Score:   1
Docket Number:   D-MD  8:19-cr-00347
Case Name:   USA v. Thrane
  Press Releases:
Greenbelt, Maryland – U.S. District Judge Paul W. Grimm today sentenced Rakesh Kaushal, age 66, of Rockville, Maryland, to three years in federal prison, followed by three years of supervised release, for the federal charge of conspiracy to commit wire fraud, in connection with a scheme to defraud his employer of more than $1.7 million.  Judge Grimm also ordered Kaushal to pay restitution with the exact amount to be determined at a later hearing.

The guilty plea was announced by United States Attorney for the District of Maryland Robert K. Hur and Special Agent in Charge Jennifer C. Boone of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Baltimore Field Office.

According to his plea agreement, between August 2015 and approximately January 2017, Kaushal was employed by a company headquartered in Beltsville, Maryland (Victim Company 1), which provided construction and design services, primarily to federal government agencies.  Ivan Victor Thrane was the owner and president of three construction companies operating in Dickerson and Beltsville, Maryland (“the Thrane companies”).  Kaushal recommended the Thrane companies to be subcontractors on Victim Company 1 projects for which Kaushal was the Project Manager or Project Executive. 

Kaushal admitted that between August 2015 and January 2017, he conspired with Thrane to defraud Victim Company 1 by submitting fraudulent payment requests for work purportedly performed by the Thrane companies, which Kaushal reviewed and approved.  In fact, the Thrane companies had not performed all of the work indicated on the payment requests and, in some cases, had not performed any work on projects for which payment was requested. 

Specifically, Kaushal and Thrane, among other things, caused the Thrane companies to submit payment requests to Victim Company 1.  Kaushal prepared the payment requests, which he e-mailed to Thrane.  Thrane, or another individual at Thrane’s request, signed the payment requests on behalf of the Thrane companies.  Thrane then e-mailed the signed payment requests to Kaushal, who, as Victim Company 1’s project manager and project executive, approved the payment requests, causing Victim Company 1 to pay the Thrane companies.  Once payment was received from Victim Company 1, Thrane funneled a portion of those payments to Kaushal, typically by writing checks from his personal bank account or from the Thrane companies, which Kaushal then deposited into his personal bank account.

After Victim Company 1 discovered the overbilling in December 2016, Kaushal and Thrane attempted to conceal the scheme to defraud.  For example, on December 28, 2016, Kaushal, using his work e-mail address, sent an e-mail to Thrane that read in part, “Good Morning Mr. Thrane: I have been informed by our accounting department that mistakenly we have overpaid your company for the MPO Skywalk Project.  Can you please verify with your accounting and respond by COB today.”  Other employees from Victim Company 1 were copied on this e-mail.  In fact, Kaushal and Thrane had communicated prior to this e-mail regarding the discovery of overpayments by Victim Company 1.  Kaushal and Thrane also agreed on a response, which Thrane then e-mailed to Kaushal, copying other employees from Victim Company 1.  Thrane’s response read in part, “…please allow me to review our records with my accountant.  My accountant is off this week. . . . Please rest assured that if there have been any overpayment to us by [Victim Company 1], we will return the overpayment immediately.”  In fact, the Thrane companies did not have an accountant.

Shortly after the fraud was discovered by Victim Company 1, between January 17 and January 23, 2017, Kaushal wired a total of $650,000, including proceeds of the fraud, from one of his personal bank accounts to an account in India, with Kaushal listed as the beneficiary.

Victim Company 1 eventually initiated civil litigation against Kaushal and Thrane, and obtained a default judgment against Kaushal of $1,740,330.  Kaushal then filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy.  During a meeting of creditors in the bankruptcy proceeding, Kaushal testified that he had used some of the proceeds of the fraud to purchase a condominium in India for a family member and that he had lost more than $100,000 gambling at various casinos.  Kaushal was unable to account for more than $1 million of the kickback payments he received from Thrane.  On May 15, 2019, the Bankruptcy Court entered a default judgment against Kaushal, denying him a discharge.

From approximately September 2015 to December 2016, Victim Company 1 paid the Thrane companies approximately $3,294,675.34 as a result of the scheme to defraud.  Upon receipt of these payments from Victim Company 1, Thrane issued 34 kickback payments, totaling approximately $1,740,330 in checks written to Kaushal.  On January 3, 2017, after discovering the fraud scheme, Victim Company 1 reversed or voided payments totaling approximately $741,525 to the Thrane companies.  Kaushal then provided Thrane with three checks, all dated January 4, 2017, from Kaushal and made payable to one of the Thrane companies, totaling $370,700.06.  Kaushal admits that the loss attributable to him as a result of the scheme is between $1.5 million and $3.5 million.

Ivan Victor Thrane, age 65, of Dickerson, Maryland, pleaded guilty to his role in the scheme on August 22, 2019.  Judge Grimm has not yet set a date for sentencing. 

Kaushal remains detained. 

United States Attorney Robert K. Hur commended the FBI for its work in the investigation.  Mr. Hur thanked Assistant U.S. Attorneys Jessica Collins and Gregory Bernstein, who prosecuted the case.

# # #

 

Greenbelt, Maryland – Rakesh Kaushal, age 66, of Rockville, Maryland, pleaded guilty today to the federal charge of conspiracy to commit wire fraud, in connection with a scheme to defraud his employer of more than $1.7 million. 

The guilty plea was announced by United States Attorney for the District of Maryland Robert K. Hur and Special Agent in Charge Jennifer C. Boone of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Baltimore Field Office.

According to his plea agreement, between August 2015 and approximately January 2017, Kaushal was employed by a company headquartered in Beltsville, Maryland (Victim Company 1), which provided construction and design services, primarily to federal government agencies.  Ivan Victor Thrane was the owner and president of three construction companies operating in Dickerson and Beltsville, Maryland (“the Thrane companies”).  Kaushal recommended the Thrane companies to be subcontractors on Victim Company 1 projects for which Kaushal was the Project Manager or Project Executive. 

Kaushal admitted that between August 2015 and January 2017, he conspired with Thrane to defraud Victim Company 1 by submitting fraudulent payment requests for work purportedly performed by the Thrane companies, which Kaushal reviewed and approved.  In fact, the Thrane companies had not performed all of the work indicated on the payment requests and, in some cases, had not performed any work on projects for which payment was requested. 

Specifically, Kaushal and Thrane, among other things, caused the Thrane companies to submit payment requests to Victim Company 1.  Kaushal prepared the payment requests, which he e-mailed to Thrane.  Thrane, or another individual at Thrane’s request, signed the payment requests on behalf of the Thrane companies.  Thrane then e-mailed the signed payment requests to Kaushal, who, as Victim Company 1’s project manager and project executive, approved the payment requests, causing Victim Company 1 to pay the Thrane companies.  Once payment was received from Victim Company 1, Thrane funneled a portion of those payments to Kaushal, typically by writing checks from his personal bank account or from the Thrane companies, which Kaushal then deposited into his personal bank account.

After Victim Company 1 discovered the overbilling in December 2016, Kaushal and Thrane attempted to conceal the scheme to defraud.  For example, on December 28, 2016, Kaushal, using his work e-mail address, sent an e-mail to Thrane that read in part, “Good Morning Mr. Thrane: I have been informed by our accounting department that mistakenly we have overpaid your company for the MPO Skywalk Project.  Can you please verify with your accounting and respond by COB today.”  Other employees from Victim Company 1 were copied on this e-mail.  In fact, Kaushal and Thrane had communicated prior to this e-mail regarding the discovery of overpayments by Victim Company 1.  Kaushal and Thrane also agreed on a response, which Thrane then e-mailed to Kaushal, copying other employees from Victim Company 1.  Thrane’s response read in part, “…please allow me to review our records with my accountant.  My accountant is off this week. . . . Please rest assured that if there have been any overpayment to us by [Victim Company 1], we will return the overpayment immediately.”  In fact, the Thrane companies did not have an accountant.

Shortly after the fraud was discovered by Victim Company 1, between January 17 and January 23, 2017, Kaushal wired a total of $650,000, including proceeds of the fraud, from one of his personal bank accounts to an account in India, with Kaushal listed as the beneficiary.

Victim Company 1 eventually initiated civil litigation against Kaushal and Thrane, and obtained a default judgment against Kaushal of $1,740,330.  Kaushal then filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy.  During a meeting of creditors in the bankruptcy proceeding, Kaushal testified that he had used some of the proceeds of the fraud to purchase a condominium in India for a family member and that he had lost more than $100,000 gambling at various casinos.  Kaushal was unable to account for more than $1 million of the kickback payments he received from Thrane.  On May 15, 2019, the Bankruptcy Court entered a default judgment against Kaushal, denying him a discharge.

From approximately September 2015 to December 2016, Victim Company 1 paid the Thrane companies approximately $3,294,675.34 as a result of the scheme to defraud.  Upon receipt of these payments from Victim Company 1, Thrane issued 34 kickback payments, totaling approximately $1,740,330 in checks written to Kaushal.  On January 3, 2017, after discovering the fraud scheme, Victim Company 1 reversed or voided payments totaling approximately $741,525 to the Thrane companies.  Kaushal then provided Thrane with three checks, all dated January 4, 2017, from Kaushal and made payable to one of the Thrane companies, totaling $370,700.06.  Kaushal admits that the loss attributable to him as a result of the scheme is between $1.5 million and $3.5 million.

Ivan Victor Thrane, age 65, of Dickerson, Maryland, pleaded guilty to his role in the scheme on August 22, 2019, and is scheduled to be sentenced on January 7, 2020.

As part of their plea agreements, Kaushal and Thrane are required to forfeit and pay restitution in the full amount of the victim’s losses still outstanding, which is at least $988,805.

Kaushal faces a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison for the wire fraud conspiracy.   U.S. District Judge Paul W. Grimm has scheduled sentencing for January 14, 2020.  Kaushal remains detained. 

United States Attorney Robert K. Hur commended the FBI for its work in the investigation.  Mr. Hur thanked Assistant U.S. Attorneys Jessica Collins and Gregory Bernstein, who are prosecuting the case.

# # #

 

Greenbelt, Maryland – Ivan Victor Thrane, age 65, of Dickerson, Maryland, pleaded guilty today to conspiracy to commit wire fraud, in connection with a scheme to defraud a company of more than $1.7 million. 

The guilty plea was announced by United States Attorney for the District of Maryland Robert K. Hur and Special Agent in Charge Jennifer C. Boone of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Baltimore Field Office.

According to his plea agreement, Thrane was the owner and president of three construction companies operating in Dickerson and Beltsville, Maryland (“the Thrane companies”).  Thrane admitted that between August 2015 and January 2017, he conspired with the project manager at Victim Company 1, to defraud Victim Company 1 by submitting fraudulent payment requests for work purportedly performed by the Thrane companies.  In fact, the Thrane companies had not performed all of the work indicated on the payment requests and, in some cases, had not performed any work on projects for which Thrane was requesting payment. 

Specifically, Thrane and his co-conspirator, among other things, caused the Thrane companies to submit payment requests to Victim Company 1.  The co-conspirator prepared the payment requests, which he e-mailed to Thrane.  Thrane, or another individual at Thrane’s request, signed the payment requests on behalf of the Thrane companies.  Thrane then e-mailed the signed payment requests to the co-conspirator, who, as Victim Company 1’s project manager and project executive, approved the payment requests, causing Victim Company 1 to pay the Thrane companies.  Once payment was received from Victim Company 1, Thrane funneled a portion of those payments to his co-conspirator, typically by writing checks from his personal bank account or from the Thrane companies.

After Victim Company 1 discovered the overbilling by the Thrane companies in December 2016, Thrane and his co-conspirator attempted to conceal the scheme to defraud.  For example, on December 28, 2016, Thrane and his co-conspirator sent each other e-mails, which they had previously discussed.  Specifically, Thrane sent an e-mail to his co-conspirator and copying other employees from Victim Company 1, which read in part, “…please allow me to review our records with my accountant. My accountant is off this week. . . . Please rest assured that if there have been any overpayment to us by [Victim Company 1], we will return the overpayment immediately.”  In fact, the Thrane companies did not have an accountant.

Victim Company 1 eventually initiated civil litigation against Thrane and his co-conspirator. Thrane and the co-conspirator coordinated their defense and falsely claimed that an employee of Victim Company 1 authorized the overbilling in order to obtain funds to purchase Victim Company 1.  In fact, that employee did not even start working at Victim Company 1 until after Thrane and his co-conspirator had begun their fraud scheme and that employee did not authorize Thrane or Thrane companies to submit inflated payment requests.

From approximately September 2015 to December 2016, Victim Company 1 paid the Thrane companies approximately $3,294,675.34 as a result of payment requests submitted as part of the conspiracy and scheme to defraud.  Upon receipt of these payments from Victim Company 1, Thrane issued approximately 34 kickback payments, totaling approximately $1,740,330 in checks written to his co-conspirator.  On January 3, 2017, after discovering the fraud scheme, Victim Company 1 reversed or voided payments totaling approximately $741,525 to the Thrane companies.  Thrane admits that the actual and intended loss attributable to him as a result of the scheme is between $1.5 million and $3.5 million.

As part of his plea agreement, Thrane is required to forfeit and pay restitution in the full amount of the victim’s losses still outstanding, which is at least $988,805.

Thrane faces a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison for the wire fraud conspiracy.   U.S. District Judge Paul W. Grimm has scheduled sentencing for January 7, 2020.

In a separate indictment, Rakesh Kaushal, age 66, of Rockville, Maryland is charged with conspiracy to commit wire fraud in connection with the scheme.  No trial date has been set and Kaushal remains detained.  An indictment is not a finding of guilt.  An individual charged by indictment is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty at some later criminal proceedings. 

United States Attorney Robert K. Hur commended the FBI for its work in the investigation.  Mr. Hur thanked Assistant U.S. Attorneys Jessica Collins and Gregory Bernstein, who are prosecuting the case.

# # #

 

Description: The fiscal year of the data file obtained from the AOUSC
Format: YYYY

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Description: A count of original proceedings commenced
Format: N1

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

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

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

Description: A count of original proceedings terminated
Format: N1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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