BOSTON – Jasiel F. Correia II, the Mayor of Fall River, Massachusetts, has been arrested and charged for allegedly extorting marijuana vendors for hundreds of thousands of dollars in bribes; extorting a building owner for cash and a Rolex watch in exchange for activating the water supply to a commercial building; and demanding that his chief of staff give him half of her salary in return for appointing her and allowing her to keep her city job. Correia’s former Chief of Staff was also charged today on extortion, theft and bribery, and false statement charges. Both will appear in federal court today.
Correia, 27, has been charged in a superseding indictment with bribery; extortion conspiracy; extortion and aiding and abetting; wire fraud; and filing false tax returns. Correia was previously arrested and charged in October 2018 for his involvement in a scheme to defraud investors in a company called SnoOwl, which was co-owned by Correia. Correia was arrested this morning and will appear in federal court today at 2:30 p.m. on the new charges.
Genoveva Andrade, 48, of Somerset, was charged in a criminal complaint with extortion conspiracy; extortion; theft and bribery; and false statements. Andrade served as Correia’s Chief of Staff from November 2017 through December 2018. She stepped down in January 2019 to run Correia’s March 2019 recall campaign. Andrade was arrested and will appear in federal court at 2:45 p.m. today.
Antonio Costa, 51, of Fall River; Hildegar Camara, 58, of Fall River; and David Hebert, 54, of Westport were charged separately in Informations with extortion conspiracy, extortion, and false statements in connection with subsequent false statements to federal agents about their roles in assisting Correia obtain money and property from marijuana vendors. Costa, Camara and Hebert will appear in court at a later date.
According to the superseding indictment, Correia agreed to issue non-opposition letters to marijuana vendors, which are required in order to operate in Massachusetts, in return for cash bribes and other payments. The bribes alleged today ranged from approximately $100,000 to $250,000 in cash, campaign contributions and mortgage discharges - in return for non-opposition letters and host community agreements. Marijuana was also exchanged for resale. It is alleged that Andrade and Correia met with marijuana vendors and discussed signing non-opposition letters in return for cash.
Under Massachusetts law, non-opposition letters from the head of local government are required in order to obtain a license to operate a marijuana business. This is true for medical and recreational marijuana businesses. These letters state that the head of local government has verified that the proposed facility is in a permissible zoning district. In this instance, Correia was solely responsible for approving all non-opposition letters. In addition, applicants seeking marijuana licenses are required to enter into host community agreements, between the marijuana company and the local government, stating that the company will give up to 3% of its gross sales to the local government.
To date, Correia has issued at least 14 non-opposition letters for marijuana businesses to operate in Fall River, including two for his current girlfriend’s brother. On August 12, 2019, the Fall River City Council passed an ordinance to limit the number of marijuana licenses in Fall River to 20% of off-premise liquor licenses or 11, whichever is greater. On August 19, 2019, Correia vetoed the order, claiming that it would eliminate competition and that a proponent of the ordinance had a conflict of interest.
It is further alleged that Correia obtained a stream of benefits, including cash and a Rolex watch valued at approximately $7,500 – $12,000, in exchange for official action and assistance that was favorable to Middleman #1 and his business(es) in Fall River. This included directing Fall River public employees to approve and pay for permits and excavating work to activate the water line for the sprinkler system at Middleman #1’s commercial property in Fall River.
Lastly - according to the indictment, in November 2017, Correia hired Andrade as his Chief of Staff with a salary of approximately $78,780 for a term of one year. Less than three weeks later, Correia personally approved a $10,000 “snow stipend” to Andrade. She would receive the $10,000 payment in two installments. After she received the first installment of $5,353, Andrade allegedly gave Correia $4,300. After she received the second installment - of $5,353, Andrade again paid Correia $4,300.
This pattern, in which Andrade promptly kicked back a substantial portion of her paychecks to Correia, continued for approximately eight months. For instance, Andrade received her first paycheck for $2,046. Four days later, Andrade gave Correia $1,200. In total, between December 2017 and July 2018, Andrade kick back approximately $22,800 to Correia. Andrade shared information about the kickback scheme with MJ Vendor #5 allegedly saying, “you want to hear something even more f***ed up … I have to give [Correia] half of my salary.”
The charge of wire fraud provides for a sentence of up to 20 years in prison, up to three years of supervised release, a fine of up to twice the loss involved and restitution. The charges of filing false tax returns provide for a sentence of up to three years in prison, one year of supervised release, and a fine of $250,000 or twice the gross gain or loss. The charges of extortion conspiracy provide for a sentence of up to 20 years, three years of supervised release and a $250,000 fine. The charges of extortion aiding and abetting provide for a sentence of up to 20 years, three years of supervised release and a $250,000 fine. The bribery charge provides for a sentence of up to 10 years, three years of supervised release and a $250,000 fine. Sentences are imposed by a federal district court judge based upon the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines and other statutory factors.
United States Attorney Andrew E. Lelling; Kristina O’Connell, Special Agent in Charge of the Internal Revenue Service’s Criminal Investigation in Boston; Joseph Bonavolonta, Special Agent in Charge of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Boston Field Division; Christina Scaringi, Special Agent in Charge of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Inspector General, Northeast Regional Office; and Glenn A. Cunha, Massachusetts Inspector General made the announcement. Assistant U.S. Attorney Zachary Hafer, Chief of Lelling’s Criminal Division, is prosecuting the case.
The details contained in the charging documents are allegations. The defendants are presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.
BOSTON – Jasiel F. Correia II, the Mayor of Fall River, was arrested this morning and charged with wire and tax fraud in connection with a multi-year investment fraud scheme.
Correia, 26, was indicted on nine counts of wire fraud and four counts of filing false tax returns. Correia was arrested this morning and will appear in federal court in Boston this afternoon.
As alleged in the indictment, in 2012, Correia founded SnoOwl, an app designed to connect local businesses with their target consumer market. In approximately January 2013, Correia began seeking investors who were willing to provide investment money for SnoOwl in return for equity in the company. In order to incentivize potential investors, Correia falsely represented that he was a successful tech entrepreneur who previously sold another app for a large profit, that investment funds would be used to develop the app, and that he would not take a salary or otherwise draw compensation from SnoOwl.
According to the indictment, seven individuals invested a total of $363,690 in SnoOwl. However, rather than using the investment funds to develop the app as Corria certified in signed agreements with investors, it is alleged that Correia used at least $231,447 – approximately 64% of the money invested – to fund his own lavish lifestyle, burgeoning political career and other business ventures. Specifically, the indictment alleges that Correia used the investment funds to purchase tens of thousands of dollars of luxury items, including a Mercedes, jewelry and designer clothing; to pay for personal travel and entertainment, including tens of thousands of dollars on airfare, hotels, restaurants, casinos, and adult entertainment; to pay down personal student loan debt; to fund his political campaign; and to make charitable donations in his own name.
As alleged in the indictment, Correia concealed the theft of funds from investors by providing false positive updates on SnoOwl’s status and refusing to provide the company’s financial records, which would have revealed his fraud. In addition, Correia concealed his ill-gotten gains from the IRS when filing his 2013 and 2014 individual tax returns.
In the spring/summer of 2015, Correia announced his candidacy for mayor of Fall River. Notwithstanding the facts that he had fraudulently taken hundreds of thousands of dollars of investor money and that SnoOwl was floundering, Correia touted his stewardship of SnoOwl to Fall River voters as one of his primary qualifications for mayor.
By May 2017, Correia was aware that SnoOwl was the subject of a federal investigation, and instructed an accountant to file amended 2013 and 2014 personal tax returns. Because the accountant relied on false information from Correia, the amended returns classified SnowOwl as a sole proprietorship, instead of a partnership, a critical distinction for tax purposes. As a result, Correia was not assessed any tax liability for any of the investor money that he took for himself, and he actually received a refund from the IRS in June 2017.
The charge of wire fraud provides for a sentence of no greater than 20 years in prison, up to three years of supervised release, a fine of up to twice the loss involved and restitution. The charge of filing false tax returns provides for a sentence of no greater than three years in prison, one year of supervised release and a fine of $250,000 or twice the gross gain or loss. Sentences are imposed by a federal district court judge based upon the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines and other statutory factors.
United States Attorney Andrew E. Lelling; Harold H. Shaw, Special Agent in Charge of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Boston Field Division; Kristina O’Connell, Special Agent in Charge of the Internal Revenue Service’s Criminal Investigation in Boston; Christina Scaringi, Special Agent in Charge of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Inspector General, Northeast Regional Office; and Glenn A. Cunha, Massachusetts Inspector General, made the announcement. Assistant U.S. Attorneys Zachary Hafer, Chief of Lelling’s Criminal Division, and David Tobin, of Lelling’s Major Crimes Unit, are prosecuting the case.
The details contained in the charging documents are allegations. The defendant is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.
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 title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the fourth highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE4
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE4
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE4
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE4
Format: A3
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the fifth highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE5
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE5
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE5
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE5
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
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: Case type associated with a magistrate case if the current case was merged from a magistrate case
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 docket number originally given to a case assigned to a magistrate judge and subsequently merged into a criminal case
Format: A7
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a magistrate case
Format: A3
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 title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the fourth highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE4
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE4
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE4
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE4
Format: A3
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the fifth highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE5
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE5
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE5
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE5
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