Score:   1
Docket Number:   D-NJ  2:18-cr-00687
Case Name:   USA v. REYNOLDS
  Press Releases:
NEWARK, N.J. – Two New Jersey men were today sentenced to prison terms for their respective roles in using phony monetary instruments to obtain luxury vehicles and other high value items; one of the defendants was additionally convicted of bankruptcy fraud, U.S. Attorney Craig Carpenito announced.

Germaine Howard King, a/k/a “Germaine Howard,” 47, of Elizabeth, New Jersey, was sentenced to 70 months in prison, and Daniel D. Dxrams, currently known as “Daniel Kusi,” formerly known as “Danny D. Dxrams,” 41, of Maplewood, New Jersey, was sentenced to 57 months in prison. U.S. District Judge John Michael Vasquez imposed the sentences today in Newark federal court.

King was convicted for his role in a scheme to defraud banks and other lenders using phony money orders to fraudulently discharge a $400,000 mortgage, to fraudulently obtain two Mercedes Benz (one 2007 and one 2010) cars, and to pay off credit card bills. In addition, King was convicted of a scheme to use phony cashier’s checks to pay off his co-defendant’s five luxury cars.

Dxrams was convicted for his role in a scheme to fraudulently pay off a Rolls Royce, Bentley, and three Mercedes Benz cars (two 2015 cars and one 2016 car). In addition, Dxrams was convicted of bankruptcy fraud and making a false oath during a bankruptcy proceeding.

Two co-defendant were sentenced by Judge Vasquez on Dec. 18, 2019: Melissa Reynolds, 43, of Elizabeth, who previously pleaded guilty to an information charging her with conspiracy to commit mail fraud, mail fraud affecting financial institutions, and bank fraud, was sentenced to one year and one day in prison, five years of supervised release, restitution of $587,081 and forfeiture of $548,242; Arthur N. Martin 3rd was sentenced to time served (one day), three years of supervised release and fined $12,000.

According to documents filed in this case and the evidence at trial:

King conspired with Reynolds to make fraudulent money orders on their home computers. They mailed these phony money orders to a credit union in an effort to fraudulently pay off their two Mercedes Benz cars. Although the credit union rejected both bogus money orders, King and Reynolds mailed correspondences to the credit union falsely claiming that the debt was satisfied. They then stopped paying their car loans, and King kept the car. King and Reynolds mailed a fraudulent money order in the amount of $432,000 to a financial institution to pay off their mortgage. The financial institution erroneously accepted the fraudulent payment and credited it as a payoff for the mortgage. When the financial institution filed a suit seeking to reinstate the fraudulently discharged mortgage, King and Reynolds continued to allege in court that the mortgage had been paid and submitted a phony receipt for the bogus money order. King also made and mailed fraudulent money orders in an attempt to pay off his credit card bills.

Dxrams, King, and Reynolds conspired to fraudulently pay off Dxrams’ five luxury cars. They sent a bogus $101,000 cashier’s check to a finance company that enabled Dxrams to obtain a 2012 Bentley for free. Dxrams sold the car to a third party for approximately $82,000 and then issued a bank check to King for approximately $25,000. The defendants also used this scheme in an effort to fraudulently obtain three Mercedes-Benz cars and a Rolls Royce.

Dxrams was also convicted of bankruptcy fraud and making a false oath before the bankruptcy court. In December 2017, Dxrams filed a bankruptcy petition under penalty of perjury. He falsely concealed his ownership of a car rental business and the gross receipts he earned through this car rental business, his sale of the Bentley, his receipt of money from a personal injury lawsuit, his ownership of firearms, and his marital status, among other things. In January 2018, Dxrams appeared before the bankruptcy trustee and, after being placed under oath, made false statements concerning his bankruptcy petition and his sale of the Bentley.

In addition to the prison terms, Judge Vasquez sentenced King to five years of supervised release and restitution of $597,781. Dxrams was sentenced to three years of supervised release, restitution of $93,236 and forfeiture of $82,000.

U.S. Attorney Carpenito credited special agents of the FBI and the Joint Terrorism Task Force, under the direction of Special Agent in Charge Gregory W. Ehrie in Newark; the N.J. Office of Homeland Security and Preparedness, under the direction of Director Jared Maples; the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Inspector General Eastern Regional Office, under the direction of Assistant Special Agent in Charge Debbi Mayer; and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Inspector General, under the direction of Special Agent in Charge Christina Scaringi with the investigation leading to the convictions.

The government is represented by Assistant U.S. Attorney Lakshmi Srinivasan Herman, of the National Security Unit, in Newark.

Defense counsel:

King: Pro Se

Dxrams: Michael Orozco Esq., Woodland Park, New Jersey

Reynolds: Robert J. Degroot Esq., and Oleg Nekritin Esq., Newark

NEWARK, N.J. – Two individuals were found guilty today for their respective roles in using phony monetary instruments to obtain luxury vehicles and other high value items; one of the defendants was additionally convicted of bankruptcy fraud, U.S. Attorney Craig Carpenito announced.     

Germaine Howard King, a/k/a “Germaine Howard,” 43, of Elizabeth, New Jersey, was convicted for his role in a scheme to defraud banks and other lenders using phony money orders to fraudulently discharge a $400,000 mortgage, to fraudulently obtain two Mercedes Benz (one 2007 and one 2010) cars, and to pay off credit card bills. In addition, King was convicted of a scheme to use phony cashier’s checks to pay off his co-defendant’s five luxury cars.

Daniel D. Dxrams, currently known as “Daniel Kusi,” formerly known as “Danny D. Dxrams,” 40, of Maplewood, New Jersey, was convicted for his role in a scheme to fraudulently pay off a Rolls Royce, Bentley, and three Mercedes Benz cars (two 2015 cars and one 2016 car). In addition, Dxrams was convicted of bankruptcy fraud and making a false oath during a bankruptcy proceeding.

According to documents filed in this case and the evidence at trial:

King conspired with Melissa Reynolds to make fraudulent money orders on their home computers. They mailed these phony money orders to a credit union in an effort to fraudulently pay off their two Mercedes Benz cars. Although the credit union rejected both bogus money orders, King and Reynolds mailed correspondences to the credit union falsely claiming that the debt was satisfied. They then stopped paying their car loans, and King kept the car. King and Reynolds mailed a fraudulent money order in the amount of $432,000 to a financial institution to pay off their mortgage. The financial institution erroneously accepted the fraudulent payment and credited it as a payoff for the mortgage. When the financial institution filed a suit seeking to reinstate the fraudulently discharged mortgage, King and Reynolds continued to allege in court that the mortgage had been paid and submitted a phony receipt for the bogus money order. King also made and mailed fraudulent money orders in an attempt to pay off his credit card bills.

Dxrams, King, and Reynolds conspired to fraudulently pay off Dxrams’ five luxury cars. They sent a bogus $101,000 cashier’s check to a finance company that enabled Dxrams to obtain a 2012 Bentley for free. Dxrams sold the car to a third party for approximately $82,000 and then issued a bank check to King for approximately $25,000. The defendants also used this scheme in an effort to fraudulently obtain three Mercedes-Benz cars and a Rolls Royce.

Dxrams was also convicted of bankruptcy fraud and making a false oath before the bankruptcy court. In December 2017, Dxrams filed a bankruptcy petition under penalty of perjury. He falsely concealed his ownership of a car rental business and the gross receipts he earned through this car rental business, his sale of the Bentley, his receipt of money from a personal injury lawsuit, his ownership of firearms, and his marital status, among other things. In January 2018, Dxrams appeared before the bankruptcy trustee and, after being placed under oath, made false statements concerning his bankruptcy petition and his sale of the Bentley.

Reynolds previously pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit bank fraud and mail fraud affecting financial institutions, and is awaiting sentencing. Another defendant, Arthur M. Martin III, has also pleaded guilty for his role in a scheme to fraudulently discharge a mortgage on his home, and is awaiting sentencing.

U.S. Attorney Carpenito credited special agents of the FBI and the Joint Terrorism Task Force, under the direction of Special Agent in Charge Gregory W. Ehrie in Newark; the N.J. Office of Homeland Security and Preparedness, under the direction of Director Jared Maples; the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Inspector General Eastern Regional Office, under the direction of Assistant Special Agent in Charge Debbi Mayer; and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Inspector General, under the direction of Special Agent in Charge Christina Scaringi with the investigation leading to the convictions.

The government is represented by Assistant U.S. Attorney Anthony Moscato, Chief of the U.S. Attorney’s National Security Unit, and Lakshmi Srinivasan Herman, of the National Security Unit, in Newark.

NEWARK, N.J. – A Union County, New Jersey, woman today admitted making and using phony money orders, cashier’s checks, receipts and other fabricated documents to fraudulently discharge $2 million in mortgages, student loans, and other financial obligations, U.S. Attorney Craig Carpenito announced.

Melissa Reynolds, 43, of Elizabeth, New Jersey, pleaded guilty before U.S. District Judge William H. Walls to an information charging her with conspiracy to commit mail fraud, mail fraud affecting financial institutions, and bank fraud.

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

Beginning in early 2014, Reynolds and Germaine H. King, 41, of Elizabeth, began making fraudulent money orders, cashier’s checks, and other fictitious documents on their home computer. They began mailing these phony money orders to financial institutions and other lenders in their attempt to fraudulently discharge their lawful debts. Reynolds discharged and attempted to discharge more than $2 million in lawful debts.

For example, in May 2014, Reynolds and King mailed fraudulent money orders for $22,260 and $39,585 to a credit union in an effort to fraudulently pay off their Mercedes-Benz cars. They also made and mailed a fraudulent money order for $432,000 to a financial institution as a complete payoff of the mortgage on Reynolds’ home in Elizabeth. The financial institution erroneously accepted the fraudulent payment and credited it as a payoff for her mortgage. Later, a state court reinstated the mortgage.

Reynolds and others unsuccessfully used the same scheme to seek the discharge of other mortgages, including Reynolds’ second residence in Newark, the residence of a conspirator in Hillside, New Jersey, the residence of an individual in West Orange, New Jersey, and the residence of an individual in Bowie, Maryland. Certain of these mortgages were Federal Housing Administration mortgages backed by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, including the mortgage on Reynolds’ Newark residence. Reynolds and her conspirators mailed fraudulent money orders to HUD or companies acting on behalf of HUD. These payments were rejected.

Reynolds also sought to fraudulently discharge more than $52,000 in student loans with fraudulent money orders and cashier’s checks. On March 20, 2017, Reynolds sent a fraudulent cashier’s check in the amount $67,000 to the Department of Education’s processing company. These payments were rejected.

Beginning in early 2017, Reynolds, King, and Daniel K. Dxrams, a/k/a “Daniel Kusi,” a/k/a “Danny D. Dxrams,” a/k/a “Randy N. Amoateng,” 40, of Maplewood, New Jersey, conspired to fraudulently pay off Dxrams’ auto leases on a 2012 Bentley, 2016 Rolls Royce Coupe, 2015 Mercedes-Benz, 2016 Mercedes-Benz, and Dxrams’ family member’s 2015 Mercedes-Benz. Reynolds sent a bogus $101,000 cashier’s check to a finance company that enabled Dxrams to obtain title to the Bentley, which Dxrams sold to a third party for approximately $85,000 and then issued a genuine cashier’s check to King for approximately $25,000. Reynolds, King, and Dxrams used this scheme to fraudulently pay off the other luxury cars.

The mail fraud and bank fraud conspiracy to which Reynolds pleaded guilty carries a maximum potential penalty of 30 years in prison and a $1 million fine, or twice the gross gain or loss from the offense. Sentencing is scheduled for Feb. 19, 2019.

On Nov. 9, 2018, a federal grand jury sitting in Newark returned a second superseding indictment against King and Dxrams. This indictment charged King with conspiracy to commit mail and bank fraud conspiracy and bank fraud charges. It also charged King and Dxrams with conspiracy to commit mail fraud related to the luxury car scheme and substantive mail fraud counts. The indictment charged Dxrams with bankruptcy fraud and making a false oath in a bankruptcy proceeding.

U.S. Attorney Carpenito credited special agents of the FBI and the Joint Terrorism Task Force, under the direction of Special Agent in Charge Gregory W. Ehrie in Newark; the N.J. Office of Homeland Security and Preparedness, under the direction of Director Jared Maples; the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Inspector General, under the direction of Special Agent in Charge Geoffrey Wood; and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Inspector General, under the direction of Special Agent in Charge Christina Scaringi, with the investigation leading to today’s guilty plea.

The charges and allegations in the second superseding Indictment and previously filed complaint are merely accusations, and those defendants are presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.

The government is represented by Assistant U.S. Attorney Anthony Moscato, Chief of the U.S. Attorney’s National Security Unit, and Assistant U.S. Attorney Lakshmi Srinivasan Herman, of the National Security Unit, in Newark.

Defense counsel:

Reynolds: Robert J. Degroot Esq., and Oleg Nekritin Esq., Newark

NEWARK, N.J. - Five individuals were arrested this morning and charged with using phony money orders, cashier’s checks, receipts and other fabricated documents to fraudulently discharge mortgages, student loans, and other financial obligations, U.S. Attorney Craig Carpenito announced.

Melissa Reynolds, 42, of Elizabeth, New Jersey, is charged by complaint with three counts of conspiracy to commit bank and mail fraud, two counts of bank fraud, one count of mail fraud, one count of conspiracy to commit mail fraud, and one count of making false statements to the United States. Germaine King, 40, also of Elizabeth, is charged with one count of conspiracy to commit mail fraud, one count of mail fraud and one count of making false statements to the United States.

Henry Grady James IV, 43, of Hillside, New Jersey, and Arthur N. Martin III of West Orange, New Jersey, are both charged with one count of conspiracy to commit bank and mail fraud. Daniel K. Dxrams, 39, of Maplewood, New Jersey, is charged with one count of conspiracy to commit mail fraud. All five defendants are expected to appear this afternoon before U.S. Magistrate Judge Cathy L. Waldor in Newark federal court.

According to the complaint:

Reynolds, King, James, Martin, Dxrams, and others used fraudulent money orders, cashier’s checks, and other fictitious documents to fraudulently discharge their debts or other obligations. In total, Reynolds and other conspirators caused and attempted to cause over $3 million in losses.

For example, in March 2013, Reynolds obtained a $417,276 mortgage from an entity referred to in the complaint as “Financial Institution One,” for the purchase of her Elizabeth residence. In May 2014, Reynolds mailed a fraudulent money order in the amount of $432,000 to Financial Institution One as a payoff on the mortgage. The money order falsely claimed to have been issued or processed by the IRS.

Financial Institution One’s mortgage business erroneously accepted the fraudulent payment and credited it as a payoff for her mortgage. Financial Institution One also mailed Reynolds an overpayment refund of $9,789. When Financial Institution One’s mortgage business filed a suit seeking to reinstate the fraudulently discharged mortgage, Reynolds and King continued to allege in court that the mortgage had been paid and even submitted a phony receipt for the bogus money order.

Reynolds and others unsuccessfully used the same scheme to seek the discharge of other mortgages, including Reynolds’ second residence in Newark, the residence of an individual in Bowie, Maryland, James’ residence in Hillside, New Jersey, and Martin’s residence in West Orange, New Jersey.

Reynolds also sought to fraudulently discharge over $52,000 in student loans with fraudulent money orders and cashier’s checks. For example, on March 20, 2017, Reynolds sent a fraudulent cashier’s check in the amount $67,000 to the Department of Education’s processing company. The payment was rejected.

Reynolds, King, and Dxrams conspired to fraudulently obtain luxury cars in a similar fashion. For instance, Reynolds sent a bogus $101,000 cashier’s check to a finance company that enabled Dxrams to obtain a 2012 Bentley. Dxrams sold the car to a third party for approximately $85,000 and then issued a bank check to King for approximately $25,000. The defendants also used this scheme in an effort to fraudulently obtain two Mercedes-Benz cars.

The bank fraud and bank fraud conspiracy charges are punishable by a maximum potential penalty of 30 years in prison and a $1 million fine, or twice the gross gain or loss from the offense. The mail fraud and mail fraud conspiracy charges are punishable by a maximum potential penalty of 20 years in prison and a $250,000 fine, or twice the gross gain or loss from the offense. The false statement charge is punishable by a maximum potential penalty of five years in prison and a $250,000 fine, or twice the gross gain or loss from the offense.

U.S. Attorney Carpenito credited special agents of the FBI and the Joint Terrorism Task Force, under the direction of Acting Special Agent in Charge Bradley W. Cohen in Newark; the N.J. Office of Homeland Security and Preparedness, under the direction of Director Jared Maples; the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Inspector General Eastern Regional Office, under the direction of Assistant Special Agent in Charge Debbi Mayer; and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Inspector General, under the direction of Special Agent in Charge Christina Scaringi.

The charges and allegations in the complaint are merely accusations, and the defendants are considered innocent unless and until proven guilty.

The government is represented by Assistant U.S. Attorney Anthony Moscato, Chief of the U.S. Attorney’s National Security Unit in Newark.

Docket (0 Docs):   https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1dPpZXaphQTOFTp1CF8sn6ZVCTWz-kU8ca6LqYDmE4uw
  Last Updated: 2024-03-31 12:42:39 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 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-NJ  2:18-mj-07038
Case Name:   USA v. REYNOLDS
  Press Releases:
NEWARK, N.J. - Five individuals were arrested this morning and charged with using phony money orders, cashier’s checks, receipts and other fabricated documents to fraudulently discharge mortgages, student loans, and other financial obligations, U.S. Attorney Craig Carpenito announced.

Melissa Reynolds, 42, of Elizabeth, New Jersey, is charged by complaint with three counts of conspiracy to commit bank and mail fraud, two counts of bank fraud, one count of mail fraud, one count of conspiracy to commit mail fraud, and one count of making false statements to the United States. Germaine King, 40, also of Elizabeth, is charged with one count of conspiracy to commit mail fraud, one count of mail fraud and one count of making false statements to the United States.

Henry Grady James IV, 43, of Hillside, New Jersey, and Arthur N. Martin III of West Orange, New Jersey, are both charged with one count of conspiracy to commit bank and mail fraud. Daniel K. Dxrams, 39, of Maplewood, New Jersey, is charged with one count of conspiracy to commit mail fraud. All five defendants are expected to appear this afternoon before U.S. Magistrate Judge Cathy L. Waldor in Newark federal court.

According to the complaint:

Reynolds, King, James, Martin, Dxrams, and others used fraudulent money orders, cashier’s checks, and other fictitious documents to fraudulently discharge their debts or other obligations. In total, Reynolds and other conspirators caused and attempted to cause over $3 million in losses.

For example, in March 2013, Reynolds obtained a $417,276 mortgage from an entity referred to in the complaint as “Financial Institution One,” for the purchase of her Elizabeth residence. In May 2014, Reynolds mailed a fraudulent money order in the amount of $432,000 to Financial Institution One as a payoff on the mortgage. The money order falsely claimed to have been issued or processed by the IRS.

Financial Institution One’s mortgage business erroneously accepted the fraudulent payment and credited it as a payoff for her mortgage. Financial Institution One also mailed Reynolds an overpayment refund of $9,789. When Financial Institution One’s mortgage business filed a suit seeking to reinstate the fraudulently discharged mortgage, Reynolds and King continued to allege in court that the mortgage had been paid and even submitted a phony receipt for the bogus money order.

Reynolds and others unsuccessfully used the same scheme to seek the discharge of other mortgages, including Reynolds’ second residence in Newark, the residence of an individual in Bowie, Maryland, James’ residence in Hillside, New Jersey, and Martin’s residence in West Orange, New Jersey.

Reynolds also sought to fraudulently discharge over $52,000 in student loans with fraudulent money orders and cashier’s checks. For example, on March 20, 2017, Reynolds sent a fraudulent cashier’s check in the amount $67,000 to the Department of Education’s processing company. The payment was rejected.

Reynolds, King, and Dxrams conspired to fraudulently obtain luxury cars in a similar fashion. For instance, Reynolds sent a bogus $101,000 cashier’s check to a finance company that enabled Dxrams to obtain a 2012 Bentley. Dxrams sold the car to a third party for approximately $85,000 and then issued a bank check to King for approximately $25,000. The defendants also used this scheme in an effort to fraudulently obtain two Mercedes-Benz cars.

The bank fraud and bank fraud conspiracy charges are punishable by a maximum potential penalty of 30 years in prison and a $1 million fine, or twice the gross gain or loss from the offense. The mail fraud and mail fraud conspiracy charges are punishable by a maximum potential penalty of 20 years in prison and a $250,000 fine, or twice the gross gain or loss from the offense. The false statement charge is punishable by a maximum potential penalty of five years in prison and a $250,000 fine, or twice the gross gain or loss from the offense.

U.S. Attorney Carpenito credited special agents of the FBI and the Joint Terrorism Task Force, under the direction of Acting Special Agent in Charge Bradley W. Cohen in Newark; the N.J. Office of Homeland Security and Preparedness, under the direction of Director Jared Maples; the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Inspector General Eastern Regional Office, under the direction of Assistant Special Agent in Charge Debbi Mayer; and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Inspector General, under the direction of Special Agent in Charge Christina Scaringi.

The charges and allegations in the complaint are merely accusations, and the defendants are considered innocent unless and until proven guilty.

The government is represented by Assistant U.S. Attorney Anthony Moscato, Chief of the U.S. Attorney’s National Security Unit in Newark.

Docket (0 Docs):   https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1z2G55qYkhMPa9NE7FSOECnZZEhWN28wW25uq8Aa8kb8
  Last Updated: 2024-03-31 11:35:08 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 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
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