Score:   0.5
  Press Releases:
BOSTON – A Lawrence man was sentenced yesterday in federal court in Boston for money laundering, transacting in criminally-derived property, and theft of public funds. 

Leonardo Lara, 36, was sentenced by U.S. District Court Judge Rya W. Zobel to 15 months in prison, three years of supervised release, and ordered to pay restitution in the amount of $67,871. In March 2017, Lara pleaded guilty to two counts of laundering monetary instruments, two counts of transacting in criminally-derived property, and five counts of theft of government funds.

On at least 10 occasions between January and March 2012, Lara converted fraudulent United States Treasury tax refund checks for his own use.  He deposited into his personal checking account at least 10 fraudulent tax refund checks payable in the names of taxpayers in Puerto Rico and elsewhere that resulted from the filing of fraudulent tax returns in tax years 2010 and 2011.  Each of the tax refund checks was endorsed with the purported signature of the payee taxpayer and the notation “pay to the order of Leonardo Lara” along with the defendant’s signature.  The payees of the tax refund checks did not earn the wages reported in the tax returns and were unaware that the tax returns had been filed in their names.  Shortly after the tax refund checks cleared, Lara made cash withdrawals from the account.  In total, he converted at least $67,871 in government funds for his own use.

In addition, on two occasion, Lara purchased property in Lawrence through transactions designed to conceal the nature and source of his proceeds. On Feb. 12, 2012, he purchased a cashier’s check in the amount of $56,574 and used it to purchase property. The funds were withdrawn from an account controlled by Lara and held in the name of JZE LLC., a bank account funded, at least in part, by structured cash deposits, and the funds withdrawn from the bank had been derived, at least in part, from Lara’s theft of public funds.  On March 16, 2012, Lara purchased another cashier’s check for $60,657 and used it to purchase another property in Lawrence. 

Lara was also involved in certain drug activity involving the distribution of oxycodone pills.  Over a two-year period, approximately $475,000 was deposited into accounts controlled by Lara, none of which was explained by any legitimate sources of income. 

Acting United States Attorney William D. Weinreb; Joel P. Garland, Special Agent in Charge of the Internal Revenue Service’s Criminal Investigation Division in Boston; and Michael Ferguson, Special Agent in Charge of the Drug Enforcement Administration, Boston Field Division, made the announcement today.  Assistant U.S. Attorney Linda M. Ricci of Weinreb’s Narcotics and Money Laundering Unit prosecuted the case.

Score:   0.5
  Press Releases:
BOSTON – The U.S. Attorney’s Office announced today that two pharmaceutical companies – Astellas Pharma US, Inc. (Astellas), and Amgen Inc. (Amgen) – have agreed to pay a total of $124.75 million to resolve allegations that they violated the False Claims Act by illegally paying the Medicare co-pays for their own high-priced drugs. 

When a Medicare beneficiary obtains a prescription drug covered by Medicare Part B or Part D, the beneficiary may be required to make a partial payment, which may take the form of a co-payment, co-insurance, or deductible (collectively, co-pays). Congress included co-pay requirements in these programs, in part, to encourage market forces to serve as a check on health care costs, including the prices that pharmaceutical manufacturers can demand for their drugs. The Anti-Kickback Statute prohibits pharmaceutical companies from offering or paying, directly or indirectly, any remuneration – which includes money or any other thing of value – to induce Medicare patients to purchase the companies’ drugs.   

“According to the allegations in today’s settlements, Astellas and Amgen conspired with two co-pay foundations to create funds that functioned almost exclusively to benefit patients taking Astellas and Amgen drugs,” said United States Attorney Andrew E. Lelling. “As a result, the companies’ payments to the foundations were not ‘donations,’ but rather were kickbacks that undermined the structure of the Medicare program and illegally subsidized the high costs of the companies’ drugs at the expense of American taxpayers. We will keep pursuing these cases until pharmaceutical companies stop engaging in this kind of behavior.”

 “When pharmaceutical companies use foundations to create funds that are used improperly to subsidize the copays of only their own drugs, it violates the law and undercuts a key safeguard against rising drug costs,” said Assistant Attorney General Jody Hunt of the Department of Justice’s Civil Division. “These enforcement actions make clear that the government will hold accountable drug companies that directly or indirectly pay illegal kickbacks.”  

“Kickback schemes can undermine our healthcare system, compromise medical decisions, and waste taxpayer dollars,” said Phillip Coyne, Special Agent in Charge, Office of the Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Service’s Boston Regional Office.  “We will continue to hold pharmaceutical companies accountable for subverting the charitable donation process in order to circumvent safeguards designed to protect the integrity of the Medicare program.”

“As today’s settlements make clear, the FBI will aggressively go after pharmaceutical companies that look to bolster their drug prices by paying illegal kickbacks--whether directly or indirectly--to undermine taxpayer funded healthcare programs, including Medicare,” said Joseph R. Bonavolonta, Special Agent in Charge of the FBI Boston Division.

The government’s allegations in the two settlements announced today are as follows:

Astellas. Astellas sells Xtandi, an androgen receptor inhibitor (ARI) drug used to treat metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) in patients who have failed chemotherapy. While there are other mCRPC drugs, none of the other major mCRPC drugs is an ARI. The government alleges that, during the period from July 2013 through December 2014, Astellas arranged for two foundations to operate ARI funds that covered mCRPC patients’ co-pays for ARIs, but not for other mCRPC drugs, and that Xtandi patients received nearly all of the assistance from these two funds. The government further alleges that, during the time that the ARI funds were open, Astellas promoted the existence of the ARI funds as an advantage for Xtandi over competing mCRPC drugs in an effort to persuade medical providers to prescribe Xtandi. During this period, Astellas raised the price of Xtandi at over 24 times the rate of overall inflation in the United States. Astellas has agreed to pay $100 million to resolve the government’s allegations.

Amgen. Amgen sells Sensipar, a treatment for secondary hyperparathyroidism (SHPT), and Kyprolis, a treatment of multiple myeloma. The government alleges that, in late 2011, Amgen stopped donating to a foundation that covered co-pays for patients taking any of several SHPT drugs and approached a new foundation about creating a fund that would cover only Sensipar patients’ Medicare co-pays. Amgen thereafter paid millions of dollars to this fund. Until June 2014, the fund helped only Sensipar patients, as Amgen had requested. Amgen allegedly covered the co-pays of Sensipar patients through this fund even though the cost of doing so exceeded the cost Amgen would have incurred by providing free Sensipar to the same patients. By enabling the fund to cover the copays of Medicare beneficiaries, Amgen caused claims to be submitted to Medicare and generated revenue for itself. During the period the fund covered only Sensipar, Amgen raised the price of Sensipar at over four times the rate of overall inflation in the United States.

The government further alleges that Amgen’s predecessor, Onyx Pharmaceuticals Inc. (Onyx), asked a different foundation to create a fund that, ostensibly, would cover health care related travel expenses for patients taking any multiple myeloma drug, but that, as Onyx and the foundation both knew, functioned almost exclusively to cover travel expenses for patients taking Kyprolis. The foundation also operated a second fund that covered co-pays for several multiple myeloma drugs, including Kyprolis. The government alleges that, for 2013, Onyx obtained data from the foundation on the multiple myeloma fund’s anticipated and actual expenses for coverage only of Kyprolis co-pays. Onyx then donated to the fund in an amount Onyx understood to be sufficient only to cover the co-pays of Kyprolis patients. Amgen has agreed to pay $24.75 million to resolve the government’s allegations.

Amgen and Astellas each entered five-year corporate integrity agreements (CIAs) with OIG as part of their respective settlements. The CIAs require the companies to implement measures, controls, and monitoring designed to promote independence from any patient assistance programs to which they donate. In addition, the companies agreed to implement risk assessment programs and to obtain compliance-related certifications from company executives and Board members.

To date, the Department of Justice has collected over $840 million from eight pharmaceutical companies (United Therapeutics, Pfizer, Actelion, Jazz, Lundbeck, Alexion, Astellas, and Amgen) that allegedly used third-party foundations as kickback vehicles. The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Massachusetts initiated each of these investigations.

U.S. Attorney Lelling, Assistant Attorney General Hunt, HHS-OIG SAC Coyne, and FBI SAC Bonavolonta made the announcement today. The U.S. Postal Inspection Service also assisted with the investigation. The matter was handled by Assistant U.S. Attorneys Gregg Shapiro and Abraham George, of Lelling’s Affirmative Civil Enforcement Unit, and by Trial Attorneys Augustine Ripa and Sarah Arni of the Justice Department’s Civil Division.

Score:   0.5
Docket Number:   D-MA  1:18-cr-10370
Case Name:   USA v. Holland et al
  Press Releases:
BOSTON – The co-owners of a Boston-area home healthcare company were sentenced yesterday in federal court in Boston for underreporting income to the IRS resulting in over $1 million in losses.

Hannah Holland, 51, of Quincy, and Sheila O’Connell, 51, of North Weymouth, were each sentenced by U.S. Senior District Court Judge Mark L. Wolf to six months in prison and three years of supervised release. Both were also ordered to pay $1,126,112 in restitution. In November 2018, Holland and O’Connell pleaded guilty to an Information charging them with one count of conspiracy to defraud the United States and three counts of aiding and assisting in the preparation of false tax returns.

Holland and O’Connell co-owned and operated Erin’s Own Home Healthcare Inc. (Erin’s Own).  Between 2010 and 2014, Holland and O’Connell cashed over $3.5 million of Erin’s Own business checks through nominee bank accounts controlled by a third-party. During this time period, Holland also personally cashed over $77,000 of Erin’s Own business receipts. None of these funds were ever reported to the IRS or accounted for in the company’s tax filings. Instead, Holland and O’Connell provided their tax preparer with a limited set of the financial records that did not cover the substantial amounts of business funds Holland and O’Connell diverted. As a result of the underreporting, Erin’s Own caused a loss of $1,126,112 to the IRS.

United States Attorney Andrew E. Lelling and Kristina O’Connell, Special Agent in Charge of the Internal Revenue Service’s Criminal Investigation in Boston, made the announcement today. Assistant U.S. Attorney Jordi de Llano, Deputy Chief of Lelling’s Securities and Financial Fraud Unit, and Trial Attorney Brittney Campbell of the Department of Justice’s Tax Division prosecuted the case.

The co-owners of a Boston-area home healthcare company pleaded guilty in federal court yesterday for tax crimes resulting in over $1 million in losses, announced Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Richard E. Zuckerman of the Justice Department’s Tax Division and U.S. Attorney Andrew E. Lelling for the District of Massachusetts.

Hannah Holland, 51, of Quincy, Massachusetts, and Sheila O’Connell, 51, of North Weymouth, Massachusetts, each pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to defraud the United States and three counts of aiding and assisting in the preparation of false tax returns.

According to court documents, Holland and O’Connell co-owned and operated Erin’s Own Home Healthcare Inc. (Erin’s Own), a home healthcare business. Between 2010 and 2014, Holland and O’Connell directed another individual to cash over $3.5 million of Erin’s Own business checks through nominee bank accounts. During this time, Holland also personally deposited or cashed over $77,000 of Erin’s Own business checks. None of these funds were reported to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) or accounted for in the company’s tax filings. Instead, Holland and O’Connell provided their tax preparer with a limited set of financial records that did not cover the substantial amounts of business funds Holland and O’Connell diverted. As a result of the underreporting, Erin’s Own caused a loss of $1,126,112 to the United States.

Sentencing is scheduled for February 13, 2019. Holland and O’Connell each face a maximum sentence of five years in prison on the conspiracy count and three years in prison on each count of aiding and assisting in the preparation of false tax returns, as well as a period of supervised release, restitution, and monetary penalties. 

Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Zuckerman and U.S. Attorney Lelling commended special agents from IRS-Criminal Investigation, who are investigating the case, and Assistant U.S. Attorney Jordi de Llano, Deputy Chief of the United States Attorney’s Securities and Financial Fraud Unit, and Tax Division Trial Attorney Brittney Campbell, who are prosecuting the case.  Additional information about the Tax Division and its enforcement efforts may be found on the division’s website.

Docket (0 Docs):   https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1v1SE_xTbzmtkLVlppv6okViUcX58rrGMEozCUUVpCG4/edit#gid=0
  Last Updated: 2019-10-14 01:46:29 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 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 total prison time for all offenses of which the defendant was convicted and prison time was imposed
Format: N4

Description: The total probation time for all offenses of which the defendant was convicted and probation 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
Score:   0.5
Docket Number:   D-MA  1:18-cr-10286
Case Name:   USA v. Sweeney
  Press Releases:
BOSTON – A suspended Massachusetts State Police Trooper was sentenced today in federal court in Boston in connection with being paid over $5,900 for overtime hours that he did not work.

Kevin Sweeney, 40, of Braintree, was sentenced by U.S. District Court Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton to two months in prison, one year of supervised release (the first three months of which will be served in home detention), and was ordered to pay a fine of $4,000 and restitution in the amount of $11,103. In September 2018, Sweeney pleaded guilty to one count of embezzlement from an agency receiving federal funds and one count of wire fraud.

Sweeney was an MSP Trooper assigned to Troop E, which was responsible for enforcing criminal and traffic regulations along the Massachusetts Turnpike, Interstate I-90. In 2016, Sweeney earned $218,512, which included over $95,000 in overtime pay. 

Sweeney admitted that between Sept. 1, 2016, and Dec. 31, 2016, he was paid over $5,900 for overtime shifts that he either did not work at all or from which he left early and that his fraudulent citations cost the Commonwealth more than $5,000. Sweeney concealed his fraud by submitting fraudulent citations designed to create the appearance that he had worked overtime hours that he had not, and falsely claimed in MSP paperwork and payroll entries that he had worked the entirety of his overtime shifts.

For example, on Dec. 14, 2016, Sweeney claimed in MSP payroll submissions and other paperwork to have worked a “D AIRE” overtime shift from 7:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. Sweeney claimed to have written eight motor vehicle citations during that shift and submitted copies of those citations to MSP as evidence that he had worked. Yet, Sweeney’s cruiser radio was not turned on during the overtime shift, he did not run any driver histories during the shift, and Registry of Motor Vehicle (RMV) records reflect that none of the motorists that Sweeney claims to have cited actually received a citation that day.

In another instance, on Dec. 21, 2016, the RMV did have copies of two of the citations Sweeney claimed to have written during the overtime shift he claimed to have worked, but closer inspection revealed that Sweeney had falsified the times of those citations on the copies submitted to the MSP. The RMV copies revealed that the citations had been written at 5:00 p.m. and 5:05 p.m., which was written on the citations in military time as “1700” and “1705.” On the copies of those same citations submitted to MSP, however, Sweeney changed “1700” and “1705” to “700” and “705” so that it would appear to MSP that the citations had been written during the 7:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. overtime shift that Sweeney did not work. And, like Dec. 14, Sweeney’s cruiser radio was not turned on during the overtime shift, he did not run any driver histories during the shift, and Registry of Motor Vehicle (RMV) records reflect that the other six motorists that Sweeney claims to have cited did not actually receive a citation that day.  

The overtime in question involved the Accident and Injury Reduction Effort program (AIRE) and the “X-Team” initiative, which were intended to reduce accidents, crashes, and injuries on I-90 through an enhanced presence of MSP Troopers assigned to target vehicles traveling at excessive speeds. 

In 2016, MSP received annual benefits from the U.S. Department of Transportation in excess of $10,000, which were funded pursuant to numerous federal grants.

United States Attorney Andrew E. Lelling; Joseph R. Bonavolonta, Special Agent in Charge of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Boston Field Division; and Douglas Shoemaker, Special Agent in Charge of the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Office of Inspector General made the announcement today. Assistant U.S. Attorneys Dustin Chao and Mark Grady of Lelling’s Public Corruption Unit prosecuted the case.

BOSTON – A suspended Massachusetts State Police Trooper pleaded guilty today in federal court in Boston in connection with being paid over $5,900 for overtime hours that he did not work.

Kevin Sweeney, 40, of Braintree, pleaded guilty to one count of embezzlement from an agency receiving federal funds and one count of wire fraud. U.S. District Court Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton scheduled the sentencing for Dec. 11, 2018. On Aug. 17, 2018, Sweeney was charged and agreed to plead guilty.   

Sweeney was an MSP Trooper assigned to Troop E, which was responsible for enforcing criminal and traffic regulations along the Massachusetts Turnpike, Interstate I-90. In 2016, Sweeney earned $218,512, which included over $97,000 in overtime pay. 

Sweeney admitted that between Sept. 1, 2016, and Dec. 31, 2016, he was paid over $5,900 for overtime shifts that he either did not work at all or from which he left early. Sweeney concealed his fraud by submitting fraudulent citations designed to create the appearance that he had worked overtime hours that he had not, and falsely claimed in MSP paperwork and payroll entries that he had worked the entirety of his overtime shifts.

For example, on Dec. 14, 2016, Sweeney claimed in MSP payroll submissions and other paperwork to have worked a “D AIRE” overtime shift from 7:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. Sweeney claimed to have written eight motor vehicle citations during that shift and submitted copies of those citations to MSP as evidence that he had worked. Yet, Sweeney’s cruiser radio was not turned on during the overtime shift, he did not run any driver histories during the shift, and Registry of Motor Vehicle (RMV) records reflect that none of the motorists that Sweeney claims to have cited actually received a citation that day.

In another instance, on Dec. 21, 2016, the RMV did have copies of two of the citations Sweeney claimed to have written during the shift, but closer inspection revealed that Sweeney had falsified the times of those citations on the copies submitted to the MSP. The RMV copies revealed that the citations had been written at 5:00 p.m. and 5:05 p.m., which was written on the citations in military time as “1700” and “1705.” On the copies of those same citations submitted to MSP, however, Sweeney changed “1700” and “1705” to “700” and “705” so that it would appear to MSP that the citations had been written during the overtime shift that Sweeney did not work. And, like Dec. 14, Sweeney’s cruiser radio was not turned on during the overtime shift, he did not run any driver histories during the shift, and Registry of Motor Vehicle (RMV) records reflect that the other six motorists that Sweeney claims to have cited did not actually receive a citation that day.

The overtime in question involved the Accident and Injury Reduction Effort program (AIRE) and the “X-Team” initiative, which were intended to reduce accidents, crashes, and injuries on I-90 through an enhanced presence of MSP Troopers assigned to target vehicles traveling at excessive speeds. 

In 2016, MSP received annual benefits from the U.S. Department of Transportation in excess of $10,000, which were funded pursuant to numerous federal grants. Sweeney received payment for overtime hours he did not work through direct deposits into his bank account that had travelled through interstate and foreign wires.

Sweeney is the sixth trooper charged as a result of the ongoing investigation. On June 27, 2018, former Lieutenant David Wilson, 57, of Charlton; Trooper Gary Herman, 45, of Chester, and former Trooper Paul Cesan, 50, of Southwick, were arrested and charged with the same crime. Wilson has since been indicted. On July 2, 2018, former Trooper Gregory Raftery, 47, of Westwood, was charged and pleaded guilty. On July 25, 2018, retired Trooper Daren DeJong, 56, of Uxbridge, was initially charged by criminal complaint and has since been indicted.

The charge of theft of government funds provides for a sentence of no greater than 10 years in prison, three years of supervised release, and a fine of $250,000 or twice the gross gain or loss. The charge of wire fraud provides for a sentence of no greater than 20 years in prison, three years 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; and Douglas Shoemaker, Special Agent in Charge of the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Office of Inspector General made the announcement today. Assistant U.S. Attorneys Dustin Chao and Mark Grady of Lelling’s Public Corruption Unit and Neil Gallagher of Lelling’s Economic Crimes Unit are prosecuting the case.

Docket (0 Docs):   https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mPaWjJ6foI0bFFXFXHDnW71YNIcsWghzG3OsH2gRqBU/edit#gid=0
  Last Updated: 2019-10-14 01:37:50 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 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
Score:   0.5
  Press Releases:
BOSTON – The co-owners of a Boston-area home healthcare company pleaded guilty in federal court in Boston yesterday for underreporting income to the IRS resulting in over $1 million in losses.

Hannah Holland, 51, of Quincy, and Sheila O’Connell, 51, of North Weymouth, pleaded guilty to an Information charging them with one count of conspiracy to defraud the United States and three counts of aiding and assisting in the preparation of false tax returns. U.S. Senior District Court Judge Mark L. Wolf scheduled sentencing to Feb. 13, 2019.

According to court documents, Holland and O’Connell co-owned and operated Erin’s Own Home Healthcare Inc. (“Erin’s Own”), a home healthcare business. Between 2010 and 2014, Holland and O’Connell cashed over $3.5 million of Erin’s Own business checks through nominee bank accounts controlled by an unnamed individual. During this time period, Holland also personally cashed over $77,000 of Erin’s Own business receipts. None of these funds were ever reported to the IRS or accounted for in the company’s tax filings. Instead, Holland and O’Connell provided their tax preparer with a limited set of the financial records that did not cover the substantial amounts of business funds Holland and O’Connell diverted. As a result of the underreporting, Erin’s Own caused a loss of $1,126,112 to the IRS.

The conspiracy charge provides for a sentence of no greater than five years in prison, three years supervised release, and a fine $250,000. The charge of aiding and assisting in the preparation of false tax returns provides for a sentence of no greater than three years in prison, one year supervised release and a fine of $250,000. 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 and Kristina O’Connell, Special Agent in Charge of the Internal Revenue Service’s Criminal Investigation in Boston, made the announcement today. Assistant U.S. Attorney Jordi de Llano, Deputy Chief of Lelling’s Securities and Financial Fraud Unit, and Trial Attorney Brittney Campbell of the Department of Justice’s Tax Division are prosecuting the case.

Score:   0.5
  Press Releases:
BOSTON – The co-owners of a Boston-area home healthcare company were charged in federal court in Boston today for underreporting income to the IRS resulting in over $1 million in losses.

Hannah Holland, 51, of Quincy, and Sheila O’Connell, 33, of North Weymouth, were charged in an Information with one count of conspiracy to defraud the United States and three counts of aiding and assisting in the preparation of false tax returns.

According to court documents, Holland and O’Connell co-owned and operated Erin’s Own Home Healthcare Inc. (“Erin’s Own”), a home healthcare business. Between 2010 and 2014, Holland and O’Connell cashed over $3.5 million of Erin’s Own business checks through nominee bank accounts controlled by an unnamed individual. During this time period, Holland also personally cashed over $77,000 of Erin’s Own business receipts. None of these funds were ever reported to the IRS or accounted for in the company’s tax filings. Instead, Holland and O’Connell provided their tax preparer with a limited set of the financial records that did not cover the substantial amounts of business funds Holland and O’Connell diverted. As a result of the underreporting, Erin’s Own caused a loss of $1,126,112 to the IRS.

The conspiracy charge provides for a sentence of no greater than five years in prison, three years supervised release, and a fine $250,000. The charge of aiding and assisting in the preparation of false tax returns provides for a sentence of no greater than three years in prison, one year supervised release and a fine of $250,000. 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 and Kristina O’Connell, Special Agent in Charge of the Internal Revenue Service’s Criminal Investigation in Boston, made the announcement today. Assistant U.S. Attorney Jordi de Llano, Deputy Chief of Lelling’s Economic Crimes Unit, and Trial Attorney Brittney Campbell of the Department of Justice’s Tax Division are prosecuting the case.

The details contained in the charging documents are allegations. The defendants are presumed to be innocent unless and until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.

Score:   0.5
  Press Releases:
The Department of Justice announced today that two more pharmaceutical companies – Astellas Pharma US Inc. (Astellas) and Amgen Inc. (Amgen) – have agreed to pay a total of $124.75 million to resolve allegations that they each violated the False Claims Act by illegally paying the Medicare copays for their own products, through purportedly independent foundations that the companies used as mere conduits.

When a Medicare beneficiary obtains a prescription drug covered by Medicare, the beneficiary may be required to make a partial payment, which may take the form of a copayment, coinsurance, or a deductible (collectively “copays”). Congress included copay requirements in the Medicare program, in part, to serve as a check on health care costs, including the prices that pharmaceutical manufacturers can demand for their drugs. The Anti-Kickback Statute prohibits a pharmaceutical company from offering or paying, directly or indirectly, any remuneration — which includes money or any other thing of value — to induce Medicare patients to purchase the company’s drugs.  This prohibition extends to the payment of patients’ copay obligations. 

“When pharmaceutical companies use foundations to create funds that are used improperly to subsidize the copays of only their own drugs, it violates the law and undercuts a key safeguard against rising drug costs,” said Assistant Attorney General Jody Hunt of the Department of Justice’s Civil Division. “These enforcement actions make clear that the government will hold accountable drug companies that directly or indirectly pay illegal kickbacks.”  

“According to the allegations in today’s settlements, Astellas and Amgen conspired with two copay foundations to create funds that functioned almost exclusively to benefit patients taking Astellas and Amgen drugs,” said United States Attorney Andrew E. Lelling. “As a result, the companies’ payments to the foundations were not ‘donations,’ but rather were kickbacks that undermined the structure of the Medicare program and illegally subsidized the high costs of the companies’ drugs at the expense of American taxpayers. We will keep pursuing these cases until pharmaceutical companies stop engaging in this kind of behavior.”

“Kickback schemes can undermine our healthcare system, compromise medical decisions, and waste taxpayer dollars,” said Phillip Coyne, Special Agent in Charge, Office of the Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Service’s Boston Regional Office. “We will continue to hold pharmaceutical companies accountable for subverting the charitable donation process in order to circumvent safeguards designed to protect the integrity of the Medicare program.” 

“As today's settlements make clear, the FBI  will aggressively go after pharmaceutical companies that look to bolster their drug prices by paying illegal kickbacks — whether directly or indirectly — to undermine taxpayer funded healthcare programs, including Medicare,” said Joseph R. Bonavolonta, Special Agent in Charge of the FBI Boston Division.

Amgen and Astellas each entered five-year corporate integrity agreements (CIAs) with OIG as part of their respective settlements. The CIAs require the companies to implement measures, controls, and monitoring designed to promote independence from any patient assistance programs to which they donate. In addition, the companies agreed to implement risk assessment programs and to obtain compliance-related certifications from company executives and Board members.

The government’s allegations in the two settlements being announced today are as follows:

Astellas:  Astellas sells Xtandi, an androgen receptor inhibitor (ARI) used to treat certain prostate cancer; none of the other major drugs to treat the condition is an ARI. The government alleged that, in May 2013, Astellas asked two foundations about the creation of copay assistance funds to cover the copays for Medicare patients taking ARIs, but not for other types of prostate cancer drugs. In July 2013, both foundations opened ARI-only copay funds; Astellas was the sole donor to both funds. The government alleged that Astellas knew that Xtandi would likely account for the vast majority of utilization from each fund, and, in fact, Medicare patients taking Xtandi received nearly all of the copay assistance from the two ARI funds. The government further alleged that, during the time that the ARI funds were open, Astellas promoted the existence of the ARI funds as an advantage for Xtandi over competing drugs in an effort to persuade medical providers to prescribe Xtandi. Astellas has agreed to pay $100 million to resolve the government’s allegations.

Amgen:  Amgen sells the secondary hyperparathyroidism drug Sensipar and the multiple myeloma drug Kyprolis. Amgen acquired Kyprolis as part of its acquisition of Onyx Pharmaceuticals Inc. in 2013. With respect to Sensipar, the government alleged that, in late 2011, Amgen stopped donating to a foundation that provided financial support to patients taking any of several secondary hyperparathyroidism drugs and approached a new foundation about creating a “Secondary Hyperparathyroidism” fund that would support only Sensipar patients. Amgen allegedly worked with the new foundation to determine the fund’s coverage parameters and, in November 2011, the foundation launched a “Secondary Hyperparathyroidism” fund with Amgen as its sole donor. Until June 2014, the fund covered only Sensipar. Amgen allegedly made payments to the fund even though the cost of these payments exceeded the cost to Amgen of providing free Sensipar to financially needy patients. However, by enabling the fund to cover the copays of Medicare beneficiaries, Amgen caused claims to be submitted to Medicare and generated revenue for itself. 

With respect to Kyprolis, the government also alleged that Amgen’s predecessor, Onyx, asked a foundation to create a fund that ostensibly would cover health care related travel expenses for patients taking any multiple myeloma drug, but which was actually used almost exclusively to cover travel expenses for patients taking Kyprolis, which must be infused at certain health care facilities. The government alleged that Onyx was the sole donor to this travel fund and that Amgen, after integrating Onyx into its operations in 2015, continued to donate to the fund. The foundation also operated a second fund that covered copays for multiple myeloma drugs, including Kyprolis. While this latter fund had multiple donors, the government alleged that, for 2013, Onyx received data from the foundation on the fund’s anticipated and actual expenses for coverage of Kyprolis copays, which it used to tailor its donations to the fund to just the amount needed to cover the copays of Kyprolis patients. Amgen has agreed to pay $24.75 million to resolve the government’s allegations.

The government’s resolution of these matters illustrates the government’s emphasis on combating healthcare fraud. One of the most powerful tools in this effort is the False Claims Act. Tips and complaints from all sources about potential fraud, waste, abuse, and mismanagement can be reported to the Department of Health and Human Services at 800-HHS-TIPS (800-447-8477).

These investigations were conducted by the Department of Justice’s Civil Division and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Massachusetts, in conjunction with the Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Inspector General; and the FBI. The U.S. Postal Inspection Service also assisted with the investigation.    

The claims resolved by the settlement are allegations only; there has been no determination of liability. 

Score:   0.5
  Press Releases:
BOSTON – A suspended Massachusetts State Police Trooper was charged and agreed to plead guilty today in connection with being paid over $11,000 for overtime hours that he did not work.

Kevin Sweeney, 40, of Braintree, was charged with one count of embezzlement from an agency receiving federal funds and one count of wire fraud. Sweeney has agreed to plead guilty; a court date has not yet been scheduled. 

According to court documents, Sweeney was a MSP Trooper assigned to Troop E, which was responsible for enforcing criminal and traffic regulations along the Massachusetts Turnpike, Interstate I-90. In 2015, Sweeney earned $249,407, which included approximately $111,808 in overtime pay. In 2016, Sweeney earned $218,512, which included approximately $95,895 in overtime pay. 

Sweeney was allegedly paid for overtime shifts that he either did not work at all or from which he left early. Sweeney concealed his fraud by submitting fraudulent citations designed to create the appearance that he had worked overtime hours that he had not, and falsely claimed in MSP paperwork and payroll entries that he had worked the entirety of his overtime shifts.

For example, on Dec. 14, 2016, Sweeney claimed in MSP payroll submissions and other paperwork to have worked a “D AIRE” overtime shift from 7:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. Sweeney allegedly wrote eight motor vehicle citations during the shift and submitted copies of those citations to MSP as evidence that he had worked. Yet, Sweeney’s cruiser radio was not turned on during the overtime shift, he did not run any driver histories during the shift, and Registry of Motor Vehicle records reflect that none of the motorists that Sweeney claims to have cited actually received a citation that day. 

Sweeney has agreed to plead guilty to being paid $11,103 for overtime hours that he did not work. The overtime in question involved the Accident and Injury Reduction Effort program (AIRE) and the “X-Team” initiative, which were intended to reduce accidents, crashes, and injuries on I-90 through an enhanced presence of MSP Troopers who were to target vehicles traveling at excessive speeds. 

In 2015 and 2016, MSP received annual benefits from the U.S. Department of Transportation in excess of $10,000, which were funded pursuant to numerous federal grants.

Sweeney is the sixth trooper charged as a result of the ongoing investigation. On June 27, 2018, former Lieutenant David Wilson, 57, of Charlton; Trooper Gary Herman, 45, of Chester; and former Trooper Paul Cesan, 50, of Southwick, were arrested and charged with the same crime. On July 2, 2018, former Trooper Gregory Raftery, 47, of Westwood was charged and pleaded guilty. On July 25, 2018, retired Trooper Daren DeJong, 56, of Uxbridge, was also charged.

The charge of theft of government funds provides for a sentence of no greater than 10 years in prison, three years of supervised release, and a fine of $250,000 or twice the gross gain or loss. The charge of wire fraud provides for a sentence of no greater than 20 years in prison, three years 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; and Douglas Shoemaker, Special Agent in Charge of the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Office of Inspector General made the announcement today. Assistant U.S. Attorneys Dustin Chao and Mark Grady of Lelling’s Public Corruption Unit and Neil Gallagher of Lelling’s Economic Crimes Unit are prosecuting the case.

Score:   0.5
  Press Releases:
BOSTON – A Saugus loan broker pleaded guilty yesterday in federal court in Boston to operating a scheme that defrauded small businesses from across the country in connection with their efforts to obtain business loans.

 

Joseph L. Angelo Jr, 59, pleaded guilty to 11 counts of wire fraud. U.S. District Court Judge F. Dennis Saylor IV scheduled sentencing for Nov.29, 2017.

 

From November 2011 to March 2015, Angelo defrauded 10 small business owners of more than $1 million by representing that his companies – Lease One Corp. and Palmtree Finance & Funding LLC – were brokers for obtaining loans for small businesses. Angelo required the customers to deliver to him what he said were fully refundable deposits, aggregating over $1.1 million, for loans that he said had been approved and would be funded within a few days. In fact, none of the loans had been approved and there were no funds available. When the small business owners complained about delays in receiving funds, Angelo promised that their deposits would be refunded, but he did not refund any of the deposits or secure funding for any of the requested loans.

 

The charging statute provides for a sentence of no greater than 20 years in prison, five years of supervised release and a fine of $250,000. Sentences are imposed by a federal district court judge based upon the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines and other statutory factors.

 

Acting United States Attorney William D. Weinreb and Harold H. Shaw, Special Agent in Charge of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Boston Field Division, made the announcement. The case is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Victor A. Wild of Weinreb’s Economic Crimes Unit.

Score:   0.5
  Press Releases:
BOSTON –A Chelsea man was charged today in U.S. District Court in Boston with trafficking in counterfeit Apple, Inc. iPhone components at three retail locations in the Boston area.

 

Arif Ali Shah, 66, was charged with trafficking in counterfeit iPhone components that bore Apple trademarks – the Apple icon and the iPhone word mark – but were not genuine Apple products.

 

It is alleged that between approximately 2005 and February 2015, Shah sold counterfeit Apple merchandise at his three retail locations: Nadia’s in Dorchester, East Boston Wireless in East Boston and Todo Wireless in Chelsea. Shah also repaired genuine iPhones at his stores using counterfeit components. Shah purchased the counterfeit merchandise from sources both outside the United States and from a domestic supplier. Shah knew that the goods were counterfeit, but nonetheless sold and attempted to sell thousands of pieces of counterfeit merchandise.

 

The trafficking statute provides for a sentence of no greater than 10 years in prison, three years of supervised release, and a fine of up to $2 million. Actual sentences for federal crimes are typically less than the maximum penalties. Sentences are imposed by a federal district court judge based upon the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines and other statutory factors.

 

Acting United States Attorney William Weinreb and Matthew Etre, Special Agent in Charge of Homeland Security Investigations in Boston, made the announcement today. Assistant U.S. Attorney Amy Harman Burkart of Weinreb’s Cybercrime Unit is prosecuting the case.

 

The details contained in the charging document are allegations. The defendant is presumed to be innocent unless and until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.

 

Score:   0.5
  Press Releases:
BOSTON – A Saugus loan broker was sentenced today in federal court in Boston for operating a scheme that defrauded small businesses from across the country in connection with their efforts to obtain business loans.

Joseph L. Angelo Jr., 59, was sentenced by U.S. District Court Judge F. Dennis Saylor IV to 40 months in prison, three months of supervised release and ordered to pay restitution of $1.1 million. In September 2017, Angelo Jr. pleaded guilty to 11 counts of wire fraud.

From November 2011 to March 2015, Angelo defrauded 10 small business owners of more than $1 million by representing that his companies – Lease One Corp. and Palmtree Finance & Funding LLC – were brokers for obtaining loans for small businesses. Angelo required the customers to deliver to him what he said were fully refundable deposits, aggregating over $1.1 million for loans that he said had been approved and would be funded within a few days. In fact, none of the loans had been approved, and there were no funds available. When the small business owners complained about delays in receiving funds, Angelo promised that their deposits would be refunded, but he did not refund any of the deposits or secure funding for any of the requested loans.

United States Attorney Andrew E. Lelling and Harold H. Shaw, Special Agent in Charge of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Boston Field Division, made the announcement. Assistant U.S. Attorney Victor A. Wild of Lelling’s Economic Crimes Unit prosecuted the case.

Score:   0.5
  Press Releases:
BOSTON – A Hingham man pleaded guilty today in U.S. District Court in Boston in connection with defrauding neighbors and other acquaintances by agreeing to invest their money which he then stole for his own use or to pay off earlier investors.

 

Stephen S. Eubanks, 48, pleaded guilty today to one count of wire fraud after being charged and arrested in November 2016. U.S. District Court Chief Judge Patti B. Saris scheduled sentencing for July 11, 2017.

 

In February 2010, Eubanks opened Eubiquity Capital LLC, a hedge fund that, by 2016, took in approximately $529,000 in investor funds. Eubanks was previously a registered broker with several large brokerage firms, but was terminated in the wake of customer complaints and other disciplinary issues. In 2013 and 2014, Eubanks nonetheless told two acquaintances that he was a registered financial advisor running a hedge fund affiliated with Goldman Sachs, TD Ameritrade, UBS Bank and Fidelity Investments. One of the acquaintances invested $125,000 with Eubanks, while the other invested $20,000. A third person, living in Florida, invested $50,000 with Eubanks in 2013.

 

Eubanks invested some of his clients’ funds, but used a significant portion for personal expenses. Moreover, when asked for account statements summarizing the fund’s performance, Eubanks fabricated account statements or used account statements from unrelated accounts to deceive his clients into believing that their money had earned a healthy return. In some instances, Eubanks ran the fund as a Ponzi scheme, using money deposited with him by newer investors to pay returns to earlier investors. Eubanks defrauded 32 people of approximately $435,000.

 

The charging statute provides for a sentence of no greater than 20 years in prison, three years of supervised release and a fine of $250,000 or twice the gross gain or loss, whichever is greater. Actual sentences for federal crimes are typically less than the maximum penalties. Sentences are imposed by a federal district court judge based on the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines and other statutory factors.

 

Acting United States Attorney William D. Weinreb; Shelly Binkowski, Inspector in Charge of the U.S. Postal Inspection Service; and Harold H. Shaw, Special Agent in Charge of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Boston Field Division, made the announcement today. The Massachusetts Securities Division, which conducted an earlier civil investigation of Eubanks, provided significant assistance to the U.S. Attorney’s Office.

 

Assistant U.S. Attorney Andrew E. Lelling of Weinreb’s Economic Crimes Unit is prosecuting the case.

 

Score:   0.5
Docket Number:   D-MA  1:19-cr-10064
Case Name:   USA v. Chan et al
  Press Releases:
BOSTON – Two Malaysian nationals were indicted today for conspiring to illegally export firearm parts from the United States to Hong Kong.

Lionel Chan, 35, a resident of Brighton, and Muhammad Mohd Radzi, 26, who resides in Brooklyn, N.Y., were each indicted on one count of conspiring to violate the Arms Export Control Act. Chan was also indicted for obstruction of justice. On Jan. 31, 2019, Chan and Radzi were arrested and charged by criminal complaint.

According to the indictment, beginning in or around March 2018, Chan began purchasing a variety of U.S.-origin firearm parts online, including parts used to assemble AR-15 assault rifles and 9MM semi-automatic handguns, for a buyer located in Hong Kong. Many of the firearm parts that Chan purchased and exported to Hong Kong are defense articles that are designated on the United States Munitions List and therefore cannot be exported from the United States without first obtaining an export license or written authorization from the U.S. Department of State. Nonetheless, Chan allegedly shipped the firearm parts via Federal Express to the buyer in Hong Kong without first obtaining the necessary export licenses. Chan intentionally concealed the contents of the shipments by providing Federal Express with false information about the shipments, and by concealing the parts inside of each package. Between March and May 2018, Chan allegedly shipped at least 12 packages containing firearm parts from Brighton to the buyer in Hong Kong.

In or around April 2018, Radzi allegedly joined the conspiracy and began illegally exporting firearm parts to Hong Kong as well. Between May and October 2018, Radzi allegedly shipped 21 packages from Brooklyn, N.Y., to the buyer in Hong Kong. In October 2018, two of those packages were interdicted by Hong Kong authorities and found to contain numerous firearms parts, including a firing pin and gun sight, which are defense articles and controlled under Category I of the United States Munitions List. Like Chan, Radzi failed to obtain an export license for any of these shipments.

In addition to the conspiracy charge, Chan was also indicted for obstructing justice.  According to the indictment, during a flight from Dublin, Ireland to Boston on January 2, 2019, Chan deleted text messages between himself and the buyer in Hong Kong regarding the illegal export of firearm parts from the United States to Hong Kong without the necessary export licenses.

The charge of conspiring to illegally export firearms provides for a sentence of no greater than five years in prison, one year of supervised release and a $250,000 fine. The charge of obstructing justice provides for a sentence of no greater than 20 years in prison, 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 Lelling and Peter C. Fitzhugh, Special Agent in Charge of Homeland Security Investigations in Boston made the announcement today. The Massachusetts State Police and U.S. Customs and Border Protection also assisted with the investigation.  Assistant U.S. Attorneys George P. Varghese and Jason A. Casey of Lelling’s National Security Unit are prosecuting the case.

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.

Docket (0 Docs):   https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1IW8T29gOxLHb6wnrtduaPlZnt6-CodF_m22RVltOHzo/edit#gid=0
  Last Updated: 2019-10-19 22:18:26 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: 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 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
Magistrate Docket Number:   D-MA  1:19-mj-02093
Case Name:   USA v. Chan et al
  Press Releases:
BOSTON – Two Malaysian nationals were arrested today and charged with conspiring to illegally export firearms and firearm parts from the United States to an individual located in Hong Kong, China.

Lionel Chan, 35, who resided in Brighton, Mass., and Muhammad Radzi, 26, who resided in Brooklyn, N.Y., were each charged by criminal complaint with one count of conspiring to violate the Arms Export Control Act. Chan was also charged with one count of obstruction of justice. Chan will appear this afternoon in federal court in Boston and Radzi will appear in federal court in the Eastern District of New York.

According to the criminal complaint, beginning in or around March 2018, Chan began purchasing a variety of U.S.-origin firearm parts, including parts used to assemble AR-15 assault rifles and 9MM semi-automatic handguns, at the request of a buyer in Hong Kong. Chan purchased the parts online through a variety of websites, including eBay and gunbroker.com.  These firearm parts are restricted items and cannot be exported from the United States without a license. Nevertheless, Chan allegedly shipped the firearm parts via Federal Express to the buyer in Hong Kong without first obtaining the necessary export licenses. Chan intentionally concealed the contents of the shipments by providing false descriptions of the items contained in each shipment and by concealing the parts inside the package. For example, in one text exchange, Chan and the Hong Kong buyer discussed how to illegally ship a Glock 19 semi-automatic handgun. The Hong Kong buyer wrote, “this is how we are shipping the Glock 19 and USP compact barrel. I usually stuff them into a pair of sneakers, and cover it with Doritos or chips.”  Between March and May 2018, Chan shipped 12 packages from Brighton, Mass., to the buyer in Hong Kong.

In or around April 2018, Radzi allegedly joined the conspiracy and began illegally exporting firearm parts to Hong Kong as well. Between May and October 2018, Radzi allegedly shipped 21 packages from Brooklyn, N.Y., to the buyer in Hong Kong. In October 2018, two of those packages were interdicted by Hong Kong authorities and found to contain numerous firearms parts, including a firing pin and gun sight, which were export-controlled. Like Chan, Radzi failed to obtain an export license for any of these shipments.

Chan allegedly obstructed justice by deleting numerous text messages relating to illegally exporting firearms during a flight from Dublin, Ireland, to Boston, Mass. 

The charge of conspiring to illegally export firearms provides for a sentence of no greater than five years in prison, one year of supervised release and a $250,000 fine. The charge of obstructing justice provides for a sentence of no greater than 20 years in prison, 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 Lelling and Peter C. Fitzhugh, Special Agent in Charge of Homeland Security Investigations in Boston, made the announcement. The Massachusetts State Police and U.S. Customs and Border Protection also assisted in the investigation. Assistant U.S. Attorneys George P. Varghese and Jason A. Casey of Lelling’s National Security Unit are 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.

Docket (0 Docs):   https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1qd37cTSQfiXRiImhtS7VIK0wnBM6p1FTNqhpqv3DUjk/edit#gid=0
  Last Updated: 2019-10-19 22:16:31 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: 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 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
Score:   0.5
  Press Releases:
BOSTON – A Hingham man was sentenced today in federal court in Boston for defrauding neighbors and other acquaintances of approximately $437,000.

 

Stephen S. Eubanks, 48, was sentenced by U.S. District Court Chief Judge Patti B. Saris to 30 months in prison, three years of supervised release, and ordered to pay $437,609 in restitution to his victims. In April 2017, Eubanks pleaded guilty to one count of wire fraud.

 

In February 2010, Eubanks opened Eubiquity Capital LLC, a hedge fund that took in over $700,000 in investor funds by 2016. Eubanks was previously a registered broker with several large brokerage firms, but was terminated in the wake of customer complaints and other disciplinary issues. In 2013 and 2014, Eubanks nonetheless presented himself to acquaintances as a financial advisor running a hedge fund affiliated with Goldman Sachs, TD Ameritrade, UBS Bank and Fidelity Investments. One of the acquaintances invested $125,000 with Eubanks, while the other invested $20,000. In 2013, a Florida resident invested $50,000 with Eubanks.

 

Eubanks, who defrauded over 20 people, invested some of his clients’ funds, but used a significant portion for personal expenses. Moreover, when asked for account statements summarizing the fund’s performance, Eubanks fabricated account statements or used account statements from unrelated accounts to deceive his clients into believing that their money had earned a healthy return. In some instances, Eubanks ran the fund as a Ponzi scheme, using money deposited with him by newer investors to pay returns to earlier investors.

 

Acting United States Attorney William D. Weinreb; Shelly Binkowski, Inspector in Charge of the U.S. Postal Inspection Service; and Harold H. Shaw, Special Agent in Charge of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Boston Field Division, made the announcement today. The Massachusetts Securities Division, which conducted an earlier civil investigation of Eubanks, provided significant assistance to the U.S. Attorney’s Office. Assistant U.S. Attorney Andrew E. Lelling of Weinreb’s Economic Crimes Unit prosecuted the case.

Score:   0.5
  Press Releases:
BOSTON – The U.S. Attorney’s Office announced today that two foundations, Chronic Disease Fund, Inc. d/b/a Good Days from CDF (“CDF”), and Patient Access Network Foundation (“PANF”), have agreed to pay $2 million and $4 million, respectively, to resolve allegations that they violated the False Claims Act by enabling pharmaceutical companies to pay kickbacks to Medicare patients taking the companies’ drugs.

The government alleged that CDF and PANF worked with various pharmaceutical companies to design and operate certain funds that funneled money from the companies to patients taking the specific drugs the companies sold. These schemes enabled the pharmaceutical companies to ensure that Medicare patients did not consider the high costs that the companies charged for their drugs. The schemes also minimized the possibility that the companies’ money would go to patients taking competing drugs made by other companies. 

When a Medicare beneficiary obtains a prescription drug covered by Medicare Part B or Part D, the beneficiary may be required to make a partial payment, which may take the form of a co-payment, co-insurance, or deductible (collectively, “co-pays”). Congress included co-pay requirements in these programs, in part, to encourage market forces to serve as a check on health care costs, including the prices that pharmaceutical manufacturers can demand for their drugs. The Anti-Kickback Statute prohibits pharmaceutical companies from offering or paying, directly or indirectly, any remuneration – which includes money or any other thing of value – to induce Medicare patients to purchase the companies’ drugs. The law further prohibits third parties, such as co-pay foundations, from conspiring with pharmaceutical companies to violate the Anti-Kickback Statute. 

“According to the allegations in today’s settlements, CDF and PANF functioned not as independent charities, but as pass-throughs for specific pharmaceutical companies to pay kickbacks to Medicare patients taking their drugs,” said United States Attorney Andrew E. Lelling. “As a result, CDF and PANF enabled their ‘donors’ (the pharmaceutical companies) to undermine the Medicare program at the expense of American taxpayers.”

“OIG continues to be concerned by evidence indicating that foundations are not operating independently from their donors,” said Gregory E. Demske, Chief Counsel to the Inspector General. “Our Integrity Agreements promote such independence and require legal determinations about whether the foundations’ future operations of their assistance programs are compliant with the Anti-Kickback Statute.” 

“Today’s settlements are a warning to all pharmaceutical companies, foundations, and others who try to subvert the charitable donation process for their own financial gain at the expense of American taxpayers. Both the Chronic Disease Fund and the Patient Access Network used their status as charities to shield the illegal activities of pharmaceutical companies seeking to maximize profits,” said Joseph R. Bonavolonta, Special Agent in Charge of the FBI Boston Division. “The FBI and our partners will continue to hold organizations accountable, and to protect and preserve the Medicare system, and the taxpayers who fund it, from kickback schemes like these.”

The United States alleged that, from 2010 through 2014, CDF conspired with five pharmaceutical companies – Novartis, Dendreon, Astellas, Onyx, and Questcor – to enable them to pay kickbacks to Medicare patients taking their drugs.  It is further alleged that, from 2011 through 2014, PANF permitted four pharmaceutical companies – Bayer, Astellas, Dendreon, and Amgen – to use PANF as a conduit to pay kickbacks to Medicare patients taking their drugs.  Details of the conduct can be found in attached addendum.

The amounts of the settlements announced today were determined based on analysis of each foundation’s ability to pay after review of its financial condition.

CDF and PANF each entered a three-year Integrity Agreement (IA) with OIG as part of their respective settlements.  The IAs require, among other things, that the foundations implement measures designed to ensure that they operate independently and that their arrangements and interactions with pharmaceutical manufacturer donors are compliant with the law.  In addition, the IAs require compliance-related certifications from the Boards of Directors and detailed reviews by independent review organizations.  

U.S. Attorney Lelling, HHS-OIG Chief Counsel Demske and FBI SAC Bonavolonta made the announcement today. The U.S. Postal Inspection Service also assisted with the investigation. The matter was handled by Assistant U.S. Attorneys Gregg Shapiro and Abraham George, of Lelling’s Affirmative Civil Enforcement Unit.

ADDENDUM

CDF’s PNET Co-pay Fund for Novartis. In May 2011, Afinitor, a Novartis product, was approved to treat progressive neuroendocrine tumors of pancreatic origin (“PNET”). In 2012, Novartis asked CDF to open a co-pay fund to cover Afinitor co-pays for PNET patients. At that time, CDF knew that Sutent, a Pfizer drug, also was approved to treat PNET. In August 2012, at Novartis’ request, CDF opened a supposed “PNET” fund. The fund, which Novartis financed alone, covered co-pays only for Afinitor; it did not cover co-pays for Sutent, the other approved PNET drug.

CDF’s Provision of Data to Dendreon for the mCRPC Fund. Provenge, a Dendreon product, is an immunotherapy that the FDA approved in April 2010 for treatment of metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer (“mCRPC”). In or about January 2010, Dendreon contacted CDF to request that CDF create a mCRPC fund. At that time, Provenge’s principal competitor therapy was Taxotere, a less costly injectable therapy indicated for treatment of various types of cancer. CDF opened its mCRPC fund in June 2010, and, from that time until August 2011, Dendreon alone financed CDF’s mCRPC fund. From June 2010 through 2011, at Dendreon’s request and on multiple occasions, CDF provided Dendreon with data concerning the number of Provenge patients receiving money from CDF’s mCRPC fund, the number of Taxotere patients receiving money from the fund, and the average amounts of money the fund was providing to Provenge and Taxotere patients, respectively. In May 2011, following the FDA approval of Zytiga, an oral therapy indicated for treatment of mCRPC, CDF also provided Dendreon with information concerning the number of Zytiga patients receiving money from CDF’s mCRPC fund. CDF’s provision of this information made it possible for Dendreon to confirm that CDF was using Dendreon’s money primarily to cover co-pays for Provenge, even though other mCRPC drugs were on the market.

CDF’s ARI Co-pay Fund for Astellas. Xtandi, an Astellas product, is indicated for treatment of mCRPC for patients who have failed chemotherapy. After the launch of Xtandi in September 2012, Astellas provided funding for the mCRPC fund at CDF. Xtandi is an androgen receptor inhibitor (“ARI”); none of the other major mCRPC drugs is an ARI. In May 2013, Astellas contacted CDF to request the opening of an ARI fund, which would cover mCRPC patients’ co-pays for ARIs, but not for other mCRPC drugs. CDF knew this meant that Astellas was seeking to earmark money for Xtandi patients, and not others, because Xtandi was the dominant ARI drug for treatment of mCRPC. On July 1, 2013, at Astellas’ request, CDF opened an ARI fund. Astellas alone financed CDF’s ARI fund. As CDF intended, Xtandi patients received nearly all of the money that the fund disbursed.

CDF’s Multiple Myeloma Travel Fund for Onyx. In July 2012, Onyx (now owned by Amgen) received approval to market Kyprolis as a third-line treatment for multiple myeloma.  Kyprolis must be infused at a health care facility. At around the time of the approval, Onyx asked CDF to create a fund that, ostensibly, would cover health care related travel expenses for patients taking any multiple myeloma drug. At Onyx’s request, CDF created the fund, which Onyx alone financed. Internally, CDF at times referred to the fund as the “Kyprolis Travel” fund, and, in fact, it functioned primarily to cover travel expenses for patients taking Kyprolis.

CDF’s Provision of Data to Onyx for the Multiple Myeloma Co-Pay Fund. CDF operated a fund that covered co-pays for multiple myeloma drugs, including Kyprolis and several other drugs. CDF’s multiple myeloma co-pay fund received financing from several pharmaceutical manufacturers. In 2013, CDF provided Onyx with data detailing the amounts CDF had spent, and anticipated spending, on Kyprolis co-pays. This enabled Onyx to view CDF’s funding requests as seeking amounts necessary to pay Kyrpolis co-pays but not the co-pays of any other multiple myeloma drug. In 2013, after receiving this information, Onyx paid CDF just enough to cover CDF’s anticipated spending on co-pays for Kyprolis patients.

CDF’s MS, Lupus, and RA “Exacerbation” Funds for Questcor. In 2010, 2011, and 2012, respectively, Questcor (now owned by Mallinkcrodt), the maker of Acthar Gel, approached CDF and requested that CDF open separate funds for “exacerbations” (i.e., flare-ups) of multiple sclerosis, lupus, and rheumatoid arthritis, respectively. CDF opened these “exacerbation” funds, and Questcor alone financed them. By design, the multiple sclerosis “exacerbation” fund did not cover drugs (other than Acthar) that treated multiple sclerosis, the lupus “exacerbation” fund did not cover drugs (other than Acthar) that treated lupus, and the rheumatoid arthritis “exacerbation” fund did not cover drugs (other than Acthar) that treated rheumatoid arthritis. After establishing the funds, CDF provided reports to Questcor that enabled Questcor to determine how much money CDF already had spent on Acthar patients and how much more money CDF would need to cover the Acthar co-pays for patients Questcor referred to CDF.   

PANF’s Prostate Cancer Subfunds. In March 2010, PANF opened a fund that covered co-pays for patients taking any drug that treated prostate cancer. In September 2012, PANF opened a fund that covered co-pays for patients taking drugs that treated mCRPC. PANF’s mCRPC fund covered a number of drugs, including Xofigo (a Bayer drug), Xtandi (an Astellas drug), and Provenge (a Dendreon drug), as well as competing drugs made by other companies. After PANF opened its mCRPC fund, Bayer, Astellas, and Provenge worked with PANF to create smaller funds, with each functioning primarily, if not exclusively, to cover the drug of the single company that financed each fund.

The RIT subfund for Bayer. Xofigo is an alpha particleemitting radioactive therapeutic agent that the FDA approved to treat mCRPC on May 15, 2013. None of the other major drugs to treat mCRPC is radioactive. Prior to the approval of Xofigo, Bayer approached PANF about creating a fund that would cover only radioactive drugs for mCRPC. On May 16, 2013, one day after the FDA approved Xofigo, PANF opened a fund called Radioisotope Treatment of Metastatic Castrate Resistant Prostate Cancer (“RIT”). Bayer alone financed PANF’s RIT fund, and Xofigo patients received nearly all of the money the fund disbursed.

The ARI subfund for Astellas. After hearing about PANF’s RIT fund, Astellas contacted PANF about creating an ARI fund that would cover only ARI drugs for mCRPC. Astellas alone financed PANF’s ARI fund, and Xtandi patients received the great majority of the money the fund disbursed.

The GU subfund for Dendreon. Approximately one month after the opening of PANF’s RIT fund, PANF and Dendreon began discussions about PANF creating a fund that would cover copays only for immunotherapy treatments for mCRPC. On August 2, 2013, PANF opened a fund called Immunotherapy for Genitourinary Cancer (“GU”). Dendreon alone financed PANF’s GU fund, and Provenge patients received nearly all of the money the fund disbursed.

PANF’s SHPT Fund for Amgen. Sensipar, an Amgen product, is approved to treat secondary hyperparathyroidism (“SHPT”). The FDA also has approved other drugs to treat SHPT. In September 2011, Amgen approached PANF about creating an SHPT fund. PANF and Amgen then worked together to determine the fund’s coverage parameters so that it would cover only Sensipar. In November 2011, PANF launched a SHPT fund with Amgen alone providing the financing. Until June 2014, Sensipar patients received all of the money PANF’s SHPT fund disbursed.

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