The defense has responded as to why the governments characterization of Ian's actions is wrong in relation to the sentencing, restitution to "victims", and why the enhancement penalty for the elderly does not apply. There were no victims connected to Ian, the government does not even know who the scammers are, did not prove Ian knew of any scams, the scams were not all romance scams or elderly (80% at best), victims purchased and received the bitcoin they bought for themselves AND THEN sent the bitcoin onward in at least some instances according to the governments so-called victims, so in other words Ian wasn't the "end" part of the scam.  As presented by the defense: "In short, it is not that the principles cited by the Government could never establish that a person convicted of Money Laundering Conspiracy should pay restitution to the victims of romance scams. Rather, the point of the defense and Probation is that the Government has not established such a direct and proximate connection in this case." Basically Ian's only in theory responsible for losses that can be proven connected to the scams among the co-conspirators of which there are none. In a case where the launder is part of the scamming the launderer could be held liable. That isn't the case here. For the full response check out:

https://www.freedomsphoenix.com/Media/Media-Files/gov.uscourts.nhd.56159.349.0.pdf