NEWARK, N.J. – A civilian employee of Picatinny Arsenal (PICA) and an employee of a defense contractor today admitted their roles in conspiring with others to receive bribes and other gratuities in return for assistance with the awarding of government contracts, U.S. Attorney Craig Carpenito announced.
Robert Dombroski, 64, of Branchville, New Jersey, a high ranking civilian employee at PICA, pleaded guilty before U.S. District Judge John Vazquez in Newark federal court to an information charging him with conspiring to commit wire fraud in order to accept or receive things of value in return for favorable assistance with government contracts and with making false claims against the United States.
Indra Nayee, 53, of Metuchen, New Jersey, pleaded guilty before Judge Vazquez to an information charging him with conspiring to give, offer or promise anything of value to a public official and to make false claims against the United States.
According to documents filed in this case and statements made in court:
Dombroksi worked at PICA, a U.S. Army installation in Morris County, New Jersey, for more than 30 years. PICA conducts research, development, acquisition and lifecycle management of advanced conventional weapons systems and advanced ammunitions and provides products and services to all branches of the U.S. military. Dombroski admitted that from at least January 2010 through December 2017, he conspired with other employees at PICA, with Subsystems Technology (STI) – a defense contracting firm that works with PICA and specializes in advanced engineering, advanced analytics, management consulting and IT services, including cyber-security – and employees of STI. He conspired to seek and accept gifts and other items of value, such as Apple products, luxury handbags, Beats headphones, and tickets to a luxury sky box at professional sporting events, valued at least $150,000 to $250,000, from STI in exchange for assistance in obtaining and retaining government contracts and other favorable assistance at PICA. He also admitted that in order to cover up his crimes, he filed false statements to the Department of Defense by failing to list the items of value he received from STI on his annual confidential financial disclosure form known as an OGE Form 450.
Nayee, an employee of STI, admitted that from January 2012 through December 2016, he conspired with STI and other employees of STI to offer gifts and other items of value to numerous individuals employed at PICA in order to obtain and retain contracts and other favorable assistance at PICA. He also admitted that he and other employees at STI, and the company, submitted false bills to the United States writing off the cost of the bribes as “materials” needed on United States government contracts, when in fact the gifts and other items of value were for the personal use and enjoyment of the employees at PICA and not for any legitimate government purpose.
The conspiracy charge to which Dombroski and Nayee pleaded guilty carries a maximum potential penalty of five years in prison and a maximum fine of $250,000 or twice the gross gain or loss associated with the offense, whichever is greatest. Sentencing for Dombroski is scheduled for Nov. 19, 2019, and sentencing for Nayee is scheduled for Dec. 16, 2019.
U.S. Attorney Carpenito credited special agents of the FBI, under the direction of Special Agent in Charge Gregory W. Ehrie in Newark; the U.S. Department of Defense, Defense Criminal Investigative Service, under the direction of Leigh-Alistair Barzey, Special Agent in Charge, DCIS Northeast Field Office; and the U.S. Army, Major Procurement Fraud Unit, Criminal Investigation Command, under the direction of Special Agent in Charge L. Scott Moreland, with the investigation leading to today’s guilty pleas.
The government is represented by Senior Trial Counsel Margaret Ann Mahoney of the U.S. Attorney’s Office’s National Security Unit in Newark.
NEWARK, N.J. – A former civilian employee at Picatinny Arsenal and a former official of a defense contractor with a branch office in Lake Hopatcong, New Jersey, have been charged with conspiracy to commit wire fraud, U.S. Attorney Craig Carpenito announced today.
Robert Dombroski, 63, of Branchville, New Jersey, is charged by complaint with one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud and four counts of making false statements. Indra Nayee, 51, of Metuchen, New Jersey, is also charged by complaint with one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud. Both men are scheduled to appear this afternoon before U.S. Magistrate Judge Mark Falk in Newark federal court.
According to documents filed in this case and statements made in court:
Dombroski worked at Picatinny Arsenal for over 30 years, retiring as a federal employee in 2015. He was then hired as a civilian, serving as a Senior Products Manager for advanced weapons. Prior to retiring, Dombroski held the position of senior associate for advanced weapons and worked on and supervised contract projects with a defense contractor, identified in court papers as “Company A,” which is headquartered in Arlington, Virginia, and has a branch office in Lake Hopatcong, New Jersey. In that capacity, Dombroski had influence over the awarding of government contracts to this company and influenced how the money was allocated.
Nayee was the former Picatinny Arsenal division director of Company A, and had direct oversight and control over how his company executed the government contracts it had with Picatinny Arsenal. He supervised and directly managed all branch employees. Nayee was the primary point of contact at Company A for Picatinny Arsenal employees, including Dombrowski.
From 2010 through 2018, Dombroski and Nayee conspired with other federal employees at Picatinny Arsenal and employees of Company A to seek and accept gifts and other items of value, such as Apple products, luxury handbags, Beats headphones, and tickets to a luxury sky box at professional sporting events, valued at $150,000 to $250,000, in exchange for government contracts and other favorable assistance for Company A at Picatinny Arsenal.
The count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud carries a maximum penalty of 20 years in prison. The false statement charges each carry a maximum penalty of five years in prison.
U.S. Attorney Carpenito credited special agents of the FBI, under the direction of Special Agent in Charge Gregory W. Ehrie in Newark; the U.S. Department of Defense, Defense Criminal Investigative Service, under the direction of Special Agent in Charge Leigh-Alistair Barzey; and the U.S. Army, Major Procurement Fraud Unit, Criminal Investigation Command, under the direction of Special Agent in Charge L. Scott Moreland, with the ongoing investigation.
The government is represented by Senior Trial Counsel Margaret Ann Mahoney and Assistant U.S. Attorney Thomas S. Kearney of the U.S. Attorney’s Office’s National Security Unit in Newark.
The charges and allegations in the complaint are merely accusations, and the defendants are presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.
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 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
NEWARK, N.J. – A former civilian employee at Picatinny Arsenal and a former official of a defense contractor with a branch office in Lake Hopatcong, New Jersey, have been charged with conspiracy to commit wire fraud, U.S. Attorney Craig Carpenito announced today.
Robert Dombroski, 63, of Branchville, New Jersey, is charged by complaint with one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud and four counts of making false statements. Indra Nayee, 51, of Metuchen, New Jersey, is also charged by complaint with one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud. Both men are scheduled to appear this afternoon before U.S. Magistrate Judge Mark Falk in Newark federal court.
According to documents filed in this case and statements made in court:
Dombroski worked at Picatinny Arsenal for over 30 years, retiring as a federal employee in 2015. He was then hired as a civilian, serving as a Senior Products Manager for advanced weapons. Prior to retiring, Dombroski held the position of senior associate for advanced weapons and worked on and supervised contract projects with a defense contractor, identified in court papers as “Company A,” which is headquartered in Arlington, Virginia, and has a branch office in Lake Hopatcong, New Jersey. In that capacity, Dombroski had influence over the awarding of government contracts to this company and influenced how the money was allocated.
Nayee was the former Picatinny Arsenal division director of Company A, and had direct oversight and control over how his company executed the government contracts it had with Picatinny Arsenal. He supervised and directly managed all branch employees. Nayee was the primary point of contact at Company A for Picatinny Arsenal employees, including Dombrowski.
From 2010 through 2018, Dombroski and Nayee conspired with other federal employees at Picatinny Arsenal and employees of Company A to seek and accept gifts and other items of value, such as Apple products, luxury handbags, Beats headphones, and tickets to a luxury sky box at professional sporting events, valued at $150,000 to $250,000, in exchange for government contracts and other favorable assistance for Company A at Picatinny Arsenal.
The count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud carries a maximum penalty of 20 years in prison. The false statement charges each carry a maximum penalty of five years in prison.
U.S. Attorney Carpenito credited special agents of the FBI, under the direction of Special Agent in Charge Gregory W. Ehrie in Newark; the U.S. Department of Defense, Defense Criminal Investigative Service, under the direction of Special Agent in Charge Leigh-Alistair Barzey; and the U.S. Army, Major Procurement Fraud Unit, Criminal Investigation Command, under the direction of Special Agent in Charge L. Scott Moreland, with the ongoing investigation.
The government is represented by Senior Trial Counsel Margaret Ann Mahoney and Assistant U.S. Attorney Thomas S. Kearney of the U.S. Attorney’s Office’s National Security Unit in Newark.
The charges and allegations in the complaint are merely accusations, and the defendants are presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.
Description: The fiscal year of the data file obtained from the AOUSC
Format: YYYY
Description: The code of the federal judicial circuit where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: The code of the federal judicial district where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: The code of the district office where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: Docket number assigned by the district to the case
Format: A7
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which cannot be modified by the court
Format: A3
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which can be modified by the court
Format: A3
Description: A sequential number indicating whether a case is an original proceeding or a reopen
Format: N5
Description: Case type associated with the current defendant record
Format: A2
Description: Case type associated with a magistrate case if the current case was merged from a magistrate case
Format: A2
Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, defendant number, and reopen sequence number
Format: A18
Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, and reopen sequence number
Format: A15
Description: The docket number originally given to a case assigned to a magistrate judge and subsequently merged into a criminal case
Format: A7
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a magistrate case
Format: A3
Description: The status of the defendant as assigned by the AOUSC
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the fugitive status of a defendant
Format: A1
Description: The date upon which a defendant became a fugitive
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which a fugitive defendant was taken into custody
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date when a case was first docketed in the district court
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which proceedings in a case commenced on charges pending in the district court where the defendant appeared, or the date of the defendant’s felony-waiver of indictment
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: A code used to identify the nature of the proceeding
Format: N2
Description: The date when a defendant first appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: A code indicating the event by which a defendant appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the type of legal counsel assigned to a defendant
Format: N2
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE1
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE1
Format: A3
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the second highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE2
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE2
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE2
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE2
Format: A3
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the third highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE3
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE3
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE3
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE3
Format: A3
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the fourth highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE4
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE4
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE4
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE4
Format: A3
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the fifth highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE5
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE5
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE5
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE5
Format: A3
Description: The FIPS code used to indicate the county or parish where an offense was committed
Format: A5
Description: The date of the last action taken on the record
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which judicial proceedings before the court concluded
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which the final sentence is recorded on the docket
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which the case was closed
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The total fine imposed at sentencing for all offenses of which the defendant was convicted and a fine was imposed
Format: N8
Description: A count of defendants filed including inter-district transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants filed excluding inter-district transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of original proceedings commenced
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants filed whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated including interdistrict transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated excluding interdistrict transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of original proceedings terminated
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period including long term fugitives
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period excluding long term fugitives
Format: N1
Description: The source from which the data were loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: A10
Description: A sequential number indicating the iteration of the defendant record
Format: N2
Description: The date the record was loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: Statistical year ID label on data file obtained from the AOUSC which represents termination year