Score:   1
Docket Number:   D-CT  3:18-cr-00133
Case Name:   USA v. Palie et al
  Press Releases:
John H. Durham, United States Attorney for the District of Connecticut, announced that a father and son who pleaded guilty to offenses stemming from the fraudulent sale of titanium to a Connecticut defense subcontractor were sentenced today in Bridgeport federal court.  U.S. District Judge Stefan R. Underhill sentenced JOHN J. PALIE, JR., 64, of Tiverton, Rhode Island, to 10 months of imprisonment and two years of supervised release, and JOHN J. PALIE III, 43, of Plymouth, Massachusetts, to six months of imprisonment and two years of supervised release.  Judge Underhill also ordered Palie Jr. to pay a $10,000 fine.

According to court documents and statements made in court, John Palie, Jr. is the owner and Chief Executive Officer of A&P Alloys, Inc. (“A&P”), a company in West Bridgewater, Massachusetts, that acquired and sold specialty metals, including titanium.  John Palie III was a manager at A&P, having responsibilities for, among other things, the purchase and sale of titanium, and the preparation of titanium orders for shipment and delivery to customers.  Palie Jr. and Palie III have admitted that they arranged two separate titanium sales to Lewis Machine, a Connecticut-based aircraft parts manufacturer, that involved false representations about the source and quality of the titanium.  Lewis Machine supplies titanium parts to Pratt & Whitney, which manufactures aircraft engines, including engines for U.S. Air Force fighter jets.

In April and May 2012, Palie Jr. and Palie III arranged a sale of 11 pieces of titanium to Lewis Machine, representing that the titanium had been certified as meeting an advanced aerospace quality standard when, in fact, it had never been certified as such.  The order listed Pratt & Whitney as the end buyer of the titanium.

In 2013, Palie Jr. and Palie III arranged another sale of titanium to Lewis Machine with Pratt & Whitney as the end buyer.  In August 2013, Palie III arranged for 400 pieces of titanium, along with certificates stating that the titanium originated from a particular mill and satisfied an advanced aerospace quality standard, to be delivered to Lewis Machine.  Due to concerns about the quality of the titanium, Pratt & Whitney directed Lewis Machine not to accept the titanium.  Palie III agreed to replace the 400 pieces with other titanium that satisfied the quality standard in question.  However, instead of replacing the titanium, he arranged for the returned 400 pieces to be sandblasted and re-stamped with the manufacturer’s mark of a different titanium mill so that they appeared to be replacements for the returned pieces.  In November 2013, Palie III had the falsely labeled pieces, along with false certificates, shipped back to Lewis Machine.

According to documents filed in the criminal case, John Palie Jr. and A&P settled a related civil lawsuit by agreeing to pay Pratt & Whitney $690,000 for losses Pratt & Whitney incurred in remediating problems caused by the uncertified titanium.

On June 27, 2018, Palie Jr. and Palie III each pleaded guilty to two counts of mail fraud.

This is Palie Jr.’s second federal conviction.  In January 2004, he was sentenced in the District of Massachusetts to two years of probation for failing to pay income taxes on more than $249,000 in business revenues that he diverted into a personal bank account.

“This prosecution and sentences that involve periods of incarceration send the message that suppliers of material to be used in military equipment face a very real possibility of prison time if they cut corners, cheat the system and potentially put members of our military at risk,” said U.S. Attorney Durham.

“Ensuring the integrity of the U.S. Department of Defense’s (DoD) procurement process is a top priority for the Defense Criminal Investigative Service (DCIS),” said Leigh-Alistair Barzey, Special Agent in Charge of the DCIS Northeast Field Office.  “Supplying substandard and non-conforming material disrupts the DoD supply chain, endangers the lives of U.S. service members and betrays the public’s trust.  Today’s sentencing is the direct result of a joint investigative effort and demonstrates our commitment to work with partner law enforcement agencies and the U.S. Attorney’s Office to investigate and prosecute individuals and companies that engage in fraudulent activity impacting the DoD.”

“Today's sentencing sends a clear signal that ensuring the safety of the Nation’s air transportation system remains a priority for the Department of Transportation Office of Inspector General (DOT-OIG),” said Douglas Shoemaker, DOT-OIG Regional Special Agent-in-Charge.  “Working with our law enforcement and prosecutorial colleagues, we will continue to pursue and prosecute those whose illegal actions compromise the integrity of the Department’s safety programs and potentially endanger the travelling public.”

This matter was investigated by the Defense Criminal Investigative Service, the U.S. Department of Defense Office of Inspector General, the U.S. Air Force Office of Special Investigations, and the U.S. Department of Transportation, Office of Inspector General.  The case was prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Henry Kopel.

John H. Durham, United States Attorney for the District of Connecticut, announced that JOHN J. PALIE, JR., 62, of Tiverton, Rhode Island, and JOHN J. PALIE III, 42, of Plymouth, Massachusetts, waived their right to be indicted and pleaded guilty today before U.S. District Judge Stefan R. Underhill in Bridgeport to fraud offenses stemming from their having sold titanium to a Connecticut defense subcontractor.

According to court documents and statements made in court, JOHN PALIE, JR. is the owner and Chief Executive Officer of A&P Alloys, Inc. (“A&P”), a company in West Bridgewater, Massachusetts, that acquired and sold specialty metals, including titanium.  JOHN PALIE III was a manager at A&P, having responsibilities for, among other things, the purchase and sale of titanium, and the preparation of titanium orders for shipment and delivery to customers.  In pleading guilty, PALIE JR. and PALIE III admitted that they arranged two separate titanium sales to a Connecticut-based aircraft parts manufacturer that involved false representations about the source and quality of the titanium.  The aircraft parts manufacturer supplies titanium parts to a company that manufactures aircraft engines, including engines for U.S. Air Force fighter jets.

In April and May 2012, PALIE JR. and PALIE III arranged a sale of 11 pieces of titanium to the Connecticut aircraft parts manufacturer, representing that the titanium had been certified as meeting an advanced aerospace quality standard when, in fact, it had never been certified as such.  The order listed the engine manufacturer as the end buyer of the titanium.

In 2013, PALIE JR. and PALIE III arranged another sale of titanium to the Connecticut aircraft parts manufacturer with the engine manufacturer as the end buyer.  In August 2013, PALIE III arranged for 400 pieces of titanium, along with certificates stating that the titanium originated from a particular mill and satisfied an advanced aerospace quality standard, to be delivered to the aircraft parts manufacturer.  Due to concerns about the quality of the titanium, the engine manufacturer directed the aircraft parts manufacturer not to accept the titanium.  PALIE III agreed to replace the 400 pieces with other titanium that satisfied the quality standard in question.  However, instead of replacing the titanium, he arranged for the returned 400 pieces to be sandblasted and re-stamped with the manufacturer’s mark of a different titanium mill so that they appeared to be replacements for the returned pieces.  In November 2013, PALIE III had the falsely labeled pieces, along with false certificates, shipped back to the aircraft parts manufacturer.

The government contends that the losses sustained by the multiple victim companies that purchased fraudulently misrepresented titanium total $1,328,000.

PALIE JR. and PALIE III each pleaded guilty to two counts of mail fraud, an offense that carries a maximum term of imprisonment of 20 years on each count.  Judge Underhill scheduled sentencing for September 19, 2018.

PALIE JR. and PALIE III are released pending sentencing.

This matter is being investigated by the Defense Criminal Investigative Service, the U.S. Department of Defense Office of Inspector General, the U.S. Air Force Office of Special Investigations, and the U.S. Department of Transportation, Office of Inspector General.  The case is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Henry Kopel.

Docket (0 Docs):   https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1_fYV0gtYaiwEWZREHCgMeZs3iWu9kcY_b7Pxt1KODxA
  Last Updated: 2024-03-30 20:13:58 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 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