Federal prosecutors in the Northern District of California have proposed a plea agreement under which Sonoma real estate developer Ken Mattson would plead guilty to one count of wire fraud and serve no more than 12 years in federal prison, with full restitution to victims [1]. A change-of-plea hearing is scheduled for May 11 before U.S. District Judge Jon Tigar in San Jose [1]. The agreement remains contingent on the court's acceptance, and Judge Tigar is not bound by the proposed sentencing cap [1].
Mattson operated what authorities have characterized as a classic Ponzi scheme, using investor funds drawn from Sonoma-area real estate ventures to pay earlier investors rather than generating legitimate returns [1]. Wire fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1343 carries a statutory maximum of 20 years per count, meaning the judge retains authority to impose a sentence well above the 12-year ceiling embedded in the proposed deal [1]. The case is being prosecuted by the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Northern District of California, which charged Mattson after an investigation into his real estate investment operations in the Sonoma region [1].
The May 11 hearing will function as the critical inflection point for the case. If Mattson enters his plea as anticipated, Judge Tigar will receive the agreement, review a presentence report, and determine at a later sentencing whether the proposed 12-year term adequately accounts for the scope of the fraud and the losses sustained by victims [1]. A restitution order, the amount of which has not been publicly specified, would accompany any sentence [1]. If the judge declines to accept the plea terms, Mattson would have the option to withdraw his guilty plea and proceed to trial.
Investors and victims in the Sonoma area have been awaiting resolution of the case since authorities first described the scheme's mechanics publicly. The outcome of the May 11 proceeding will determine whether the matter moves toward a sentencing phase or reverts to trial posture. Defense counsel's position on the agreement has not been disclosed in available reporting.
Comments (0)