[Peter_Spaeth]

No argument we make for leniency will change the reality that Bill has lived his remorse
and regret every day for the past eight years, and that he will continue to own up to his
misconduct for the rest of his life. It has eaten away at him in ways that come through in the
hundreds of letters of support penned on his behalf, especially those from his family, who speak
of the shame and suicidal impulses he has suffered as a result. Yet during this darkest period he
has redoubled his efforts to do charitable good works, serving his religion and helping those in
need. We therefore express four hopes in this submission.

First, we hope that, in looking at the whole of Bill’s life, this Court will see that—despite
the wrongs he admits to having committed—he has also changed so many lives for the better.
Unlike others who have been described as philanthropists, Bill has worked quietly and directly,
motivated by what the Senior Probation Officer describes as a “genuine sense of altruism” long
predating this investigation. He does not simply write checks; he is completely devoted with all
of his resources and time. He counsels people directly. He mends with them. He prays with
them. He works with them, whether it is helping them through emotional or substance-abuse
problems, financial straits, or physical labor. He helps them financially and through personal
guidance. And he works prodigiously, even walking Chicago’s public housing projects each
week to reach out and help those in need. Many, many people have come to depend on him.

Second, we hope that the Court sees that the important principles of deterrence—both
specific and general—have already been served in this case. Bill has been out of the sportsmemorabilia
industry since February 2009. He cannot and would not go back. His case is now
an epic tale within the industry, a lesson to all about the consequences of auction-related
misconduct. It is for this reason that even the Government has advised this Court that Bill’s
public confessions “provide a strong deterrent message to others in the industry, which was an
additional benefit to the government in this case.” See Government’s Memorandum in Support
of the Proposed Plea Agreement (Doc. No. 79) at 3.

Third, we hope that, given the breadth and depth of its experience, the Court will put
Bill’s offense in context when determining his ultimate punishment. During Bill’s time with the
auctions business, he had tens of thousands of customers. He sold more than $300 million worth
of sports memorabilia. Despite his transgressions, he helped create a vibrant industry, and
helped establish real standards for authentication and grading. Many, many people have
collections they are proud of, and investments they have profited from, because of Bill. Shill
bidding attributable to Bill’s offense conduct inflated the prices of approximately 1% of the more
than 100,000 total lots sold by Mastro Auctions—unquestionably the exception, not the norm.
Moreover, Bill was not selling a fraudulent product: his collectibles were authentic, and people
continue to enjoy them and profit from them all over the country today. This is not to say that
Bill’s conduct caused no harm. But he did not cause substantial financial hardship either: people
paid what they were willing to pay for these discretionary purchases—indeed, “might have spent
the same amounts of money absent the fraud,” according to the Senior Probation Officer—even
if, as Bill readily acknowledges, sometimes they should have paid less. Furthermore, as the
Senior Probation Officer notes, the average loss per customer did not cause “irreparable harm,”
and “unlike in most fraud schemes, [] the victims actually gained something of value.” In short,
every one of Bill’s customers received an authentic item they wanted, for a price they were
willing to pay, with the bulk of the proceeds going to consignors, not the auction house, and with
buyers typically experiencing an appreciation in value over time. Again, we do not offer this
perspective as an excuse or justification, but as relevant context for the offense conduct: Bill’s
misconduct, while wrong, was statistically infrequent, did not characterize his business practice,
and did not cause any type of substantial financial harm typical of what this Court has seen in
other financial-fraud cases.