Score:   1
Docket Number:   D-VT  5:18-cr-00090
Case Name:   USA v. Patel
  Press Releases:
The Office of the United States Attorney for the District of Vermont announced that Bhaskar Patel, 67, of Windermere, Florida, appeared today in federal district court in Rutland to answer to charges that, while employed by Schneider Electric Building Americas, he unlawfully solicited and accepted $2,536,119.19 in bribes and kickbacks associated with federal energy savings performance contracts (“ESPCs”) issued to Schneider Electric by various federal agencies.  The Information filed in the case covers the time-period between June 6, 2011 and April 19, 2016.  Chief District Court Judge Geoffrey W. Crawford accepted Patel’s guilty plea to both of the counts charged in the Information and released Patel on conditions.  Judge Crawford ordered Patel to be back in U.S. District Court on December 7, 2018 for sentencing. 

According to court documents, law enforcement initially received information that Patel had altered and falsified a bid document submitted to Schneider Electric by a Vermont subcontractor.  That subcontractor was bidding for work on an ESPC at the United States Department of Veterans Affairs, White River Junction, Vermont Medical Center (“VA-WRJ”).  Patel selected a different subcontractor to work on Schneider’s project, and – in order to cover his tracks – falsified the losing local bid.  From there, investigators uncovered a wide-ranging scheme to defraud the federal government, whereby Patel received in excess of $2.5 million in illegal bribes and kickbacks in exchange for awarding a piece of Schneider Electric’s enormous federal contracts to subcontractors who agreed to pay bribes and kickbacks for the work.  Patel directed the subcontractors to pay him by check, often diverting funds through his adult son and daughter, and insisting on a bogus reference notation.

For each contract named in the Information, Patel, a Senior Project Manager, was authorized and directed by Schneider Electric to obtain bids from subcontractors and recommend for selection the subcontractors that would be awarded a contract under an ESPC. 

According to the Information, Patel accepted illegal kickbacks and bribes in connection with a $70 million project for the United States Coast Guard (“USCG”) in Aguadilla, Puerto Rico; a $24.7 million project for the United States Department of Agriculture (“USDA”) in Albany, California; a $12.6 million project for the United States General Services Administration (“GSA”) in St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands; a $21.8 million project for GSA in San Juan, Puerto Rico and St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands; a proposed project of $42.4 million for work on the VA medical centers in Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Maine; and a $114.3 million project for the U.S. Navy for work on the Naval base in Coronado, California.

Patel pleaded guilty to one count of accepting illegal kickbacks in connection with federal contracts, a violation of 41 U.S.C. §§ 8702 and 8707, and one count of accepting bribes in connection with federal contracts, a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 666.  Patel faces up to ten years of imprisonment, followed by up to three years of supervised release, on each of the counts of conviction.  Patel further faces a fine of up to $5,072,238.38, or twice his ill-gotten gains.  The actual sentence, however, will be determined by the Court with guidance from the advisory Federal Sentencing Guidelines.  The government also filed a Notice of Forfeiture in the amount of $2,536,119.19, which Patel agreed to as part of his guilty plea.  As part of his negotiated plea with the government, the government agreed to reduce the forfeiture from $2.5 million to $1.75 million if Patel pays $950,000 in forfeiture on or before his sentencing date.

United States Attorney Christina E. Nolan commended the collaborative investigative efforts of the VA Office of Inspector General, the GSA Office of Inspector General, the Naval Criminal Investigative Service, the USDA Office of Inspector General, and the Coast Guard Investigative Service, stating: “This important conviction results from a team effort by talented law enforcement officers from a cross-section of government agencies.  Patel’s crime involved a sweeping fraud that harmed many federal agencies and the American citizens and government employees who depend upon them.  The U.S. Attorney’s Office is committed to continuing to collaborate with our law enforcement partners in all agencies to combat large-scale financial fraud and guard against misuse, diversion, and theft of taxpayer dollars.  Unmasking and combatting crimes of greed will remain a top priority of the USAO.  I also commend the talented AUSAs in the district of Vermont who worked with law enforcement over the course of a lengthy investigation to achieve justice in this complex case.  Our skilled prosecutors will remain focused and relentless in their pursuit of justice in complex fraud cases, in collaboration with our agency partners.”

“Federal energy savings performance contracts are intended to save VA money.  Bribery and other corrupt acts by contractors instead divert and waste precious dollars intended for our nation’s veterans,” said VA-OIG Special Agent-in-Charge Sean J. Smith.  “The VA Office of Inspector General will continue to work with our partners in the law enforcement community to prevent this type of fraud and hold any wrongdoers accountable.”

USDA-OIG Special Agent-in-Charge Bethanne M. Dinkins commented, “We appreciate the commitment of the U.S. Attorney’s Office and the cooperative efforts of our law enforcement partners throughout this significant investigation.  Mr. Patel’s guilty plea sends a strong message regarding the benefit of working across agency lines to protect the integrity of the procurement process throughout Government.  The USDA Office of Inspector General will continue to dedicate resources to investigate those who unlawfully solicit and accept bribes and kickbacks involving USDA contracts.”

CGIS Special Agent in Charge Art Walker stated, “The Coast Guard Investigative Service is committed to protecting Coast Guard assets, personnel, and operations worldwide.  CGIS Special Agents from the Major Procurement Fraud Division coordinated with federal law enforcement partners to uncover this massive scheme that defrauded the U.S. Government.”

“The GSA Office of Inspector General will continue to aggressively investigate GSA contractors who engage in bribery and kickback schemes at the expense of the government,” added Special Agent in Charge, Luis Hernandez.

NCIS Northeast Field Office Special Agent in Charge Leo S. Lamont stated, “Fraud is never a victimless crime. In this case involving bribery and kickbacks related to the mischarging of the Navy for services and construction, the victims are not just our men and women in uniform, but all American taxpayers. NCIS will continue to tirelessly pursue all those who seek to take advantage of the Department of the Navy and its interests while keeping the procurement system fair and honest.”

The United States is represented in this matter by Assistant U.S. Attorneys Abigail Averbach, Owen Foster, and Paul van de Graaf.  Bhaskar Patel is represented by David Haas, Esq., of Haas Law in Orlando, Florida; and Heather Ross, Esq., of Sheehey, Furlong & Behm PC in Burlington, Vermont.

Docket (0 Docs):   https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1rhPaBb3kd2Ar_EGyPAhoFsIgcwMfyhk-uPVEoCdUJhY
  Last Updated: 2025-03-08 11:20:53 UTC
Description: The fiscal year of the data file obtained from the AOUSC
Format: YYYY

Description: The code of the federal judicial circuit where the case was located
Format: A2

Description: The code of the federal judicial district where the case was located
Format: A2

Description: The code of the district office where the case was located
Format: A2

Description: Docket number assigned by the district to the case
Format: A7

Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which cannot be modified by the court
Format: A3

Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which can be modified by the court
Format: A3

Description: A sequential number indicating whether a case is an original proceeding or a reopen
Format: N5

Description: Case type associated with the current defendant record
Format: A2

Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, defendant number, and reopen sequence number
Format: A18

Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, and reopen sequence number
Format: A15

Description: The status of the defendant as assigned by the AOUSC
Format: A2

Description: A code indicating the fugitive status of a defendant
Format: A1

Description: The date upon which a defendant became a fugitive
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: The date upon which a fugitive defendant was taken into custody
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: The date when a case was first docketed in the district court
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: The date upon which proceedings in a case commenced on charges pending in the district court where the defendant appeared, or the date of the defendant’s felony-waiver of indictment
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: A code used to identify the nature of the proceeding
Format: N2

Description: The date when a defendant first appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: A code indicating the event by which a defendant appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: A2

Description: A code indicating the type of legal counsel assigned to a defendant
Format: N2

Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the highest severity
Format: A20

Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE1
Format: N2

Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4

Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4

Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE1
Format: A3

Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the second highest severity
Format: A20

Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE2
Format: N2

Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE2
Format: A4

Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE2
Format: A4

Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE2
Format: A3

Description: The FIPS code used to indicate the county or parish where an offense was committed
Format: A5

Description: The date of the last action taken on the record
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: The date upon which judicial proceedings before the court concluded
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: The date upon which the final sentence is recorded on the docket
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: The date upon which the case was closed
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: The total fine imposed at sentencing for all offenses of which the defendant was convicted and a fine was imposed
Format: N8

Description: A count of defendants filed including inter-district transfers
Format: N1

Description: A count of defendants filed excluding inter-district transfers
Format: N1

Description: A count of original proceedings commenced
Format: N1

Description: A count of defendants filed whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1

Description: A count of defendants terminated including interdistrict transfers
Format: N1

Description: A count of defendants terminated excluding interdistrict transfers
Format: N1

Description: A count of original proceedings terminated
Format: N1

Description: A count of defendants terminated whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1

Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period including long term fugitives
Format: N1

Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period excluding long term fugitives
Format: N1

Description: The source from which the data were loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: A10

Description: A sequential number indicating the iteration of the defendant record
Format: N2

Description: The date the record was loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: Statistical year ID label on data file obtained from the AOUSC which represents termination year
Format: YYYY

Data imported from FJC Integrated Database
F U C K I N G P E D O S R E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E