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 a single count of wire fraud, accept a sentence capped at 12 years in prison, and commit to paying full restitution to investors who lost money in what authorities characterize as a classic Ponzi scheme [1]. Details of the proposed agreement became public through an April 29 letter sent to investors by a victim-witness specialist in the U.S. Attorney's Office in San Jose [1]. A change-of-plea hearing is scheduled for May 11 before the court [1].
Mattson, a prominent figure in Sonoma County's real estate market, was indicted on federal wire fraud charges tied to allegations that he solicited investor funds under false pretenses and used later investments to pay earlier ones, a hallmark of Ponzi-style fraud [1]. The Securities and Exchange Commission has also been involved in the matter, reflecting the dual civil and criminal exposure that typically accompanies large-scale investment fraud cases of this type [1]. Wire fraud under 18 U.S.C. Section 1343 carries a statutory maximum of 20 years per count, making a 12-year cap a negotiated ceiling, not a guaranteed outcome, subject to judicial acceptance.
The proposed terms require Mattson to plead to a single count rather than face the full weight of a multi-count indictment, a standard prosecutorial concession in plea negotiations that reduces trial risk for both sides. Full restitution, while pledged in the agreement's framework, will ultimately depend on Mattson's available assets and any civil recovery proceedings running in parallel [1]. Judge Jon S. Tigar is identified as the presiding judicial officer [1].
The May 11 hearing will determine whether Mattson formally enters a guilty plea and whether the court accepts the agreement's parameters. A judge is not bound by the parties' sentencing recommendations and may reject a plea agreement that does not serve the interests of justice. If the plea proceeds, the court will then schedule a separate sentencing hearing, at which victim impact statements and restitution calculations will play a central role. If negotiations break down, the case would proceed toward trial on the existing indictment.
Comments (0)