Score:   1
Docket Number:   D-NJ  2:20-cr-00709
Case Name:   USA v. ZAHORE
  Press Releases:
NEWARK, N.J. – A Union County, New Jersey, man today admitted making corrupt payments to a public official of the City of Orange Township, New Jersey, as a reward for that public official’s favorable treatment in connection with an Orange municipal project, U.S. Attorney Craig Carpenito announced.

Jeanmarie Zahore, 56, of Rahway, New Jersey, pleaded guilty by videoconference before U.S. District Judge Kevin McNulty to Count 1 of an indictment against him, charging Zahore with making corrupt payments to an agent of a local government receiving federal funds, whom Zahore identified as Willis Edwards III. 

On Sept. 29, 2020, Edwards, the former acting business administrator for Orange, was charged in a superseding indictment in connection with payments allegedly made by Zahore, as well as other charges.

According to documents filed in this case and statements made in court:

Zahore was the sole owner of JZ Nettech, a computer consulting business which he operated out of his residence in Rahway. On Sept. 15, 2015, the Orange City Council passed a resolution awarding JZ Nettech, without competitive bidding, a $350,000 emergency contract to install a computer networking system at a municipal complex that housed the Orange Municipal Court and the Orange Police Department (the “Municipal Complex Project”).

Edwards, as an Orange public official, assisted Zahore in obtaining the contract for the Municipal Complex Project and facilitated the payment of money from Orange to JZ Nettech in connection with the Municipal Complex Project.

Edwards agreed to arrange an advance on the money from Orange for Zahore because Zahore did not have the money to begin working on the Municipal Complex. At Edwards’s instruction, on Sept. 18, 2015, Zahore emailed an Orange employee an invoice for $115,000 in connection with Municipal Complex Project to obtain an advance payment for himself. Typically, vendors are not pre-paid by Orange to purchase supplies for a project.

On Sept. 18, 2015, Zahore received a check from Orange for $115,000 payable to JZ Nettech and deposited that check into JZ Nettech's bank account. Shortly after receiving the $115,000 Orange check, Zahore and Edwards went out together at night to celebrate the award of the $350,000 contract to JZ Nettech.

In October and November 2015, Zahore received two additional payments from Orange in connection with the Municipal Complex Project, one for $140,000 and the other for $95,000.

On more than one occasion Edwards told Zahore, in substance, that Edwards had taken care of Zahore and that Zahore should consider that and do something. Zahore understood those comments by Edwards to be solicitations and demands that Zahore pay Edwards to reward Edwards for Edwards’s assistance in connection with the Municipal Complex Project.

In November 2015, Zahore gave Edwards approximately $10,000 in cash. After accepting the cash payment, Edwards indicated that he was disappointed with the amount and expected more. Zahore made a second cash payment to Edwards for approximately $10,000. Zahore made those two cash payments with the intent to reward Edwards for his assistance.

The charge to which Zahore pleaded guilty carries a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison and a fine of $250,000, or twice the pecuniary gain to the defendant or loss to the victims. Sentencing is scheduled for March 3, 2021.

U.S. Attorney Carpenito credited special agents of the FBI, under the direction of Special Agent in Charge George M. Crouch Jr. in Newark; special agents of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Inspector General, under the direction of Special Agent in Charge Christina Scaringi; and special agents of IRS-Criminal Investigation, under the direction of Acting Special Agent in Charge Michael Montanez, with the investigation leading to today’s guilty plea.

The government is represented by Assistant U.S. Attorneys Cari Fais and J Fortier Imbert of the U.S. Attorney’s Office’s Special Prosecutions Division.

The charges and allegations against Edwards are merely accusations, and he is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.

NEWARK, N.J. – The former acting business administrator for the Township of Orange, New Jersey, who had previously been indicted for multiple acts of corruption and fraud, was indicted today on additional conspiracy, wire fraud, and kickback-taking charges in a superseding indictment, U.S. Attorney Craig Carpenito announced.

Willis Edwards III, 49, formerly of East Orange, New Jersey, and currently of Lithonia, Georgia, was charged in a superseding indictment with additional counts of conspiracy to commit wire fraud, wire fraud, and taking kickbacks in connection with the business of Orange, a federally funded local government.

According to the superseding indictment:

An associate of Edwards, Jeanmarie Zahore, was the sole owner of JZ Nettech, a computer consulting business. On Sept. 15, 2015, the City Council of Orange Township, New Jersey, passed a resolution awarding JZ Nettech, without competitive bidding, a $350,000 emergency contract to install a computer networking system at a municipal complex that housed the Orange Municipal Court and the Orange Police Department (the “Municipal Complex Project”).

Between August 2015 and November 2015, Edwards solicited and accepted cash payments totaling approximately $20,000 from Zahore as a reward for Edwards’ favorable treatment of Zahore and JZ Nettech in connection with the Municipal Complex Project.

On Sept. 14, 2015, after communications between Edwards and Zahore in August 2015, Edwards advised a senior official of the Orange Municipal Court and a senior official of the Orange Police Department that there was an urgent need to address a potential security vulnerability in the Municipal Complex’s computer network, and that JZ Nettech had been selected as the vendor to fix the problem. Edwards caused Orange to issue a Certification of Funds, certifying that $350,000 was available for the Municipal Complex Project and identifying the vendor as JZ Nettech.

On Sept. 15, 2015, Edwards spoke before the Orange City Council in support of allocating emergency funds for the Municipal Complex Project and awarding the Municipal Complex Project to JZ Nettech. At the meeting, during which Orange City Council members raised questions about the selection of JZ Nettech as the vendor for the Municipal Complex Project, Edwards did not disclose that he had engaged in communications with Zahore since at least August 2015.

On Sept. 16, 2015, the day after the Orange City Council approved the $350,000 contract, Edwards approved the issuance of a blanket purchase order authorizing Orange to pay JZ Nettech $350,000 in connection with the Municipal Complex Project.

From Sept. 18, 2015, to Nov. 10, 2015, Zahore received and deposited three Orange checks totaling $350,000 in connection with the Municipal Complex Project into his JZ Nettech bank account.

Beginning shortly after Orange made its first payment to Zahore, Edwards told Zahore on more than one occasion, in substance, that Edwards had taken care of Zahore and that Zahore should consider that and do something.

In November 2015, following Edwards’ multiple solicitations and demands for payment from Zahore, Edwards received approximately $10,000 in cash from Zahore as a reward for Edwards’ favorable treatment of Zahore and JZ Nettech in connection with the Municipal Complex Project. Upon receipt of that $10,000 cash payment, which was funded in substantial part by money paid by Orange to JZ Nettech, Edwards expressed his dissatisfaction to Zahore with the amount of the payment. Edwards received a second payment of approximately $10,000 in cash from Zahore, who characterized those two cash payments in a spreadsheet that Zahore maintained of expenses related to the project:

11/20/2015                                          Gift: WE         $10,000.00

11/23/2015                                          Gift: WE         $10,000.00

The superseding indictment further charges that Edwards willfully signed a 2015 federal tax return under penalty of perjury that did not report, among other items of income, the approximately $20,000 in kickbacks.

The charges of conspiracy to commit wire fraud (Count 14) and wire fraud (Count 15) each carry a potential penalty of 20 years in prison; the count of accepting kickbacks in connection with the business of a federally funded local government (Count 16), carries a potential penalty of 10 years in prison. All three counts are also punishable by a fine of $250,000.

These charges were added to a 28-count indictment returned on July 7, 2020. Zahore was indicted on Aug. 18, 2020.

U.S. Attorney Carpenito credited special agents of the FBI, under the direction of Special Agent in Charge George M. Crouch Jr. in Newark; special agents of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Inspector General, under the direction of Special Agent in Charge Christina Scaringi; and special agents of IRS-Criminal Investigation, under the direction of Special Agent in Charge Michael Montanez with the investigation leading to the charges.

The government is represented by Assistant U.S. Attorneys Cari Fais and J Fortier Imbert of the U.S. Attorney’s Office’s Special Prosecutions Division.

The charges and allegations contained in the indictments are merely accusations, and the defendants are presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.

NEWARK, N.J. – A Union County, New Jersey, man has been indicted on charges of making corrupt payments to a public official, wire fraud, and using a facility in interstate commerce to facilitate bribery, U.S. Attorney Craig Carpenito announced today.

Jeanmarie Zahore, 56, of Rahway, New Jersey, is charged in an indictment unsealed today with one count of making corrupt payments to an agent of a local government receiving federal funds, two counts of wire fraud, and one count of violating the Travel Act to carry on bribery. Zahore made his initial appearance before U.S. Magistrate Judge Cathy L. Waldor and was released on $100,000 unsecured bond. No date has been scheduled for Zahore’s arraignment.

According to the indictment:

Zahore was the sole owner of JZ Nettech, a computer consulting business that he operated out of his residence. On Sept.15, 2015, the City Council of Orange Township, New Jersey, passed a resolution awarding JZ Nettech, without competitive bidding, a $350,000 emergency contract to install a computer networking system at a municipal complex that housed the Orange Municipal Court and the Orange Police Department (the “Municipal Complex Project”).

From August 2015 through at least Nov. 23, 2015, Zahore engaged in a scheme to offer and give corrupt cash payments to an unnamed Orange public official (“Individual 1”) to influence and reward Individual 1 for using Individual 1’s influence to arrange for Orange to award JZ Nettech the emergency contract and to facilitate payments from Orange to JZ Nettech.

After communications between Zahore and Individual 1, at a meeting at the Municipal Complex on Sept. 14, 2015, Individual 1 advised a senior official of the Orange Municipal Court (the “Court Official”) and a senior official of the Orange Police Department (the “Police Department Official”) that: (a) there was an urgent need to address a potential security vulnerability in the Municipal Complex’s computer network, and (b) JZ Nettech had been selected as the vendor to fix the problem. Individual 1 caused Orange to issue a Certification of Funds, certifying that $350,000 was available for the Municipal Complex Project and identifying the vendor as JZ Nettech.

On Sept. 15, 2015, Individual 1 spoke before the Orange City Council in support of allocating emergency funds for the Municipal Complex Project and awarding the Municipal Complex Project to JZ Nettech. At the meeting, during which Orange City Council members raised questions about the selection of JZ Nettech as the vendor for the Municipal Complex Project, Individual 1 did not disclose that Individual 1 had engaged in communications with Zahore since at least Aug. 31, 2015.

On Sept. 16, 2015, the day after the Orange City Council approved the $350,000 contract, Individual 1 approved the issuance of a blanket purchase order authorizing Orange to pay JZ Nettech $350,000 in connection with the Municipal Complex Project.

On Sept. 17, 2015, after Zahore and Individual 1 text-messaged about Zahore’s invoice to Orange and meeting with each other, Zahore sent an email to Orange Employee 1, attached to which was a JZ Nettech “invoice related to the 1st stage of the project” seeking a payment of $115,000.  On the same date, Zahore sent a text message to Individual 1, stating, “I sent [the JZ Nettech invoice for $115,000] to [Orange Employee 1]. Do you want a copy sent to u?”

On Sept. 18, 2015, Zahore sent an email to Orange Employee 1, attached to which was a revised JZ Nettech invoice, still seeking a payment of $115,000, but now indicating that $34,460 of the $115,000 was for the “Purchase of wiring for buildings.” On the same date, at Individual 1’s direction, the Police Department Official signed and approved a purchase order for the payment of $115,000 to JZ Nettech for the “PURCH[ASE] OF WIRING/CABLE/SUPPLIES” for the Municipal Complex Project. Typically, vendors are not pre-paid by Orange to purchase supplies for a project.

From Sept. 18, 2015, to Nov. 10, 2015, Zahore received and deposited three Orange checks totaling $350,000 in connection with the Municipal Complex Project into a bank account for him and JZ Nettech.

On Nov. 20, 2015, and Nov. 23, 2015, Zahore withdrew a total of approximately $50,000 in cash from this bank account, which was obtained, in substantial part, from the funds paid by Orange. On each of those same dates, Zahore gave, and Individual 1 accepted, approximately $10,000 in cash, which was intended to influence and reward Individual 1 for Individual 1’s assistance in connection with the Municipal Complex Project. Zahore characterized those two cash payments to Individual 1 totaling approximately $20,000 in a spreadsheet that Zahore maintained of expenses related to the Municipal Complex Project as follows:



11/20/2015





Gift: [Initials of Individual 1]





$10,000.00



 



11/23/2015





Gift: [Initials of Individual 1]





$10,000.00



 

Each of the following charges carries the following maximum potential penalties:

The count of making corrupt payments to an agent of a local government receiving federal funds is punishable by a maximum of 10 years in prison; the count of wire fraud is punishable by a maximum of 20 years in prison; and the count of use of an interstate facility to facilitate bribery is punishable by a maximum of five years in prison. Each count also carries a potential fine of $250,000.

U.S. Attorney Carpenito credited special agents of the FBI, under the direction of Acting Special Agent in Charge Joe Denahan in Newark; special agents of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Inspector General, under the direction of Special Agent in Charge Christina Scaringi; and special agents of IRS-Criminal Investigation, under the direction of Special Agent in Charge Michael Montanez, with the investigation leading to today’s charges.

The government is represented by Assistant U.S. Attorneys Cari Fais and J Fortier Imbert of the U.S. Attorney’s Office’s Special Prosecutions Division.

The charges and allegations contained in the indictment are merely accusations, and the defendant is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.

Docket (0 Docs):   https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ZauhCObq8q6J618XAUInDdRKd2tI81YJ2xBd9pw8WZ0
  Last Updated: 2025-07-18 18:18:19 UTC
Description: The fiscal year of the data file obtained from the AOUSC
Format: YYYY

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE2
Format: N2

Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE2
Format: A4

Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE2
Format: A4

Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE2
Format: A3

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

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

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

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

Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE3
Format: A3

Description: The 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 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