION _________________

THAPAR, Circuit Judge. Raymond Erker operated a Ponzi scheme that swindled over fifty people, mainly senior citizens, out of nine million dollars. A jury convicted Erker of mail fraud, wire fraud, money laundering, and making a false statement under oath. Erker appeals his No. 23-3109 United States v. Erker Page 2

money laundering conviction, raises an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim, and objects to various aspects of his sentence. Erker’s arguments fall short, so we affirm his sentence. But we remand so that the district court can consider one of Erker’s sentence-reduction arguments.

I.

Raymond Erker took money from investors, used the money for his own personal consumption, invested it in risky business endeavors, lied about it, and solicited more investors to cover his tracks.

First, Erker created two companies called GenSource and Provident Securities. Next, Erker and his co-conspirators solicited investors for GenSource and Provident (without disclosing that Erker owned both entities). They lured investors with promises of annuities and senior secured notes that in turn would generate safe, guaranteed rates of return for investors. But that wasn’t true. GenSource and Provident couldn’t give investors annuities—they didn’t have the required licenses. And Provident couldn’t offer investors senior secured notes because it had no property that could secure the notes.

Rather than making good on his promises, Erker misappropriated investor funds. He transferred money to his own personal bank account and other entities he owned. And he used the investors’ money to invest in risky start-ups. The scheme was elaborate. For instance, to disguise the fact that he owned and operated GenSource and Provident, Erker created office fronts and mailing addresses in Delaware and Nevada. And to assuage investor concerns, Erker set up call centers and fabricated account statements to make it look like all was well.

Then things went south. For the most part, Erker’s investments in the start-ups didn’t pay off. So he solicited more investors and us