IN THE SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS

STATEMENT OF CHARGES PURSUANT TO
SUPREME COURT RULE 762(a)

Jerome Larkin, Administrator of the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission, by his attorney, Marcia Topper Wolf, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 762(a), states that on the date Manny A. Aguja (hereinafter "Movant"), filed a motion requesting that his name be stricken from the Roll of Attorneys, the Administrator was investigating the conduct that formed the basis for Movant’s conviction for the offense of conspiracy to commit marriage fraud, in the case docketed as U.S.A. v. Aguja, docket number 09 CR 619-2 (U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division). Had Movant’s conduct been the subject of a hearing, the Administrator would have introduced the evidence described below, and that evidence would have clearly and convincingly established the following conclusions of misconduct:

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Records from the federal district court in the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, would establish the following facts:

1. On November 18, 2009, a federal grand jury sitting in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, returned a 14-count indictment against Movant (the "indictment") and other defendants in the case captioned, USA v. Manny Aguja, et al., 09 CR 619. The indictment charged Movant with conspiracy to commit marriage fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 371 (Count 1), making a false statement in a naturalization

PAGE 2:

application, in violation of 18 U.S.C., Sec. 1425(a) (Count 11), and conspiracy to encourage and induce aliens to reside in the United States, knowing and in reckless disregard of the fact that such residence would be in violation of the law, in violation of 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1324(a)(1)(A)(v)(I) (Count 14).

2. On April 25, 2011, Movant entered into a plea agreement, whereby he pled guilty to Count 1 of the indictment described above, and the court entered a judgment of guilty pursuant to that guilty plea. In the plea agreement, Movant admitted the facts set forth in paragraphs three through seven below, and admitted that those facts would establish his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

3. Between July 2003 and October 2009, Movant, together with co-defendants, conspired to knowingly arrange for marriages for the purpose of evading provisions of the immigration laws, namely 8 U.S.C. Secs. 1154 and 1186a, which provisions restrict the availability of legal permanent resident status, applied for on the basis of marriage to a United States citizen, to those foreign nationals who have entered into the marriage in good faith, not in exchange for something of value and not for the purpose of procuring the foreign national’s admission as an immigrant, and to aid and abet the commission of that offense, in violation of 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1325(c) and 18 U.S.C., Sec. 2.

4. While engaged in the conspiracy, Movant operated a law firm and employed two of his co-defendants. Together with these two employees and other co-defendants, Movant assisted individuals engaged in fraudulent marriages designed for the U.S. citizens to be paid and for the foreign nations to obtain an immigration benefit such as permanent residence status.

5. The assistance given by Movant and certain of his co-defendants included filling out and filing immigration paperwork such as U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services

PAGE 3:

("CIS") Forms I-130, I-485, and I-765, for the individuals engaged in fraudulent marriages, knowing that the marriages were fraudulent and entered into to evade the immigration laws. Movant knew that the paperwork contained false statements and knew that the paperwork would be submitted to CIS to support the legitimacy of the fraudulent marriages.

6. The assistance given by Movant also included meeting with the individuals participating in the fraudulent marriages prior to their immigration interview with CIS, and providing these individuals with advice on how to make their fraudulent marriages appear legitimate to the immigration authorities.

7. Movant knew that, as part of the conspiracy, one of his co-defendants arranged for fraudulent marriages between United States citizens and foreign nationals seeking an immigration benefit such as permanent residence status and that the co-defendant referred these individuals to Movant’s law office, where Movant and two of his employees and co-defendants prepared paperwork for the fraudulent marriages as well as providing coaching to the individuals on how to make their fraudulent marriages appear legitimate. Movant assisted in this manner with at least ten such fraudulent marriages.

8. On November 29, 2011, the court granted the government’s motion to continue sentencing as to Movant and all of his co-defendants in the Northern District of Illinois criminal case described above.

II. CONCLUSIONS OF MISCONDUCT

9. As a result of the conduct described above, Respondent has engaged in the following misconduct:

1. committing a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects, by violating 18 U.S.C. Sec. 371, in violation

PAGE 4:

of Rule 8.4(a)(3) of the 1990 Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct;

2. conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation, in violation of Rule 8.4(a)(4) of the 1990 Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct;

3. conduct that is prejudicial to the administration justice, in violation of Rule 8.4(a)(5) of the 1990 Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct; and

4. conduct which tends to defeat the administration of justice or to bring the courts or the legal profession into disrepute, in violation of Supreme Court Rule 770.