Score:   1
Docket Number:   D-DC  1:18-cr-00318
Case Name:   USA v. KING
  Press Releases:
            WASHINGTON – Two owners and an employee of for-profit, non-accredited schools were sentenced during the last two days for bribing a public official at the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) in exchange for the public official’s facilitation of over $2 million in payments that were supposed to be dedicated to providing vocational training for military veterans with service-connected disabilities. 

            Albert Poawui, 41, of Laurel, Md., was the owner of Atius Technology Institute (“Atius”), a school purporting to specialize in information technology courses.  Sombo Kanneh, 29, of McLean, Va., was Poawui’s employee at Atius.  Michelle Stevens, 57, of Waldorf, Md., was the owner of Eelon Training Academy, a school purporting to specialize in digital media courses.

            Assistant Attorney General Brian A. Benczkowski of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division, U.S. Attorney Jessie K. Liu for the District of Columbia, Assistant Director in Charge Nancy McNamara of FBI’s Washington Field Office and Special Agent in Charge Kim Lampkins of U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs Office of Inspector General (OIG) Mid-Atlantic Field Office made the announcement.

            All three defendants were sentenced by U.S. District Judge John D. Bates of the District of  Columbia.  Poawui was sentenced to serve 70 months in prison followed by three years of supervised release and ordered to pay $1.5 million in restitution to the VA.  Kanneh was sentenced to serve 20 months in prison followed by three years of supervised release and was ordered to pay $113,227.30 in restitution to the VA and to forfeit $1.5 million.  Stevens was sentenced to serve 30 months in prison followed by three years of supervised release and ordered to pay $83,000 in restitution to the VA and to forfeit $83,000.

            James King, the VA official who all three defendants bribed, has pleaded guilty to bribery, wire fraud, and falsification of documents, and will be sentenced on Friday, Feb. 15. 

            The Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment (VR&E) program is a VA program that provides disabled U.S. military veterans with education and employment-related services.  VR&E program counselors advise veterans under their supervision which schools to attend and facilitate payments to those schools for veterans’ tuition and necessary supplies.

            According to admissions made in connection with Poawui and Kanneh’s pleas, in or about August 2015, Poawui and King agreed that Poawui would pay King a seven percent cash kickback of all payments made by the VA to Atius.  In exchange, King steered VR&E program veterans to Atius regardless of the veterans’ educational needs or interests and notwithstanding their repeated complaints about the poor quality of education at Atius.

            Between August 2015 and December 2017, Poawui, King, and the scheme’s other participants caused the VA to pay Atius approximately $2,217,259.44.  Poawui paid King over $155,000 as part of the illicit bribery scheme.  These bribery payments were hand-delivered by Poawui or Kanneh to King or King’s assistant, who was a veteran enrolled in the VR&E program.  Kanneh admitted that she routinely moved money between Atius’s bank accounts to facilitate bribe payments to King.

            Poawui also admitted that he made numerous false representations to the VA to enhance the scheme’s profits.  For example, Poawui certified to the VA that veterans attending Atius were enrolled in up to 32 hours of class per week, when in fact he knew that Atius offered a maximum of six weekly class hours.  After the VA initiated an administrative audit of Atius, Poawui and King took steps to conceal the truth about earlier misrepresentations they had made to the VA.

            According to admissions made in connection with Stevens’ plea, she created Eelon Training Academy after learning about the VR&E program from King.  In or about September 2016, King facilitated the first tuition payment from the VA to Eelon.  Shortly after receiving this payment, King told Stevens that she should give him seven percent of the monies paid by the VA to Eelon.  King proceeded to steer veterans under his supervision to Eelon regardless of their resistance to attending Stevens’ school.

            Stevens admitted to later making two cash payments of $1,500 to King in furtherance of her scheme to bribe King in exchange for King sending veterans under his supervision to Eelon and facilitating the VA’s payments to Stevens.  In total, Stevens received approximately $83,000 from the VA for education that she purported to provide to veteran students.  Stevens submitted invoices to the VA amounting to no less than $300,000 for the tuition and equipment of seven students, but was not paid the balance of the invoice amount due to the VA’s ongoing investigation into Eelon following complaints by students about the poor quality of education. 

            In an effort to procure the outstanding payments from the VA, Stevens made numerous fraudulent misrepresentations to the VA, and maintained fraudulent student files in the event of an audit by the VA.             For example, Stevens emailed to the VA an “attendance” sheet for eight students.  The attendance sheet was created by Stevens and included handwritten check marks purporting to represent the dates that the students attended class.  In fact, as Stevens well knew, the students had not attended class on many of those dates nor was class even held on many of those dates. 

            Poawui, Kanneh, and Stevens’ sentences are the result of an ongoing investigation by the FBI’s Washington Field Office and the Department of Veterans Affairs Office of Inspector General.  Trial Attorney Simon J. Cataldo of the Criminal Division’s Public Integrity Section and Assistant U.S. Attorney David Misler of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia are prosecuting the case. 

            WASHINGTON – A former U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) official pled guilty today to demanding and receiving bribes from three for-profit schools in exchange for enrolling disabled military veterans in those schools and facilitating over $2 million in payments from the VA using the veterans’ federal benefits. 

            Assistant Attorney General Brian A. Benczkowski of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division, U.S. Attorney Jessie K. Liu for the District of Columbia, Special Agent in Charge Matthew J. DeSarno of the FBI’s Washington Field Office’s Criminal Division, and Special Agent in Charge Kim Lampkins of the VA Office of Inspector General (OIG), Mid-Atlantic Field Office made the announcement.

            James King, 63, of Baltimore, Maryland, pled guilty to an Information alleging one count of honest services and money/property wire fraud, one count of bribery, and one count of falsifying records to obstruct an administrative investigation.  The plea was entered before U.S. District Judge John D. Bates of the District of Columbia, who set sentencing for Jan. 15, 2019. 

            King is the fourth individual to plead guilty as part of this investigation.  In April, Albert Poawui and Sombo Kanneh pleaded guilty to bribing and conspiring to bribe King, respectively.  In July, Michelle Stevens pleaded guilty to bribing King. 

            “For years, James King and his criminal associates defrauded an important VA program that provides education services to military veterans who served our country,” said Assistant Attorney General Benczkowski.  “The Justice Department is committed to prosecuting those who seek to illegally enrich themselves at the expense of programs intended to help our brave servicemembers.” 

            “James King took advantage of his position with the VA by participating in a scam that took money from programs meant to help our disabled military veterans find jobs and enhance their education,” said U.S. Attorney Liu. “This investigation shows that we will do everything we can to ensure that taxpayer money intended for our veterans is put to its proper use, not siphoned off by the people and organizations who are entrusted with helping them.”

            “King tried to use his position to enrich himself at the expense of veterans who have honorably served our country,” said FBI Special Agent in Charge DeSarno. “This guilty plea makes it perfectly clear that such activity by anyone affiliated with the U.S. government will not be tolerated. The FBI will work closely with our partners to continue to aggressively investigate allegations of corruption.”

            “King’s plea is a win for VA and our veterans,” said Special Agent in Charge Lampkins of the VA-OIG Mid-Atlantic Field Office.  “It sends a clear message that VA OIG is dedicated to prosecuting those that take advantage of VA programs that are intended to help our veterans and their families.”

            According to King’s admissions made in connection with his plea, the Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment (VR&E) provides disabled U.S. military veterans with education and employment-related services.  VR&E program counselors advise veterans under their supervision which schools to attend and facilitate payments to those schools for veterans’ tuition and necessary supplies.

            From 2015 through 2017, King, using his position as a VR&E program counselor, demanded and received cash bribes from the owners of Atius Technology Institute (Atius), Eelon Training Academy (Eelon), and a school identified in documents as “School A,” a school purporting to specialize in physical security classes.  King facilitated over $2 million in payments to Atius, over $83,000 to Eelon, and over $340,000 to “School A,” all in furtherance of King’s separate agreements with the respective school owners to commit bribery and defraud the VA.  King agreed with Poawui and Stevens that they would each pay him, in cash, seven percent of the money they received from the VA in exchange for King steering veterans to their schools and facilitating VA payments.  King similarly accepted cash payments from the owner of School A, who is identified as Person A in the Information, in exchange for the same official acts.

             In order to maximize the profits from their fraud, all three school owners sent King and other VA officials false information about the education being provided to veterans, and King facilitated payments to all three schools knowing this information was false.  King also admitted to repeatedly lying to veterans under his supervision in order to convince them to attend Atius, Eelon, or School A.  For example, King falsely instructed one veteran that, unless he attended School A, his VR&E program benefits would “lapse.”  King insisted that this veteran enroll in School A despite the veteran’s protests that he could not engage in physical security work due to a physical disability, and despite the fact that the veteran had enrolled in the VR&E program to pursue his dream of becoming a baker.

            In early 2017, the VA initiated a fact-finding inquiry into Atius based on complaints by students as to the quality of education at the school.  In August 2017, after King became aware of the inquiry, he created a falsified site visit report and instructed Poawui to send it to another VA official, all in an effort to obstruct the VA’s inquiry into Atius.  In January 2018, after Poawui had begun to cooperate with the government in its investigation, King attempted to convince Poawui to lie to the grand jury about the purpose of the bribe payments.

            King’s plea is the result of an ongoing investigation by the FBI’s Washington Field Office and the VA Office of Inspector General.  Trial Attorney Simon J. Cataldo of the Criminal Division’s Public Integrity Section, former Assistant U.S. Attorney and current Fraud Section Trial Attorney Sonali D. Patel, and Assistant U.S. Attorney David Misler of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia are prosecuting the case.  Former Assistant U.S. Attorney Adrienne Dedjinou and Paralegal Josh Fein of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia also assisted with the investigation.

 

Docket (0 Docs):   https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/12nw66uISQrfqz9BqrXJa8L3qt-c6w7RcpedLsuODJCo
  Last Updated: 2024-03-30 19:40:05 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 title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the third highest severity
Format: A20

Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE3
Format: N2

Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE3
Format: A4

Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE3
Format: A4

Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE3
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 number of days from the earlier of filing date or first appearance date to proceeding date
Format: N3

Description: The number of days from proceeding date to disposition date
Format: N3

Description: The number of days from disposition date to sentencing date
Format: N3

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

Description: A code indicating the type of legal counsel assigned to a defendant at the time the case was closed
Format: N2

Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense that carried the most severe disposition and penalty under which the defendant was disposed
Format: A20

Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with TTITLE1
Format: N2

Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with TTITLE1
Format: A4

Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with TTITLE1
Format: A4

Description: A code indicating the severity associated with TTITLE1
Format: A3

Description: The code indicating the nature or type of disposition associated with TTITLE1
Format: N2

Description: The number of months a defendant was sentenced to prison under TTITLE1
Format: N4

Description: A code indicating whether the prison sentence associated with TTITLE1 was concurrent or consecutive in relation to the other counts in the indictment or information or multiple counts of the same charge
Format: A4

Description: The number of months of probation imposed upon a defendant under TTITLE1
Format: N4

Description: A period of supervised release imposed upon a defendant under TTITLE1
Format: N3

Description: The fine imposed upon the defendant at sentencing under TTITLE1
Format: N8

Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense under which the defendant was disposed that carried the second most severe disposition and penalty
Format: A20

Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with TTITLE2
Format: N2

Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with TTITLE2
Format: A4

Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with TTITLE2
Format: A4

Description: A code indicating the severity associated with TTITLE2
Format: A3

Description: The code indicating the nature or type of disposition associated with TTITLE2
Format: N2

Description: The number of months a defendant was sentenced to prison under TTITLE2
Format: N4

Description: A code indicating whether the prison sentence associated with TTITLE2 was concurrent or consecutive in relation to the other counts in the indictment or information or multiple counts of the same charge
Format: A4

Description: The number of months of probation imposed upon a defendant under TTITLE2
Format: N4

Description: A period of supervised release imposed upon a defendant under TTITLE2
Format: N3

Description: The fine imposed upon the defendant at sentencing under TTITLE2
Format: N8

Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense under which the defendant was disposed that carried the third most severe disposition and penalty
Format: A20

Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with TTITLE3
Format: N2

Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with TTITLE3
Format: A4

Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with TTITLE3
Format: A4

Description: A code indicating the severity associated with TTITLE3
Format: A3

Description: The code indicating the nature or type of disposition associated with TTITLE3
Format: N2

Description: The number of months a defendant was sentenced to prison under TTITLE3
Format: N4

Description: A code indicating whether the prison sentence associated with TTITLE3 was concurrent or consecutive in relation to the other counts in the indictment or information or multiple counts of the same charge
Format: A4

Description: The number of months of probation imposed upon a defendant under TTITLE3
Format: N4

Description: A period of supervised release imposed upon a defendant under TTITLE3
Format: N3

Description: The fine imposed upon the defendant at sentencing under TTITLE3
Format: N8

Description: The total prison time for all offenses of which the defendant was convicted and prison time was imposed
Format: N4

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