Score:   0.9237
Docket Number:   D-NJ  1:18-cr-00482
Case Name:   USA v. QUINONES
Docket (0 Docs):   https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1AtYtQpCaGCrKvNbn7j5JZ6IWWmuPXu1u7K84hERDQrQ
  Last Updated: 2024-01-02 17:27:21 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  1:16-mj-05502
Case Name:   United States v. QUINONES
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
Score:   0.5
Docket Number:   aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuanVzdGljZS5nb3YvdXNhby1uai9wci9mbG9yaWRhLW1hbi1jaGFyZ2VkLW1vbmV5LWxhdW5kZXJpbmctMzAtbWlsbGlvbi13aXJlLWZyYXVkLXNjaGVtZQ
  Press Releases:
NEWARK, N.J. – A Florida man appeared in court today on charges that he laundered funds related to a $30 million wire fraud scheme, U.S. Attorney Craig Carpenito announced.

Denis Sotnikov, 36, of Hallandale Beach, Florida, is charged by complaint with one count of money laundering. He appeared today before U.S. Magistrate Judge Jared M. Strauss in a Fort Lauderdale, Florida, federal court and was detained.

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

Between April 2018 and March 2020, individuals engaged in an internet-based financial fraud scheme, which generally involved the creation of fraudulent websites to solicit funds from individuals seeking to invest money. At times, the websites were designed to closely resemble websites being operated by actual, well-known, and publicly reputable financial institutions; at other times, the fraudulent websites were designed to resemble financial institutions that seemed legitimate, but did not, in fact, exist.

Victims of the fraud scheme typically discovered the fraudulent websites via internet searches. The fraudulent websites advertised various types of investment opportunities, most prominently the purchase of certificates of deposit, or CDs, with higher than average rates of return on the CDs to lure potential victims.

To date, at least 70 victims of the fraud scheme nationwide, including in New Jersey, have collectively transmitted at least $30 million that they believed to be investments.

In many instances, the victims would contact an individual or individuals via telephone or email, as directed on a fraudulent website, who provided the victims with applications and wiring instructions for the purchase of a CD. The funds wired by the victims would then be moved to various domestic and international bank accounts, including accounts in Russia, the Republic of Georgia, Hong Kong, and Turkey. None of the victims received a CD after wiring the funds.

Sotnikov received funds from at least 18 victims of the fraud scheme, totaling $6 million, in accounts at various domestic banks that were controlled by him or by a close relative. Of this amount, $3.7 million was either frozen by the banks or returned to victims, and $707,380 was wired overseas by Sotnikov. The remaining stolen funds – $1.5 million – were transferred to numerous other accounts controlled by Sotnikov and used to fund personal expenditures, including down payments on several luxury vehicles, purchases at high-end retail stores such as Louis Vuitton, Tiffany & Co., and Cartier, rent exceeding $9,000 per month on a home in Florida, several vacations, living expenses and bills.

The money laundering charge is punishable by a maximum of 20 years in prison and a fine of up to $500,000, or twice the value of the property involved, whichever is greater.

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) also filed a civil complaint against Sotnikov and several companies associated with him today based on the same conduct.

U.S. Attorney Carpenito credited special agents of the FBI, including the FBI’s Cyber Crimes Task Force, under the direction of Special Agent in Charge Gregory W. Ehrie in Newark. He also thanked the SEC for the assistance provided by its Enforcement Division.

The government is represented by Assistant U.S. Attorneys Anthony P. Torntore and Jamie L. Hoxie of the U.S. Attorney’s Cybercrimes Unit in Newark.

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

Defense counsel: Roman Groysman Esq., Fort Lauderdale

Score:   0.5
Docket Number:   aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuanVzdGljZS5nb3YvdXNhby1uai9wci9uZXctamVyc2V5LXVzLWF0dG9ybmV5LWFubm91bmNlcy1tb3JlLTY1LW1pbGxpb24tYXZhaWxhYmxlLWZpZ2h0LWh1bWFuLXRyYWZmaWNraW5nLWFuZA
  Press Releases:
 

NEWARK, N.J. – U.S. Attorney Craig Carpenito of the District of New Jersey today announced that more than $65 million in Department of Justice grants is available to help communities combat human trafficking and serve adults and children who are victimized in trafficking operations.

“Human trafficking crimes are among the most difficult cases our office handles,” U.S. Attorney Carpenito said. “The resources being made available by the Justice Department to all of our partners in battling this crime will go a long way in this fight. I encourage state and local agencies to apply to these grant programs for help obtaining the tools these funds will make available.”

“Our nation is facing difficult challenges, none more pressing than the scourge of human trafficking. Human traffickers pose a dire threat to public safety and countering this threat remains one of the Administration’s top domestic priorities,” Katharine T. Sullivan, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Justice Programs, said. “The Department of Justice is front and center in the fight against this insidious crime. OJP is making historic amounts of grant funding available to ensure that our communities have access to innovative and diverse solutions.”

The funding is available through OJP, the federal government’s leading source of public safety funding and crime victim assistance in state, local and tribal jurisdictions. OJP’s programs support a wide array of activities and services, including programs that support human trafficking task forces and services for human trafficking survivors. 

A number of funding opportunities are currently open, with several more opening in the near future. 

Missing and Exploited Children Training and Technical Assistance Program

https://ojjdp.ojp.gov/funding/opportunities/ojjdp-2020-17351

Total Available $1.8 million                                      Deadline 4/6/2020 (Extended)

 

Multidisciplinary Task Force Program to Combat Human Trafficking

Total Available $22 million                                       Opens week of 3/16/2020

 

Preventing Trafficking of Girls

Total Available $1.7 million                                       Opens week of 3/16/2020

 

Research and Evaluation on Trafficking in Persons   https://nij.ojp.gov/funding/opportunities/nij-2020-17324

Total Available $2.5 million                                       Deadline 4/20/2020   

 

Services for Victims of Human Trafficking

Total Available $16.5 million                                     Opens week of 3/16/2020

 

Specialized Training and Technical Assistance on Housing for Victims of Human Trafficking                                                                                                             

Total Available $2 million                                          Opens week of 3/16/2020

 

Human Trafficking Training and Technical Assistance Program

Total Available $5 million                                          Opens week of 3/16/2020

 

Improving Outcomes for Child and Youth Victims of Human Trafficking                          

Total Available $6 million                                          Opens week of 3/16/2020

 

Integrated Services for Minor Victims of Labor Trafficking

Total Available $8 million                                          Opens week of 3/16/2020

For more information regarding all OJP funding opportunities, visit https://www.ojp.gov/funding/explore/current-funding-opportunities

 

Score:   0.5
Docket Number:   aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuanVzdGljZS5nb3YvdXNhby1uai9wci9kYXVnaHRlci1mb3JtZXItdW5pb24tb2ZmaWNlci1hZG1pdHMtZW1iZXp6bGVtZW50
  Press Releases:
NEWARK, N.J. – The daughter of a former secretary treasurer of a union at Jersey City Medical Center today admitted her role in helping her mother embezzle $40,455 from the union, U.S. Attorney Craig Carpenito announced.

Jennifer Rogers, 38, of Jersey City, New Jersey, pleaded guilty by videoconference before U.S. District Judge Stanley R. Chesler to Count One of an indictment charging her with embezzling from Local 2254 of the American Federal State County and Municipal Amalgamated Transit Workers Union (AFSCME) in Hudson County.

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

Linda Rogers was employed at the Jersey City Medical Center and also held a part-time position at Local 2254 as its secretary treasurer. In that role, she had sole control over the union’s checkbook and savings account. From July 2016 through August 2017, Jennifer Rogers, also an employee at the hospital at that time, deposited 112 unauthorized checks totaling $35,267 from Local 2254’s account to joint checking and savings accounts she owned with her mother. From October 2016 through December 2016, Linda Rogers allegedly made six telephonic wire transfers from the Local 2254’s savings account, totaling $5,188, into her personal credit card account. None of the expenditures were authorized or for legitimate union purposes.

The count of embezzlement from a labor union carries a maximum penalty of five years in prison and a $250,000 fine. Sentencing is scheduled for April 20, 2021.

U.S. Attorney Carpenito credited the investigators of the U.S. Department of Labor, Office of Labor Management Standards, under the direction of Adriana Vamvakas, Regional Director; and special agents of the Department of Labor (OIG), New York Region, under the direction of Special Agent in Charge Michael Mikulka, with the investigation leading to today’s guilty plea.

The government is represented by Senior Litigation Counsel V. Grady O’Malley of the U.S. Attorney’s Office’s Organized Crime/Gangs Unit.

The pending charges against Linda Rogers are merely accusations, and she is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.

Score:   0.5
Docket Number:   aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuanVzdGljZS5nb3YvdXNhby1uai9wci9uZXctamVyc2V5LWNvdXBsZS1yZXNlbnRlbmNlZC1jaGlsZC1hYnVzZS0w
  Press Releases:
NEWARK, N.J. – A former U.S. Army major and his wife today were sentenced for a third time for their respective roles in abusing their adopted children – who all were less than 4 years old and developmentally delayed – through neglectful and cruel acts, including breaking their bones, denying them medical attention, withholding water and force-feeding them hot sauce, Acting U.S. Attorney Rachael Honig announced.

Carolyn Jackson, 44, was sentenced to time served and her husband, John E. Jackson, 46, formerly a major in the Army at the Picatinny Arsenal Installation in Morris County, New Jersey, was sentenced to 18 months of home confinement.

Convicted by a jury in July 2015 on multiple counts of child endangerment, Carolyn Jackson had received 24 months in prison and John E. Jackson had received probation and 400 hours of community service when they were originally sentenced in December 2015. The government appealed their sentences to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, which ruled in July 2017 that the District Court had committed several errors in the process of imposing those sentences. The defendants were resentenced on April 11, 2018. Carolyn Jackson received a sentence of 40 months in prison, with credit for time served. John Jackson received the same probationary sentence. The government appealed for a second time and the U.S. Court of Appeals vacated and remanded for a second resentencing after finding once again several errors.

The Jacksons were each found guilty following a four-month trial before U.S. District Judge Katharine S. Hayden in Newark federal court of one count of conspiracy to endanger the welfare of a child; Carolyn Jackson was found guilty of 11 substantive counts of endangering the welfare of a child and John Jackson was found guilty of nine substantive counts of endangering the welfare of a child. Judge Hayden imposed the sentences today in Newark federal court.

The case falls under federal jurisdiction because the crimes were committed on a military base. John Jackson was discharged from the Army in May 2015.

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

From August 2005 until April 23, 2010, Carolyn and John Jackson conspired to engage in a constant course of neglect and cruelty towards three children they fostered and then adopted. The Jacksons told their biological children not to report the physical assaults to others, saying that the punishments and disciplinary techniques were justified, as they were “training” the adopted children how to behave.

After John Jackson was informed by a family friend that the oldest biological child had revealed the abuse in the Jackson household, John Jackson reported the breach to Carolyn Jackson, who retaliated against that biological child by beating the child 30 times with a belt.

As part of the conspiracy, the Jacksons physically assaulted their adopted children with various objects, causing two children to sustain fractured bones (including a fractured spine, fractured skull and fractured upper arms); failed to seek prompt medical attention for their injuries; withheld sufficient nourishment and food from their adopted children; withheld adequate water from two of their children and, at times, prohibited them from drinking water altogether; forced two of the children to consume foods intended to cause them pain and suffering, such as red pepper flakes and hot sauce, and caused one child to ingest excessive sodium or sodium-laden substances while being deprived of water, leading to a life-threatening condition on two separate occasions in two states. The Jacksons even punished one adopted child, who had to resort to sneaking food and drinking from the toilet, by hitting the child, making the child ingest hot sauce, and forcing the child to eat a raw onion like an apple. 

None of the children, adoptive and biological, remain in the custody of the defendants.

Judge Hayden also sentenced Carolyn Jackson to one year of supervised release.

Acting U.S. Attorney Honig credited special agents of the FBI, under the direction of Special Agent in Charge George M. Crouch in Newark, with the investigation leading to today’s sentencings. She also thanked the U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Command, under the command of Major General David E. Quantock, and the Morris County Prosecutor’s Office, under the direction of Prosecutor Robert J. Carroll.

The government is represented by Assistant U.S. Attorneys John Romano and Naazneen Khan of the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Newark.

Score:   0.5
Docket Number:   aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuanVzdGljZS5nb3YvdXNhby1uai9wci90aHJlZS1jb3JyZWN0aW9uYWwtb2ZmaWNlcnMtYW5kLXNlcmdlYW50LWNoYXJnZWQtYXNzYXVsdGluZy1mZWRlcmFsLXByZXRyaWFsLWRldGFpbmVl
  Press Releases:
NEWARK, N.J. – Three Essex County correctional officers and one sergeant have been charged with conspiring to violate a pretrial detainee’s civil rights, Acting U.S. Attorney Rachael A. Honig announced today.

Officers Angel Chaparro, 38, Damion James, 40, and Luis Ortiz, 29, and Sgt. Herman Pride, 51, are each charged by complaint with one count of conspiracy to violate civil rights.  Pride and Ortiz were arrested on March 4, 2021, and had their initial appearances before U.S. Magistrate Judge James B. Clark III. Both were released on bail. Chaparro and James were arrested this morning and will have their initial appearances by videoconference Judge Clark this afternoon. 

According to the criminal complaint:

On the evening of Aug. 17, 2020, a federal pretrial detainee at Essex County Correctional Facility (ECCF) squirted a mixture of urine, yogurt, and milk onto a correctional officer. The detainee subsequently was transported to a disciplinary cell, where Chaparro, James, and Ortiz assaulted the detainee, striking him multiple times. Pride did not intervene to stop the assault. At the end of the assault, Pride said, “okay, that’s enough.” During the assault, James’ watch fell off. He and other officers returned to the detainee’s cell to retrieve his watch.

The detainee asked for, and was initially denied, medical assistance. The victim later told Pride that if Pride would provide the victim with medical attention, the victim would lie and say that he had fallen off his bed. Pride refused to provide any medical attention. Two days later, the detainee was finally taken to the emergency room at University Hospital in Newark. He was diagnosed with large swelling and tenderness in the right side of his face and discoloration and bruising around his right eye.

The defendants all were required to submit documentation regarding their use of force.  None of them submitted any such reports. Instead, Chaparro signed a false report indicating that no force had been used. 

Acting U.S. Attorney Honig credited special agents of the FBI, under the direction of Special Agent in Charge George M. Crouch Jr. in Newark; and the Essex County Correctional Facility Internal Affairs Bureau, under the direction of Director Alfaro Ortiz and the Office of the Warden, with the investigation leading to the charges.

The government is represented by Acting Principal Assistant U.S. Attorney Rahul Agarwal.

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

Score:   0.5
Docket Number:   aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuanVzdGljZS5nb3YvdXNhby1uai9wci9zdXNzZXgtY291bnR5LW1hbi1jaGFyZ2VkLTE5LW1pbGxpb24tcGF5Y2hlY2stcHJvdGVjdGlvbi1wcm9ncmFtLWZyYXVkLXNjaGVtZQ
  Press Releases:
NEWARK, N.J. – A Sussex County, New Jersey, man was charged for his role in fraudulently obtaining federal Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) loans totaling $1.9 million, Acting U.S. Attorney Rachael A. Honig announced.

John Jhong, 51, of Sparta, New Jersey, is charged by complaint with one count of bank fraud, one count of false representation of a Social Security number and one count of money laundering. Jhong is scheduled to make his initial appearance by videoconference this afternoon before U.S. Magistrate District Judge Leda Dunn Wettre.

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

Jhong submitted 10 fraudulent PPP loan applications to several lenders on behalf of 10 purported businesses. The PPP is overseen by the Small Business Administration designed to provide forgivable loans to small businesses affected by the coronavirus pandemic. Applicants for PPP loans apply directly to banks or financial institutions participating in the program; in those applications, applicants make affirmative certifications about their average monthly payroll expenses and number of employees. Applicants also certify their intent to spend PPP proceeds on permissible business expenses, such as payroll costs, rent, utilities, and interest on mortgages. PPP loans may be entirely forgiven if the recipient spends the loan proceeds on these permissible expenses within a designated period after receiving the proceeds.  

Jhong’s PPP applications allegedly contained false and fraudulent representations to the participating lenders, including documentation purporting to be from the IRS. In fact, according to IRS records, none of the tax documents Jhong submitted with the PPP loan applications were ever filed with the IRS. Jhong also fabricated the existence of numerous business partners. In some instances, the personal identifying information for Jhong’s purported business partners belonged to individuals who had been deceased for over a decade.

Based on Jhong’s alleged misrepresentations, the lenders approved Jhong’s PPP loan applications and provided Jhong’s purported business with $1.9 million in federal COVID-19 emergency relief funds meant for distressed small businesses. Jhong then converted a portion of the proceeds into a cashier’s check that was used to fund a business account.

The count of bank fraud carries a maximum penalty of 30 years in prison and a $1 million fine, or twice the gross gain to the defendant or gross loss to the victim, whichever is greater. The count of false representation of Social Security number carries a maximum penalty of five years in prison and a $250,000 fine, or twice the gross gain to the defendant or gross loss to the victim, whichever is greater. The count of money laundering carries a maximum potential penalty of 20 years in prison and a $500,000 fine, or twice the gross gain to the defendant or gross loss to the victim, whichever is greater.

Acting U.S. Attorney Rachael Honig credited special agents of IRS – Criminal Investigation, under the direction of Special Agent in Charge Michael Montanez; special agents of U.S. Postal Inspection Service, under the direction of Acting Inspector in Charge Rodney M. Hopkins; special agents of the Social Security Administration, Office of the Inspector General, under the direction of Special Agent in Charge John F. Grasso; special agents of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation – Office of the Inspector General, under the direction of Special Agent in Charge Patricia Tarasca in New York; and special agents of the U.S. Secret Service, under the direction of Special Agent in Charge Mark McKevitt. She also thanked the Sparta Township Police for their assistance.

The government is represented by Assistant U.S. Attorney Olajide A. Araromi of the U.S. Attorney’s Office, Government Fraud Unit, in Newark, and Trial Attorney Chad M. Davis of the  Department of Justice, Criminal Division, Money Laundering and Asset Recovery Section.

Anyone with information about allegations of attempted fraud involving COVID-19 can report it by calling the Department of Justice’s National Center for Disaster Fraud Hotline at 866-720-5721 or via the NCDF Web Complaint Form at: https://www.justice.gov/disaster-fraud/ncdf-disaster-complaint-form.

Score:   0.5
Docket Number:   D-NJ  2:19-cr-00198
Case Name:   USA v. RAMOS
  Press Releases:
NEWARK, N.J. – A federal grand jury today charged a sergeant with the Paterson Police Department with conspiring with other officers to violate individuals’ civil rights, and submitting a false police report to conceal their illegal activity, U.S. Attorney Craig Carpenito announced.

Sergeant Michael Cheff, 49, of Paterson, New Jersey, was charged in a two-count indictment with conspiring to deprive individuals of civil rights under color of law and with falsifying a police report. Cheff was previously charged by criminal complaint in January 2020. He will be arraigned in federal court on a date to be determined.

According to documents filed in this and other cases, and statements made in court:

Eudy Ramos, Daniel Pent, Jonathan Bustios, Matthew Torres, and Frank Toledo were police officers with the Paterson Police Department. Cheff supervised their activities and approved their reports and other paperwork related to arrests and seizures of money, narcotics, and firearms. Ramos, Pent, Bustios, Torres, and Toledo, while on official duty, violated the civil rights of individuals in Paterson. They stopped and searched motor vehicles without any justification and stole cash and other items from the occupants. They also illegally stopped and searched individuals in buildings or on the streets of Paterson and seized cash from them. They concealed their activities by submitting to Cheff false reports that omitted, or lied about, their illegal activities. Cheff signed off on those false police reports, and routinely received a portion of these stolen monies from some of these officers. In 2016, Cheff told one of the officers to start “tagging,” or logging into evidence, some of the money that the officer was stealing, because effecting narcotics arrests without logging money into evidence would otherwise raise questions.

On Nov. 14, 2017, Cheff joined Bustios, Ramos, and Torres in stealing cash from an apartment in Paterson. Bustios, Ramos, and Torres stopped and arrested an individual in Paterson. Bustios stole a few hundred dollars from the individual during the arrest, then the officers went to the individual’s apartment, and were joined by Cheff. Torres stayed behind to guard the arrested individual, who was handcuffed in a police car, while Cheff, Ramos, and Bustios obtained consent to search the apartment by lying to the individual’s mother.

Cheff, Ramos, and Bustios then searched the individual’s room. Cheff located a safe inside a closet in the room and took money and narcotics from the safe. He handed a small portion of the money to Bustios and told Bustios to log it into evidence. Cheff put the rest of the money in his pocket. After the search, in a bathroom at the Paterson police station, Cheff gave Torres and Ramos a portion of the stolen money. Cheff also approved a police report that falsely stated that the officers had recovered $319 from on top of a shelf in the individual’s room.

Later that day, Bustios and Toledo exchanged text messages discussing Cheff’s theft of money. Bustios said, among other things, that Cheff “got us for over a stack today,” that “there was a safe” and that Cheff “grabbed the cash.” According to the individual whose apartment was searched, the safe contained approximately $2,700, and all of it was missing after the search was completed.

The conspiracy to violate civil rights charge carries a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison. The false records charge carries a maximum penalty of 20 years in prison. The maximum fine for each count is $250,000.

U.S. Attorney Carpenito credited special agents of the FBI, under the direction of Special Agent in Charge Gregory W. Ehrie in Newark, with the investigation leading to today’s indictment. He also thanked the Passaic County Prosecutor’s Office, under the direction of Prosecutor Camelia M. Valdes, the Paterson Police Department, under the direction of Paterson Police Director Jerry Speziale and Paterson Police Chief Ibrahim “Mike” Baycora, and the Paterson Police Department Office of Internal Affairs for their assistance in the investigation.

The government is represented by Assistant U.S. Attorney Rahul Agarwal, Deputy Chief of the Criminal Division, and Assistant U.S. Attorney Lee M. Cortes Jr., Chief of the Health Care Fraud Unit.

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

Defense counsel: John Lynch Esq., Union City

NEWARK, N.J. – A City of Paterson police officer today admitted conspiring with other officers to violate the civil rights of individuals in Paterson, using unreasonable and excessive force, and filing a false police report to conceal his criminal activity, U.S. Attorney Craig Carpenito announced.

Police Officer Daniel Pent, 32, of Paterson, New Jersey, pleaded guilty before U.S. District Judge Katharine S. Hayden in Newark federal court to an information charging him with conspiracy to violate individuals’ civil rights, using unreasonable and excessive force in violation of individuals’ civil rights, and filing a false police report.

According to documents filed in this and other cases and statements made in court:

Pent, along with Paterson police officers Eudy Ramos, Jonathan Bustios, Matthew Torres, Frank Toledo, and others, stopped and searched motor vehicles, without any justification, and stole cash and other items from the occupants. Pent and the other officers also stopped and searched individuals on the streets of Paterson, and illegally took their money. Pent and other officers arrested individuals in Paterson, seized cash from those individuals during the arrests, and split the cash proceeds among themselves. They covered up their criminal activity by filing false police reports. Pent admitted to the following illegal conduct:

• On Feb. 1, 2017, Pent and Ramos stopped and searched a vehicle in Paterson. They stole approximately $10,000 from the passenger of the vehicle and split it between themselves. Ramos and Pent then submitted an incident report to the Paterson Police Department in which they intentionally omitted any mention of the $10,000 theft.

• On May 27, 2016, Pent and Ramos arrested an individual, stole several hundred dollars in cash from the individual, and filled out a false currency seizure report that under-reported the amount of money the individual actually possessed. Pent and Ramos then applied a forged signature of the individual to the report to make it appear as though the individual had seen and agreed to the amount on the report.

While on official duty, Pent also routinely used unreasonable and excessive force in his encounters with individuals in Paterson, causing them bodily harm, including:

• Pent and other officers routinely delivered a “running tax” to individuals they arrested. If an individual ran from them, Pent and others would “tax” the individual by striking the individual multiple times, causing bodily injury.

• On Jan. 20, 2015, Pent and Ramos received a call regarding loud music coming from a vehicle on Doremus Avenue in Paterson. Pent and Ramos approached the individual in the vehicle, removed him from the vehicle and punched and kicked him. The individual suffered injuries, including eye injuries, as a result of Pent’s and Ramos’ excessive force.

The conspiracy to violate civil rights and the deprivation of civil rights charges each carry a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison. The false records count carries a maximum penalty of 20 years in prison. The maximum fine for each count is $250,000. Pent's sentencing is scheduled for Jan. 14, 2020.

Bustios pleaded guilty in December 2018 to conspiring to deprive individuals of their civil rights and to extortion under color of official right. He is awaiting sentencing. Torres pleaded guilty in May 2019 to conspiring to deprive individuals of their civil rights and to filing a false police report. His sentencing is scheduled for Nov. 20, 2019. Toledo pleaded guilty in July 2019 to conspiring to deprive individuals of their civil rights, to using unreasonable and excessive force against individuals in Paterson, and to filing a false police report. His sentencing is scheduled for Oct. 22, 2019. Ramos pleaded guilty on Sept. 9, 2019, to conspiring to deprive individuals of their civil rights, to using unreasonable and excessive force against individuals in Paterson, and to filing a false police report. His sentencing is scheduled for Jan. 8, 2020.

U.S. Attorney Carpenito credited special agents of the FBI, under the direction of Special Agent in Charge Gregory W. Ehrie in Newark, with the investigation leading to today’s guilty plea. He also thanked the Passaic County Prosecutor’s Office, under the direction of Passaic County Prosecutor Camelia M. Valdes, the Paterson Police Department, under the direction of Paterson Police Director Jerry Speziale and Police Chief Troy Oswald, and the Paterson Police Department Office of Internal Affairs, for their assistance in the investigation.

The government is represented by Assistant U.S. Attorney Rahul Agarwal, Deputy Chief of the Criminal Division.

Defense counsel: Michael Calabro Esq., Newark

NEWARK, N.J. – A City of Paterson police officer today admitted conspiring with other officers to violate the civil rights of individuals in Paterson, using unreasonable and excessive force against individuals in Paterson, and filing a false police report to conceal his criminal activity, U.S. Attorney Craig Carpenito announced.

Eudy Ramos, 32, of Paterson, New Jersey, pleaded guilty before U.S. District Judge Katharine S. Hayden in Newark federal court to Counts 1 and 7 of an indictment against him, charging him with conspiracy to violate individuals’ civil rights and filing a false police report. Ramos also pleaded guilty to an information charging him with using unreasonable and excessive force in violation of individuals’ civil rights.

According to documents filed in this and other cases and statements made in court:

Ramos, along with other Paterson police officers, including Jonathan Bustios, Daniel Pent, Matthew Torres, Frank Toledo, and others, stopped and searched motor vehicles, without justification, and stole cash and other items from the occupants. Ramos and the other officers also stopped and searched individuals on the streets of Paterson, and illegally took their money. He and other officers also arrested individuals in Paterson, seized cash from them during the arrests, and split the cash proceeds among themselves. To cover up their criminal activity, Ramos and his fellow officers then filed false police reports. Ramos admitted to the following instances of illegal conduct:

• On Feb. 1, 2017, Ramos and Pent stopped and searched a vehicle in Paterson. They stole approximately $10,000 from the passenger of the vehicle and split it between themselves. Ramos and Pent then submitted an incident report to the Paterson Police Department in which they intentionally omitted any mention of the $10,000 theft.

• On Dec. 1, 2017, Ramos and Bustios stopped and searched an individual on a street corner in Paterson and stole approximately $1,000 from the individual. After the theft, a video of a portion of the encounter was posted to Twitter by a third party.

• On Dec. 2, 2017, Ramos and Toledo arrested an individual. During the arrest, they stole $1,000 from the individual and split the proceeds.

• On Dec. 7, 2017, Torres and Ramos conducted a vehicle stop in Paterson. They searched the vehicle, the driver, and the passenger, who had approximately $3,100 and marijuana. Ramos told the passenger that instead of charging the passenger with distribution of marijuana they could take $500 from the passenger and have the passenger sign a piece of paper. Ramos then purportedly placed a call to his superior and told the passenger that the superior officer said it had to be $800. Ramos took out a piece of white paper, wrote something on it, and told the passenger to sign it. Ramos and Torres released the driver and passenger and shared the stolen cash proceeds. They did not report the stop and search of the vehicle and its occupants, or the cash seizure, to the Paterson Police Department.

• On Feb. 20, 2018, Ramos and Bustios stopped and searched a vehicle and detained the driver and passenger of the vehicle. They stole a bag containing approximately $1,800 from the car. They then agreed to meet at Peach and Plum streets in Paterson, a location with no camera, where Bustios passed a portion of the illegally seized cash to Ramos through the window of Bustios’ police car. Bustios and Ramos did not report to the Paterson Police Department the fact that they had stopped and searched the vehicle, detained and searched its occupants, and taken cash, all without legal justification.

• On March 5, 2018, Ramos and Torres stopped and searched a vehicle, without legal basis. The occupants of the encounter filmed the encounter and posted the video to Instagram. They asked Ramos his basis for conducting the vehicle stop, and Ramos responded, “Random stop.” Ramos did not locate any cash inside the vehicle and departed the scene without taking anything.

While on official duty, Ramos also routinely used unreasonable and excessive force in his encounters with individuals in Paterson, causing them bodily harm:

• Ramos and other officers routinely delivered a “running tax” to individuals they arrested. If an individual ran from them, Ramos and others would “tax” the individual by striking the individual multiple times, causing bodily injury.

• On Jan. 20, 2015, Ramos and Pent received a call regarding loud music coming from a vehicle on Doremus Avenue in Paterson. They approached an individual in the vehicle, removed him, and began punching and kicking him. The individual suffered bodily injury, including eye injuries, as a result of Ramos’ and Pent’s excessive force.

• On Sept. 7, 2016, Ramos placed a handcuffed individual in the backseat of his police car, without a seatbelt, to transport the individual to Paterson Police Department headquarters. Ramos then depressed the brakes on his police car and forced the individual to slam his head against the divider in the backseat of the police car, a tactic known as “brake-checking.” After the individual slammed his head on divider, Ramos jokingly said, “What happened, man? You gotta put your seatbelt on.” Ramos recorded a video of this incident.

• On March 2, 2017, Ramos and Bustios were dispatched to a call regarding stolen property located in a vehicle in a parking garage. The individual who had stolen the property (Individual 1) was sitting in the vehicle. The individual whose property had been stolen (Individual 2) was angry and told Ramos and Bustios that he wanted to take a swing at Individual 1. Ramos and Bustios allowed him to do so. While Ramos and Bustios watched, Individual 2 punched Individual 1, who fell to the ground and hit his head, causing bodily injury. Bustios filmed the encounter.

The conspiracy to violate civil rights and the deprivation of civil rights charges each carry a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison. The false records count carries a maximum penalty of 20 years in prison. The maximum fine for each count is $250,000. Sentencing is scheduled for Jan. 8, 2020.

Bustios pleaded guilty in December 2018 to conspiring to deprive individuals of their civil rights and to extortion under color of official right. Torres pleaded guilty in May 2019 to conspiring to deprive individuals of their civil rights and to filing a false police report. His sentencing is scheduled for Nov. 18, 2019. Toledo pleaded guilty in July 2019 to conspiring to deprive individuals of their civil rights, to using unreasonable and excessive force against individuals in Paterson, and to filing a false police report. His sentencing is scheduled for Oct. 22, 2019. On March 26, 2019, Pent was charged by complaint with conspiring to deprive individuals of their civil rights. The charge and allegations against him are merely accusations and he is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.

U.S. Attorney Carpenito credited special agents of the FBI, under the direction of Special Agent in Charge Gregory Ehrie in Newark, with the investigation leading to today’s arrest. He also thanked the Passaic County Prosecutor’s Office, under the direction of Passaic County Prosecutor Camelia M. Valdes, the Paterson Police Department, under the direction of Paterson Police Director Jerry Speziale and Police Chief Troy Oswald, and the Paterson Police Department Office of Internal Affairs, for their assistance in the investigation.

The government is represented by Assistant U.S. Attorney Rahul Agarwal, Deputy Chief of the Criminal Division of the U.S. Attorney’s Office.

Defense counsel: Miles Feinstein Esq., Clifton, New Jersey

NEWARK, N.J. – A City of Paterson police officer today admitted conspiring to violate the civil rights of individuals in Paterson, using unreasonable and excessive force, and filing a false police report to conceal his criminal activity, U.S. Attorney Craig Carpenito announced.

Police Officer Frank Toledo, 30, of Paterson, pleaded guilty before U.S. District Judge Katharine S. Hayden in Newark federal court to a three-count information charging him with conspiracy to violate individuals’ civil rights, using unreasonable and excessive force in violation of individuals’ civil rights, and filing a false police report.

“The U.S. Attorney’s Office and our law enforcement partners remain committed to identifying and prosecuting corrupt police officers who violate the civil rights of our people,” U.S. Attorney Carpenito said. “We will continue to aggressively pursue these cases, and we are grateful to our counterparts at the FBI, the Paterson Police Department and the Passaic County Prosecutor’s Office, for their dedicated assistance on this investigation.”

“The FBI has a long history of standing with and assisting our fellow law enforcement officers,” Gregory W. Ehrie, FBI Special Agent in Charge in Newark, said. “When a police department finds rogue officers who violate civil rights, we will answer the call to help rid that department of anyone who tarnishes the badge they wear.”

According to documents filed in this and other cases and statements made in court:

Toledo, along with other Paterson police officers, including Eudy Ramos, Jonathan Bustios, Daniel Pent, Matthew Torres, and others, stopped and searched motor vehicles, without any justification, and stole cash and other items from the occupants. Toledo and the other officers also stopped and searched individuals on the streets of Paterson, and illegally took their money. Toledo and other officers arrested individuals in Paterson, took cash from them, and split it among themselves. To cover up their criminal activity, Toledo and his fellow officers then filed false police reports. For example, on Dec. 2, 2017, Toledo and Ramos stopped and arrested an individual in Paterson and stole approximately $1,000, which they split. Toledo and Ramos then filed a false police report omitting that they had stolen $1,000 from the arrestee.

Toledo communicated via text message with his conspirators regarding their illegal activity. In one text message, on Nov. 16, 2017, Toledo wrote to Bustios, “everything we do is illegal.” In another, Bustios sent Toledo a text message with an animated talking pig that said, “I’m tryin’ to go mango hunting. Let’s goooo.” Toledo replied with an address and wrote “meet me here,” telling Bustios to meet him at a location where they could look to illegally seize “mangos,” a code word for cash.

While on official duty, Toledo also routinely used unreasonable and excessive force in his encounters with individuals in Paterson, causing them bodily harm. For instance, in three incidents in 2017:

• Toledo chased and apprehended a juvenile, pushed the juvenile to the ground, and punched the juvenile several times. Toledo later told Bustios, “I’ve been borderline blacking out when I catch these n[ ]” and “I beat that n[ ] like he owed me money.” Toledo also told Bustios that when he used force on the juvenile, he “was no longer a cop.”

• Toledo and Ramos chased and tackled an individual in Paterson and struck the individual several times in the body. They then released the individual without filing charges. The incident was recorded by a third party and uploaded to YouTube. Toledo told Bustios that the individual who recorded the incident “missed the best part,” which was when Toledo “laid him out.” Toledo then said, “funny shit is that we cut him” and “didn’t even lock him up.”

• Toledo and Torres arrested an individual, handcuffed him behind his back, and placed him in the backseat of their police car. During the ride to police department headquarters, Toledo depressed the brakes on his police car in order to force the individual to slam his body and head against the divider in the backseat of the police car, a tactic known as “brake-checking.” Toledo recorded the incident on his cell phone and sent it to others.

The conspiracy to violate civil rights and the deprivation of civil rights charges each carry a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison. The false records count carries a maximum penalty of 20 years in prison. The maximum fine for each count is $250,000. Sentencing is scheduled for Oct. 22, 2019.

Bustios pleaded guilty in December 2018 to conspiring to deprive individuals of their civil rights and to extortion under color of official right. Torres pleaded guilty in May 2019 to conspiring to deprive individuals of their civil rights and to filing a false police report. His sentencing is scheduled for Sept. 9, 2019.

Ramos was indicted in a nine-count indictment with conspiring to deprive individuals of their civils rights, depriving individuals of their civil rights, and filing false police reports. His case is pending before Judge Hayden. Daniel Pent was previously charged by complaint with conspiring to deprive individuals of their civil rights. His case, too, is pending. The charges and allegations against them are merely accusations, and they are presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.

U.S. Attorney Carpenito credited special agents of the FBI, under the direction of Special Agent in Charge Gregory W. Ehrie in Newark, with the investigation leading to today’s guilty plea. He also thanked the Passaic County Prosecutor’s Office, under the direction of Passaic County Prosecutor Camelia M. Valdes, the Paterson Police Department, under the direction of Paterson Police Director Jerry Speziale and Police Chief Troy Oswald, and the Paterson Police Department Office of Internal Affairs, for their assistance in the investigation.

The government is represented by Assistant U.S. Attorney Rahul Agarwal, Deputy Chief of the Criminal Division.

Defense counsel: Dennis S. Cleary Esq., West Orange, New Jersey

NEWARK, N.J. – A City of Paterson police officer today admitted conspiring with other officers to violate the civil rights of individuals in Paterson, and to filing a false police report to conceal his criminal activity, U.S. Attorney Craig Carpenito announced.

Police Officer Matthew Torres, 30, of Paterson, New Jersey, pleaded guilty before U.S. District Judge Katharine S. Hayden in Newark federal court to an information charging him with conspiracy to violate individuals’ civil rights and filing a false police report.

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

Torres, along with other Paterson police officers, including Eudy Ramos, Jonathan Bustios, Daniel Pent, and others, stopped and searched motor vehicles, without any justification, and stole cash and other items from the occupants of the motor vehicles. Torres and the other officers sometimes used fake paperwork to trick individuals into believing that the cash seizures and vehicle stops represented legitimate law enforcement encounters. Torres and the other officers also stopped and searched individuals on the streets of Paterson, and illegally took their money. To cover up their criminal activity, Torres and his fellow officers filed false police reports.

For example, on Dec. 7, 2017, while on duty, Torres and Ramos conducted a vehicle stop in Paterson. Torres and Ramos searched the vehicle, the driver, and the passenger. The passenger advised Torres and Ramos that he had a small quantity of marijuana. He also had approximately $3,100. Ramos and Torres told the passenger that they could take $500 from the passenger and have him sign a piece of paper. Ramos then placed a call, purportedly to his superior, and told the passenger that the superior officer said it had to be $800. Ramos took out a piece of white paper, wrote something on it, and told the passenger to sign it. Afterwards, Torres and Ramos released the driver and passenger. Torres and Ramos stole approximately $800 from the passenger, and they shared the stolen cash proceeds. In order to conceal their theft of monies, Torres and Ramos each omitted the encounter from their daily Paterson Police Department activity logs.

The conspiracy to violate civil rights charge carries a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison. The false records count carries a maximum penalty of 20 years in prison. The maximum fine for each count is $250,000. Sentencing is scheduled for Sept. 9, 2019.

U.S. Attorney Carpenito credited special agents of the FBI, under the direction of Special Agent in Charge Gregory W. Ehrie in Newark, with the investigation leading to today’s arrest. He also thanked the Passaic County Prosecutor’s Office, under the direction of Passaic County Prosecutor Camelia M. Valdes, the Paterson Police Department, under the direction of Paterson Police Director Jerry Speziale and Police Chief Troy Oswald, and the Paterson Police Department Office of Internal Affairs, for their assistance in the investigation.

The government is represented by Assistant U.S. Attorney Rahul Agarwal, Deputy Chief of the Criminal Division.

Defense counsel: John C. Whipple Esq., Morristown, New Jersey

NEWARK, N.J. – A City of Paterson police officer was arrested today and charged with conspiring to violate the civil rights of motor vehicle occupants and others in Paterson, New Jersey, U.S. Attorney Craig Carpenito announced.

Daniel Pent, 32, of Paterson, was arrested by special agents of the FBI on a complaint charging him with conspiring to deprive individuals of civil rights under color of law. Pent is scheduled to have his initial appearance this afternoon before U.S. Magistrate Judge Steven C. Mannion in Newark federal court.

According to documents filed in this and other cases and statements made in court:

Pent, and other Paterson police officers, including Eudy Ramos, stopped and searched motor vehicles, without any justification, and stole cash and other items from the occupants of the motor vehicles. Pent, Ramos, and others also illegally stopped and searched individuals in buildings or on the streets of Paterson and seized cash from those individuals.

On Feb. 1, 2017, Pent and Ramos stopped and searched a vehicle in Paterson, detained and handcuffed the occupants, and stole approximately $10,000 from one of the occupants. Pent told Ramos that either they should take all of the money or they should take none of it, and they chose to take all of it. They split the money between themselves. Pent and Ramos subsequently arrested the victim and charged the victim with loitering in a drug area. Pent filled out a prisoner property report for the victim that falsely stated that the victim had approximately $36 on his person. Ramos and Pent submitted an incident report in which they omitted the fact that they had located, and seized, $10,000 from the victim.

A federal grand jury indicted Ramos on March 20, 2019, for his role in the conspiracy and other civil rights and false records charges. His case is pending before U.S. District Judge Katharine S. Hayden.

The conspiracy to violate civil rights charge carries a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison and a fine of $250,000.

U.S. Attorney Carpenito credited special agents of the FBI, under the direction of Special Agent in Charge Gregory W. Ehrie in Newark, with the investigation leading to today’s arrest. He also thanked the Passaic County Prosecutor’s Office, under the direction of Passaic County Prosecutor Camelia M. Valdes, the Paterson Police Department, under the direction of Paterson Police Director Jerry Speziale and Police Chief Troy Oswald, and the Paterson Police Department Office of Internal Affairs, for their assistance in the investigation.

The government is represented by Assistant U.S. Attorney Rahul Agarwal, Deputy Chief of the Criminal Division.

NEWARK, N.J. – A federal grand jury indicted a City of Paterson, New Jersey, police officer for conspiring to violate individuals’ civil rights by stopping and searching people in their vehicles and on the street and stealing their cash, U.S. Attorney Craig Carpenito announced.

Eudy Ramos, 28, of Paterson, was charged in a nine-count indictment with conspiring to violate, and violating, the civil rights of individuals in Paterson, and with filing multiple false reports to conceal his criminal conduct. Ramos was previously charged by criminal complaint in April 2018. He will be arraigned in federal court on a date to be determined.

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

Eudy Ramos, Jonathan Bustios, and Matthew Torres were police officers with the Paterson Police Department (PPD). From at least 2016 to April 2018, they and other police officers, identified in the indictment as PPD Officer 1 and PPD Officer 2, allegedly targeted, stopped, and searched vehicles and the occupants of those vehicles and illegally seized cash from them. They also illegally stopped and searched individuals in buildings or on the streets of Paterson and seized their cash. They split the cash among themselves and submitted false reports to the PPD, omitting their illegal conduct or lying about it.

Among the methods employed to carry out the conspiracy, Ramos and the other officers used text messages to communicate about their criminal conduct. For instance, on Feb. 24, 2018 Ramos sent a text message to Bustios and Torres asking if they were in the mood for “weekend mangoes,” using the code word “mango” to refer to the illegal seizure of cash. On Feb. 25, 2018, Ramos sent a text message to Bustios, telling Bustios that Ramos was “tryna get someone in a car,” referring to Ramos’ plan to illegally steal cash from the occupants of vehicles in Paterson. On Dec. 7, 2017, Bustios sent a text message to Ramos, “83 auburn back door is open,” and Ramos responded, “On my way.” The address 83 Auburn Street was one of several locations that Ramos and others targeted for illegal cash seizures.

Some instances of Ramos’ and his conspirators illegal conduct include:

On Feb.1, 2017, Ramos and another PPD officer stopped and searched a vehicle, detained and handcuffed the occupants, and stole approximately $10,000 from one of the passengers. Ramos and his conspirator split the money between themselves and omitted any mention of the $10,000 in the PPD incident report and prisoner property report.

On Dec. 1, 2017, Ramos and Bustios stopped and searched an individual on a street corner in Paterson and stole approximately $1,000 from the individual. After the theft, a video of a portion of the encounter was posted to Twitter.

On Dec. 7, 2017, Torres and Ramos conducted a vehicle stop in Paterson. Torres and Ramos searched the vehicle, the driver, and the passenger, who had $3,100 and marijuana. Ramos told the passenger that instead of charging the passenger with distribution of marijuana they could take $500 from the passenger and have the passenger sign a piece of paper. Ramos then purportedly placed a call to his superior and told the passenger that the superior officer said it had to be $800. Ramos took out a piece of paper, wrote on it, and told the passenger to sign it. The passenger did not know what was written on the paper. Afterwards, Torres and Ramos released the driver and passenger. Torres and Ramos shared the stolen cash proceeds. Ramos and Torres did not report the stop and search of the vehicle and its occupants, or the cash seizure, to the Paterson Police Department.

The conspiracy count carries a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison and the substantive Counts 2 to 6 each carry a maximum penalty of one year in prison. The false records counts each carry a maximum penalty of 20 years in prison. The maximum fine for the felony counts is $250,000, and the maximum fine for the misdemeanor Counts 2 to 6 is $100,000.

U.S. Attorney Carpenito credited special agents of the FBI, under the direction of Special Agent in Charge Gregory W. Ehrie in Newark, with the investigation leading to today’s indictment. He also thanked the Passaic County Prosecutor’s Office, under the direction of Passaic County Prosecutor Camelia M. Valdes, the Paterson Police Department, under the direction of Paterson Police Director Jerry Speziale and Police Chief Troy Oswald, and the Paterson Police Department Office of Internal Affairs, for their assistance in the investigation.

The government is represented by Assistant U.S. Attorney Rahul Agarwal, Deputy Chief of the Criminal Division.

Defense counsel: Miles Feinstein Esq., Clifton, New Jersey

NEWARK, N.J. – A City of Paterson, New Jersey, police officer was arrested today and charged with violating the civil rights of a driver and passenger during a motor vehicle stop, U.S. Attorney Craig Carpenito announced.

Police Officer Matthew Torres, 30, of Paterson, was arrested by federal agents this morning and charged by complaint with conspiring to deprive individuals of civil rights under color of law. Torres is scheduled to have his initial appearance this afternoon before U.S. Magistrate Judge Steven C. Mannion in Newark federal court.

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

Torres and other Paterson police officers, including Eudy Ramos, have without justification stopped and searched motor vehicles and stolen cash and other items from the occupants. The officers sometimes used fake paperwork to trick individuals into believing that the cash seizures and vehicle stops were legitimate.

For example, on Dec. 7, 2017, Torres and Ramos conducted a vehicle stop in Paterson, searched the vehicle, driver, and passenger and placed the driver in one police car and the passenger in the other. The passenger told Torres and Ramos that he possessed two bags of marijuana and $3,100. Ramos took the money, placed it on the backseat of the vehicle and told the passenger that he did not care about the marijuana. Ramos told the passenger that they could not simply let him go because his activity likely had been picked up by Paterson police cameras. Ramos said he and Ramos could take $500 from the passenger, have him sign a piece of paper, and then give that paper to the narcotics division. Ramos then placed a call, purportedly to his superior, and told the passenger that the superior officer said it had to be $800. Ramos took out a piece of white paper, wrote something on it, and told the passenger to sign it. The passenger did not know what was written on the paper. Afterwards, Torres and Ramos released the driver and passenger. According to the passenger, there was $1,000 missing from his original $3,100. Torres and Ramos shared the stolen cash proceeds. They did not report the illegal cash seizure to the Paterson Police Department.

The conspiracy to violate civil rights charge carries a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison and a fine of up to $250,000.

U.S. Attorney Carpenito credited special agents of the FBI, under the direction of Special Agent in Charge Gregory Ehrie in Newark, with the investigation leading to today’s arrest. He also thanked the Passaic County Prosecutor’s Office, under the direction of Passaic County Prosecutor Camelia M. Valdes, the Paterson Police Department, under the direction of Paterson Police Director Jerry Speziale and Police Chief Troy Oswald, and the Paterson Police Department Office of Internal Affairs, for their assistance in the investigation.

The government is represented by Assistant U.S. Attorney Rahul Agarwal, Deputy Chief of the Criminal Division.

NEWARK, N.J. – A City of Paterson police officer today admitted conspiring with other officers to violate individuals’ civil rights and to personally accepting a firearm in exchange for reducing the charges on an arrestee, U.S. Attorney Craig Carpenito announced.

Police Officer Jonathan Bustios, 29, of Paterson, New Jersey, pleaded guilty before U.S. District Judge Katharine S. Hayden in Newark federal court to an information charging him with one count of conspiracy to violate individuals’ civil rights and one count of extortion under color of official right.

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

Bustios and Eudy Ramos were police officers with the Paterson Police Department. From at least 2016 to April 2018, Bustios, Ramos and others participated in a conspiracy in which they targeted and stopped certain individuals who were driving motor vehicles that they believed carried sums of money. Bustios, Ramos and others stopped the vehicles, searched the vehicles, driver, and passengers, and seized cash from the driver and passengers of the vehicles, without legal basis. They then split the cash among themselves and submitted false reports to the Paterson Police Department omitting the illegal vehicle stops and their thefts or lying about them.

In one incident, on Feb. 20, 2018, while on duty and in uniform, Bustios pulled over and stopped behind a BMW, while Ramos stopped in front of the BMW. Bustios and Ramos exited their police cars and searched the front and back of the BMW and the trunk, and Bustios and Ramos detained and searched the two occupants of the BMW. They put each of the occupants into the backseat of Ramos’s police car. Bustios then stole a bag containing approximately $1,800 from the car and left the scene, and Ramos released the two detained occupants of the BMW. Ramos drove to meet Bustios, who passed a portion of the recovered cash to Ramos through the window of Bustios’ police car. Bustios and Ramos did not report to the Paterson Police Department the fact that they had stopped and searched the BMW, detained and searched its occupants, and taken cash, all without any warrants or legal justification.

Bustios also pleaded guilty to extortion under color of official right, arising out of an incident on March 14, 2018. Bustios arrested and detained an individual and placed the individual in the backseat of his police car. Bustios told the individual that he would not charge him with resisting arrest and would allow him to keep the cash that the he had on him, in exchange for which the individual would find Bustios a firearm. Bustios said, “I ain’t gonna charge you with resisting, and I’m letting you keep your money, bro.” Bustios then told the individual, “If you don’t wanna make the deal, you don’t have to make the deal.” The individual ultimately agreed to the deal and directed Bustios to the location of a firearm. Bustios recovered the firearm and kept it without turning it in to the Paterson Police Department. As promised, he did not charge the individual with resisting arrest. Bustios also submitted an arrest report in which he failed to mention any details about having a recovered a firearm.

The conspiracy to violate civil rights count carries a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison. The extortion under color of official right count carries a maximum penalty of 20 years in prison. The maximum fine for both charges is $250,000. Sentencing is scheduled for April 9, 2019.

U.S. Attorney Carpenito credited special agents of the FBI, under the direction of Special Agent in Charge Gregory W. Ehrie in Newark, with the investigation leading to today’s guilty plea. He also thanked the Passaic County Prosecutor’s Office, under the direction of Passaic County Prosecutor Camelia M. Valdes, the Paterson Police Department, under the direction of Paterson Police Director Jerry Speziale and Police Chief Troy Oswald, and the Paterson Police Department Office of Internal Affairs, for their assistance in the investigation.

The government is represented by Assistant U.S. Attorney Rahul Agarwal, Deputy Chief of the Criminal Division.

Defense counsel: Michael Koribanics, Clifton, New Jersey

NEWARK, N.J. – Two Passaic County, New Jersey, men were arrested today for allegedly violating the civil rights of two individuals during a motor vehicle stop in Paterson, New Jersey, with one officer also being charged with extortion for personally accepting a firearm in exchange for reducing the charges on an arrestee, U.S. Attorney Craig Carpenito announced.

Jonathan Bustios, 28, and Eudy Ramos, 31, both of Paterson, New Jersey, were arrested by federal agents this morning and charged by complaint with conspiring to deprive individuals of civil rights under color of law. Bustios was also charged with one count of extortion under color of official right. Both defendants are scheduled to appear this afternoon before U.S. Magistrate Judge Michael A. Hammer in Newark federal court.

According to the complaint:

The investigation uncovered instances in which Bustios and Ramos, both officers of the Paterson Police Department, allegedly stopped motor vehicles, detained the occupants, and searched those vehicles without any justification. On certain occasions, Bustios and Ramos also took cash and other items without justification before releasing the detained occupants.

For example, on Feb. 20, 2018, while on duty, Bustios pulled over a BMW and stopped behind the vehicle, while Ramos stopped his police car in front of the vehicle. Bustios and Ramos exited their police cars and proceeded to search the front and back of the BMW and the trunk. Bustios and Ramos also detained and searched the two occupants of the BMW and put them into the backseat of Ramos’ police car.

After searching the BMW, Bustios left the scene, drove for ten minutes, then stopped his police car and took out a white plastic bag that was filled with cash. Bustios also took out a firearm. He then called Ramos, after which Ramos released the two detained occupants of the BMW and drove to meet Bustios. Bustios passed a portion of the recovered cash to Ramos through the window of Bustios’ police car.

Later that day, Bustios and Ramos turned in the firearm that they had recovered. In the offense report pertaining to the firearm, they told a false story about having recovered the firearm due to a tip by a concerned citizen. In fact, there was no tip by a concerned citizen. They did not report to the Paterson Police Department that they had stopped and searched the BMW, detained and searched its occupants, and taken cash, all without any warrants.

Bustios was also charged with extortion under color of official right for an incident that allegedly occurred on March 14, 2018. Bustios arrested and detained an individual and placed the individual in the backseat of his police car. Bustios then told the individual that Bustios would not charge the individual with resisting arrest and would allow the individual to keep the cash that the individual had on him, in exchange for the individual helping Bustios acquire a firearm. Specifically, Bustios said, “I ain’t gonna charge you with resisting, and I’m letting you keep your money bro.” Bustios then told the individual, “If you don’t wanna make the deal, you don’t have to make the deal.”

The individual ultimately agreed and directed Bustios to the location of a firearm, which Bustios allegedly recovered and kept without turning it over to the Paterson Police Department. According to Paterson Police Department records, as he had promised, Bustios did not charge the individual with resisting arrest. Bustios also submitted an arrest report in which he failed to mention any details about recovering a firearm.

The conspiracy to violate civil rights count with which Bustios and Ramos are charged carries a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison. The extortion under color of official right count with which Bustios is charged carries a maximum penalty of 20 years in prison.

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

U.S. Attorney Carpenito credited special agents of the FBI, under the direction of Acting Special Agent in Charge Bradley W. Cohen in Newark, with the ongoing investigation leading to today’s arrest. He also thanked the Paterson Police Department, under the direction of Paterson Police Director Jerry Speziale and Police Chief Troy Oswald, as well as the Paterson Police Department Office of Internal Affairs, for their assistance in the investigation.

The government is represented by Assistant U.S. Attorney Rahul Agarwal, Deputy Chief of the U.S. Attorney’s Office Criminal Division.

Docket (0 Docs):   https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1SuwoB-2UOEL1R5C0vA4NAX_Tjr5iHmi4sAZQ2Wei9vo
  Last Updated: 2023-10-19 22:25:41 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 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-04086
Case Name:   USA v. BUSTIOS et al
Description: The fiscal year of the data file obtained from the AOUSC
Format: YYYY

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Description: Case type associated with a magistrate case if the current case was merged from a magistrate case
Format: A2

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

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

Description: The docket number originally given to a case assigned to a magistrate judge and subsequently merged into a criminal case
Format: A7

Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a magistrate case
Format: A3

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Description: A count of original proceedings commenced
Format: N1

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

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

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

Description: A count of original proceedings terminated
Format: N1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Data imported from FJC Integrated Database
Score:   0.5
Docket Number:   D-NJ  2:19-cr-00706
Case Name:   USA v. PENT
  Press Releases:
NEWARK, N.J. – A federal grand jury today charged a sergeant with the Paterson Police Department with conspiring with other officers to violate individuals’ civil rights, and submitting a false police report to conceal their illegal activity, U.S. Attorney Craig Carpenito announced.

Sergeant Michael Cheff, 49, of Paterson, New Jersey, was charged in a two-count indictment with conspiring to deprive individuals of civil rights under color of law and with falsifying a police report. Cheff was previously charged by criminal complaint in January 2020. He will be arraigned in federal court on a date to be determined.

According to documents filed in this and other cases, and statements made in court:

Eudy Ramos, Daniel Pent, Jonathan Bustios, Matthew Torres, and Frank Toledo were police officers with the Paterson Police Department. Cheff supervised their activities and approved their reports and other paperwork related to arrests and seizures of money, narcotics, and firearms. Ramos, Pent, Bustios, Torres, and Toledo, while on official duty, violated the civil rights of individuals in Paterson. They stopped and searched motor vehicles without any justification and stole cash and other items from the occupants. They also illegally stopped and searched individuals in buildings or on the streets of Paterson and seized cash from them. They concealed their activities by submitting to Cheff false reports that omitted, or lied about, their illegal activities. Cheff signed off on those false police reports, and routinely received a portion of these stolen monies from some of these officers. In 2016, Cheff told one of the officers to start “tagging,” or logging into evidence, some of the money that the officer was stealing, because effecting narcotics arrests without logging money into evidence would otherwise raise questions.

On Nov. 14, 2017, Cheff joined Bustios, Ramos, and Torres in stealing cash from an apartment in Paterson. Bustios, Ramos, and Torres stopped and arrested an individual in Paterson. Bustios stole a few hundred dollars from the individual during the arrest, then the officers went to the individual’s apartment, and were joined by Cheff. Torres stayed behind to guard the arrested individual, who was handcuffed in a police car, while Cheff, Ramos, and Bustios obtained consent to search the apartment by lying to the individual’s mother.

Cheff, Ramos, and Bustios then searched the individual’s room. Cheff located a safe inside a closet in the room and took money and narcotics from the safe. He handed a small portion of the money to Bustios and told Bustios to log it into evidence. Cheff put the rest of the money in his pocket. After the search, in a bathroom at the Paterson police station, Cheff gave Torres and Ramos a portion of the stolen money. Cheff also approved a police report that falsely stated that the officers had recovered $319 from on top of a shelf in the individual’s room.

Later that day, Bustios and Toledo exchanged text messages discussing Cheff’s theft of money. Bustios said, among other things, that Cheff “got us for over a stack today,” that “there was a safe” and that Cheff “grabbed the cash.” According to the individual whose apartment was searched, the safe contained approximately $2,700, and all of it was missing after the search was completed.

The conspiracy to violate civil rights charge carries a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison. The false records charge carries a maximum penalty of 20 years in prison. The maximum fine for each count is $250,000.

U.S. Attorney Carpenito credited special agents of the FBI, under the direction of Special Agent in Charge Gregory W. Ehrie in Newark, with the investigation leading to today’s indictment. He also thanked the Passaic County Prosecutor’s Office, under the direction of Prosecutor Camelia M. Valdes, the Paterson Police Department, under the direction of Paterson Police Director Jerry Speziale and Paterson Police Chief Ibrahim “Mike” Baycora, and the Paterson Police Department Office of Internal Affairs for their assistance in the investigation.

The government is represented by Assistant U.S. Attorney Rahul Agarwal, Deputy Chief of the Criminal Division, and Assistant U.S. Attorney Lee M. Cortes Jr., Chief of the Health Care Fraud Unit.

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

Defense counsel: John Lynch Esq., Union City

NEWARK, N.J. – A City of Paterson police officer today admitted conspiring with other officers to violate the civil rights of individuals in Paterson, using unreasonable and excessive force, and filing a false police report to conceal his criminal activity, U.S. Attorney Craig Carpenito announced.

Police Officer Daniel Pent, 32, of Paterson, New Jersey, pleaded guilty before U.S. District Judge Katharine S. Hayden in Newark federal court to an information charging him with conspiracy to violate individuals’ civil rights, using unreasonable and excessive force in violation of individuals’ civil rights, and filing a false police report.

According to documents filed in this and other cases and statements made in court:

Pent, along with Paterson police officers Eudy Ramos, Jonathan Bustios, Matthew Torres, Frank Toledo, and others, stopped and searched motor vehicles, without any justification, and stole cash and other items from the occupants. Pent and the other officers also stopped and searched individuals on the streets of Paterson, and illegally took their money. Pent and other officers arrested individuals in Paterson, seized cash from those individuals during the arrests, and split the cash proceeds among themselves. They covered up their criminal activity by filing false police reports. Pent admitted to the following illegal conduct:

• On Feb. 1, 2017, Pent and Ramos stopped and searched a vehicle in Paterson. They stole approximately $10,000 from the passenger of the vehicle and split it between themselves. Ramos and Pent then submitted an incident report to the Paterson Police Department in which they intentionally omitted any mention of the $10,000 theft.

• On May 27, 2016, Pent and Ramos arrested an individual, stole several hundred dollars in cash from the individual, and filled out a false currency seizure report that under-reported the amount of money the individual actually possessed. Pent and Ramos then applied a forged signature of the individual to the report to make it appear as though the individual had seen and agreed to the amount on the report.

While on official duty, Pent also routinely used unreasonable and excessive force in his encounters with individuals in Paterson, causing them bodily harm, including:

• Pent and other officers routinely delivered a “running tax” to individuals they arrested. If an individual ran from them, Pent and others would “tax” the individual by striking the individual multiple times, causing bodily injury.

• On Jan. 20, 2015, Pent and Ramos received a call regarding loud music coming from a vehicle on Doremus Avenue in Paterson. Pent and Ramos approached the individual in the vehicle, removed him from the vehicle and punched and kicked him. The individual suffered injuries, including eye injuries, as a result of Pent’s and Ramos’ excessive force.

The conspiracy to violate civil rights and the deprivation of civil rights charges each carry a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison. The false records count carries a maximum penalty of 20 years in prison. The maximum fine for each count is $250,000. Pent's sentencing is scheduled for Jan. 14, 2020.

Bustios pleaded guilty in December 2018 to conspiring to deprive individuals of their civil rights and to extortion under color of official right. He is awaiting sentencing. Torres pleaded guilty in May 2019 to conspiring to deprive individuals of their civil rights and to filing a false police report. His sentencing is scheduled for Nov. 20, 2019. Toledo pleaded guilty in July 2019 to conspiring to deprive individuals of their civil rights, to using unreasonable and excessive force against individuals in Paterson, and to filing a false police report. His sentencing is scheduled for Oct. 22, 2019. Ramos pleaded guilty on Sept. 9, 2019, to conspiring to deprive individuals of their civil rights, to using unreasonable and excessive force against individuals in Paterson, and to filing a false police report. His sentencing is scheduled for Jan. 8, 2020.

U.S. Attorney Carpenito credited special agents of the FBI, under the direction of Special Agent in Charge Gregory W. Ehrie in Newark, with the investigation leading to today’s guilty plea. He also thanked the Passaic County Prosecutor’s Office, under the direction of Passaic County Prosecutor Camelia M. Valdes, the Paterson Police Department, under the direction of Paterson Police Director Jerry Speziale and Police Chief Troy Oswald, and the Paterson Police Department Office of Internal Affairs, for their assistance in the investigation.

The government is represented by Assistant U.S. Attorney Rahul Agarwal, Deputy Chief of the Criminal Division.

Defense counsel: Michael Calabro Esq., Newark

NEWARK, N.J. – A City of Paterson police officer today admitted conspiring with other officers to violate the civil rights of individuals in Paterson, using unreasonable and excessive force against individuals in Paterson, and filing a false police report to conceal his criminal activity, U.S. Attorney Craig Carpenito announced.

Eudy Ramos, 32, of Paterson, New Jersey, pleaded guilty before U.S. District Judge Katharine S. Hayden in Newark federal court to Counts 1 and 7 of an indictment against him, charging him with conspiracy to violate individuals’ civil rights and filing a false police report. Ramos also pleaded guilty to an information charging him with using unreasonable and excessive force in violation of individuals’ civil rights.

According to documents filed in this and other cases and statements made in court:

Ramos, along with other Paterson police officers, including Jonathan Bustios, Daniel Pent, Matthew Torres, Frank Toledo, and others, stopped and searched motor vehicles, without justification, and stole cash and other items from the occupants. Ramos and the other officers also stopped and searched individuals on the streets of Paterson, and illegally took their money. He and other officers also arrested individuals in Paterson, seized cash from them during the arrests, and split the cash proceeds among themselves. To cover up their criminal activity, Ramos and his fellow officers then filed false police reports. Ramos admitted to the following instances of illegal conduct:

• On Feb. 1, 2017, Ramos and Pent stopped and searched a vehicle in Paterson. They stole approximately $10,000 from the passenger of the vehicle and split it between themselves. Ramos and Pent then submitted an incident report to the Paterson Police Department in which they intentionally omitted any mention of the $10,000 theft.

• On Dec. 1, 2017, Ramos and Bustios stopped and searched an individual on a street corner in Paterson and stole approximately $1,000 from the individual. After the theft, a video of a portion of the encounter was posted to Twitter by a third party.

• On Dec. 2, 2017, Ramos and Toledo arrested an individual. During the arrest, they stole $1,000 from the individual and split the proceeds.

• On Dec. 7, 2017, Torres and Ramos conducted a vehicle stop in Paterson. They searched the vehicle, the driver, and the passenger, who had approximately $3,100 and marijuana. Ramos told the passenger that instead of charging the passenger with distribution of marijuana they could take $500 from the passenger and have the passenger sign a piece of paper. Ramos then purportedly placed a call to his superior and told the passenger that the superior officer said it had to be $800. Ramos took out a piece of white paper, wrote something on it, and told the passenger to sign it. Ramos and Torres released the driver and passenger and shared the stolen cash proceeds. They did not report the stop and search of the vehicle and its occupants, or the cash seizure, to the Paterson Police Department.

• On Feb. 20, 2018, Ramos and Bustios stopped and searched a vehicle and detained the driver and passenger of the vehicle. They stole a bag containing approximately $1,800 from the car. They then agreed to meet at Peach and Plum streets in Paterson, a location with no camera, where Bustios passed a portion of the illegally seized cash to Ramos through the window of Bustios’ police car. Bustios and Ramos did not report to the Paterson Police Department the fact that they had stopped and searched the vehicle, detained and searched its occupants, and taken cash, all without legal justification.

• On March 5, 2018, Ramos and Torres stopped and searched a vehicle, without legal basis. The occupants of the encounter filmed the encounter and posted the video to Instagram. They asked Ramos his basis for conducting the vehicle stop, and Ramos responded, “Random stop.” Ramos did not locate any cash inside the vehicle and departed the scene without taking anything.

While on official duty, Ramos also routinely used unreasonable and excessive force in his encounters with individuals in Paterson, causing them bodily harm:

• Ramos and other officers routinely delivered a “running tax” to individuals they arrested. If an individual ran from them, Ramos and others would “tax” the individual by striking the individual multiple times, causing bodily injury.

• On Jan. 20, 2015, Ramos and Pent received a call regarding loud music coming from a vehicle on Doremus Avenue in Paterson. They approached an individual in the vehicle, removed him, and began punching and kicking him. The individual suffered bodily injury, including eye injuries, as a result of Ramos’ and Pent’s excessive force.

• On Sept. 7, 2016, Ramos placed a handcuffed individual in the backseat of his police car, without a seatbelt, to transport the individual to Paterson Police Department headquarters. Ramos then depressed the brakes on his police car and forced the individual to slam his head against the divider in the backseat of the police car, a tactic known as “brake-checking.” After the individual slammed his head on divider, Ramos jokingly said, “What happened, man? You gotta put your seatbelt on.” Ramos recorded a video of this incident.

• On March 2, 2017, Ramos and Bustios were dispatched to a call regarding stolen property located in a vehicle in a parking garage. The individual who had stolen the property (Individual 1) was sitting in the vehicle. The individual whose property had been stolen (Individual 2) was angry and told Ramos and Bustios that he wanted to take a swing at Individual 1. Ramos and Bustios allowed him to do so. While Ramos and Bustios watched, Individual 2 punched Individual 1, who fell to the ground and hit his head, causing bodily injury. Bustios filmed the encounter.

The conspiracy to violate civil rights and the deprivation of civil rights charges each carry a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison. The false records count carries a maximum penalty of 20 years in prison. The maximum fine for each count is $250,000. Sentencing is scheduled for Jan. 8, 2020.

Bustios pleaded guilty in December 2018 to conspiring to deprive individuals of their civil rights and to extortion under color of official right. Torres pleaded guilty in May 2019 to conspiring to deprive individuals of their civil rights and to filing a false police report. His sentencing is scheduled for Nov. 18, 2019. Toledo pleaded guilty in July 2019 to conspiring to deprive individuals of their civil rights, to using unreasonable and excessive force against individuals in Paterson, and to filing a false police report. His sentencing is scheduled for Oct. 22, 2019. On March 26, 2019, Pent was charged by complaint with conspiring to deprive individuals of their civil rights. The charge and allegations against him are merely accusations and he is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.

U.S. Attorney Carpenito credited special agents of the FBI, under the direction of Special Agent in Charge Gregory Ehrie in Newark, with the investigation leading to today’s arrest. He also thanked the Passaic County Prosecutor’s Office, under the direction of Passaic County Prosecutor Camelia M. Valdes, the Paterson Police Department, under the direction of Paterson Police Director Jerry Speziale and Police Chief Troy Oswald, and the Paterson Police Department Office of Internal Affairs, for their assistance in the investigation.

The government is represented by Assistant U.S. Attorney Rahul Agarwal, Deputy Chief of the Criminal Division of the U.S. Attorney’s Office.

Defense counsel: Miles Feinstein Esq., Clifton, New Jersey

NEWARK, N.J. – A City of Paterson police officer today admitted conspiring to violate the civil rights of individuals in Paterson, using unreasonable and excessive force, and filing a false police report to conceal his criminal activity, U.S. Attorney Craig Carpenito announced.

Police Officer Frank Toledo, 30, of Paterson, pleaded guilty before U.S. District Judge Katharine S. Hayden in Newark federal court to a three-count information charging him with conspiracy to violate individuals’ civil rights, using unreasonable and excessive force in violation of individuals’ civil rights, and filing a false police report.

“The U.S. Attorney’s Office and our law enforcement partners remain committed to identifying and prosecuting corrupt police officers who violate the civil rights of our people,” U.S. Attorney Carpenito said. “We will continue to aggressively pursue these cases, and we are grateful to our counterparts at the FBI, the Paterson Police Department and the Passaic County Prosecutor’s Office, for their dedicated assistance on this investigation.”

“The FBI has a long history of standing with and assisting our fellow law enforcement officers,” Gregory W. Ehrie, FBI Special Agent in Charge in Newark, said. “When a police department finds rogue officers who violate civil rights, we will answer the call to help rid that department of anyone who tarnishes the badge they wear.”

According to documents filed in this and other cases and statements made in court:

Toledo, along with other Paterson police officers, including Eudy Ramos, Jonathan Bustios, Daniel Pent, Matthew Torres, and others, stopped and searched motor vehicles, without any justification, and stole cash and other items from the occupants. Toledo and the other officers also stopped and searched individuals on the streets of Paterson, and illegally took their money. Toledo and other officers arrested individuals in Paterson, took cash from them, and split it among themselves. To cover up their criminal activity, Toledo and his fellow officers then filed false police reports. For example, on Dec. 2, 2017, Toledo and Ramos stopped and arrested an individual in Paterson and stole approximately $1,000, which they split. Toledo and Ramos then filed a false police report omitting that they had stolen $1,000 from the arrestee.

Toledo communicated via text message with his conspirators regarding their illegal activity. In one text message, on Nov. 16, 2017, Toledo wrote to Bustios, “everything we do is illegal.” In another, Bustios sent Toledo a text message with an animated talking pig that said, “I’m tryin’ to go mango hunting. Let’s goooo.” Toledo replied with an address and wrote “meet me here,” telling Bustios to meet him at a location where they could look to illegally seize “mangos,” a code word for cash.

While on official duty, Toledo also routinely used unreasonable and excessive force in his encounters with individuals in Paterson, causing them bodily harm. For instance, in three incidents in 2017:

• Toledo chased and apprehended a juvenile, pushed the juvenile to the ground, and punched the juvenile several times. Toledo later told Bustios, “I’ve been borderline blacking out when I catch these n[ ]” and “I beat that n[ ] like he owed me money.” Toledo also told Bustios that when he used force on the juvenile, he “was no longer a cop.”

• Toledo and Ramos chased and tackled an individual in Paterson and struck the individual several times in the body. They then released the individual without filing charges. The incident was recorded by a third party and uploaded to YouTube. Toledo told Bustios that the individual who recorded the incident “missed the best part,” which was when Toledo “laid him out.” Toledo then said, “funny shit is that we cut him” and “didn’t even lock him up.”

• Toledo and Torres arrested an individual, handcuffed him behind his back, and placed him in the backseat of their police car. During the ride to police department headquarters, Toledo depressed the brakes on his police car in order to force the individual to slam his body and head against the divider in the backseat of the police car, a tactic known as “brake-checking.” Toledo recorded the incident on his cell phone and sent it to others.

The conspiracy to violate civil rights and the deprivation of civil rights charges each carry a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison. The false records count carries a maximum penalty of 20 years in prison. The maximum fine for each count is $250,000. Sentencing is scheduled for Oct. 22, 2019.

Bustios pleaded guilty in December 2018 to conspiring to deprive individuals of their civil rights and to extortion under color of official right. Torres pleaded guilty in May 2019 to conspiring to deprive individuals of their civil rights and to filing a false police report. His sentencing is scheduled for Sept. 9, 2019.

Ramos was indicted in a nine-count indictment with conspiring to deprive individuals of their civils rights, depriving individuals of their civil rights, and filing false police reports. His case is pending before Judge Hayden. Daniel Pent was previously charged by complaint with conspiring to deprive individuals of their civil rights. His case, too, is pending. The charges and allegations against them are merely accusations, and they are presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.

U.S. Attorney Carpenito credited special agents of the FBI, under the direction of Special Agent in Charge Gregory W. Ehrie in Newark, with the investigation leading to today’s guilty plea. He also thanked the Passaic County Prosecutor’s Office, under the direction of Passaic County Prosecutor Camelia M. Valdes, the Paterson Police Department, under the direction of Paterson Police Director Jerry Speziale and Police Chief Troy Oswald, and the Paterson Police Department Office of Internal Affairs, for their assistance in the investigation.

The government is represented by Assistant U.S. Attorney Rahul Agarwal, Deputy Chief of the Criminal Division.

Defense counsel: Dennis S. Cleary Esq., West Orange, New Jersey

NEWARK, N.J. – A City of Paterson police officer today admitted conspiring with other officers to violate the civil rights of individuals in Paterson, and to filing a false police report to conceal his criminal activity, U.S. Attorney Craig Carpenito announced.

Police Officer Matthew Torres, 30, of Paterson, New Jersey, pleaded guilty before U.S. District Judge Katharine S. Hayden in Newark federal court to an information charging him with conspiracy to violate individuals’ civil rights and filing a false police report.

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

Torres, along with other Paterson police officers, including Eudy Ramos, Jonathan Bustios, Daniel Pent, and others, stopped and searched motor vehicles, without any justification, and stole cash and other items from the occupants of the motor vehicles. Torres and the other officers sometimes used fake paperwork to trick individuals into believing that the cash seizures and vehicle stops represented legitimate law enforcement encounters. Torres and the other officers also stopped and searched individuals on the streets of Paterson, and illegally took their money. To cover up their criminal activity, Torres and his fellow officers filed false police reports.

For example, on Dec. 7, 2017, while on duty, Torres and Ramos conducted a vehicle stop in Paterson. Torres and Ramos searched the vehicle, the driver, and the passenger. The passenger advised Torres and Ramos that he had a small quantity of marijuana. He also had approximately $3,100. Ramos and Torres told the passenger that they could take $500 from the passenger and have him sign a piece of paper. Ramos then placed a call, purportedly to his superior, and told the passenger that the superior officer said it had to be $800. Ramos took out a piece of white paper, wrote something on it, and told the passenger to sign it. Afterwards, Torres and Ramos released the driver and passenger. Torres and Ramos stole approximately $800 from the passenger, and they shared the stolen cash proceeds. In order to conceal their theft of monies, Torres and Ramos each omitted the encounter from their daily Paterson Police Department activity logs.

The conspiracy to violate civil rights charge carries a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison. The false records count carries a maximum penalty of 20 years in prison. The maximum fine for each count is $250,000. Sentencing is scheduled for Sept. 9, 2019.

U.S. Attorney Carpenito credited special agents of the FBI, under the direction of Special Agent in Charge Gregory W. Ehrie in Newark, with the investigation leading to today’s arrest. He also thanked the Passaic County Prosecutor’s Office, under the direction of Passaic County Prosecutor Camelia M. Valdes, the Paterson Police Department, under the direction of Paterson Police Director Jerry Speziale and Police Chief Troy Oswald, and the Paterson Police Department Office of Internal Affairs, for their assistance in the investigation.

The government is represented by Assistant U.S. Attorney Rahul Agarwal, Deputy Chief of the Criminal Division.

Defense counsel: John C. Whipple Esq., Morristown, New Jersey

NEWARK, N.J. – A City of Paterson police officer was arrested today and charged with conspiring to violate the civil rights of motor vehicle occupants and others in Paterson, New Jersey, U.S. Attorney Craig Carpenito announced.

Daniel Pent, 32, of Paterson, was arrested by special agents of the FBI on a complaint charging him with conspiring to deprive individuals of civil rights under color of law. Pent is scheduled to have his initial appearance this afternoon before U.S. Magistrate Judge Steven C. Mannion in Newark federal court.

According to documents filed in this and other cases and statements made in court:

Pent, and other Paterson police officers, including Eudy Ramos, stopped and searched motor vehicles, without any justification, and stole cash and other items from the occupants of the motor vehicles. Pent, Ramos, and others also illegally stopped and searched individuals in buildings or on the streets of Paterson and seized cash from those individuals.

On Feb. 1, 2017, Pent and Ramos stopped and searched a vehicle in Paterson, detained and handcuffed the occupants, and stole approximately $10,000 from one of the occupants. Pent told Ramos that either they should take all of the money or they should take none of it, and they chose to take all of it. They split the money between themselves. Pent and Ramos subsequently arrested the victim and charged the victim with loitering in a drug area. Pent filled out a prisoner property report for the victim that falsely stated that the victim had approximately $36 on his person. Ramos and Pent submitted an incident report in which they omitted the fact that they had located, and seized, $10,000 from the victim.

A federal grand jury indicted Ramos on March 20, 2019, for his role in the conspiracy and other civil rights and false records charges. His case is pending before U.S. District Judge Katharine S. Hayden.

The conspiracy to violate civil rights charge carries a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison and a fine of $250,000.

U.S. Attorney Carpenito credited special agents of the FBI, under the direction of Special Agent in Charge Gregory W. Ehrie in Newark, with the investigation leading to today’s arrest. He also thanked the Passaic County Prosecutor’s Office, under the direction of Passaic County Prosecutor Camelia M. Valdes, the Paterson Police Department, under the direction of Paterson Police Director Jerry Speziale and Police Chief Troy Oswald, and the Paterson Police Department Office of Internal Affairs, for their assistance in the investigation.

The government is represented by Assistant U.S. Attorney Rahul Agarwal, Deputy Chief of the Criminal Division.

Docket (0 Docs):   https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1V9t_GLtMlo8F2klg7TX-yipeWEgQBru7NudvRzwLGVI
  Last Updated: 2023-10-19 22:57:29 UTC
Description: The fiscal year of the data file obtained from the AOUSC
Format: YYYY

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Description: 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 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  2:19-mj-06065
Case Name:   USA v. PENT
  Press Releases:
NEWARK, N.J. – A City of Paterson police officer was arrested today and charged with conspiring to violate the civil rights of motor vehicle occupants and others in Paterson, New Jersey, U.S. Attorney Craig Carpenito announced.

Daniel Pent, 32, of Paterson, was arrested by special agents of the FBI on a complaint charging him with conspiring to deprive individuals of civil rights under color of law. Pent is scheduled to have his initial appearance this afternoon before U.S. Magistrate Judge Steven C. Mannion in Newark federal court.

According to documents filed in this and other cases and statements made in court:

Pent, and other Paterson police officers, including Eudy Ramos, stopped and searched motor vehicles, without any justification, and stole cash and other items from the occupants of the motor vehicles. Pent, Ramos, and others also illegally stopped and searched individuals in buildings or on the streets of Paterson and seized cash from those individuals.

On Feb. 1, 2017, Pent and Ramos stopped and searched a vehicle in Paterson, detained and handcuffed the occupants, and stole approximately $10,000 from one of the occupants. Pent told Ramos that either they should take all of the money or they should take none of it, and they chose to take all of it. They split the money between themselves. Pent and Ramos subsequently arrested the victim and charged the victim with loitering in a drug area. Pent filled out a prisoner property report for the victim that falsely stated that the victim had approximately $36 on his person. Ramos and Pent submitted an incident report in which they omitted the fact that they had located, and seized, $10,000 from the victim.

A federal grand jury indicted Ramos on March 20, 2019, for his role in the conspiracy and other civil rights and false records charges. His case is pending before U.S. District Judge Katharine S. Hayden.

The conspiracy to violate civil rights charge carries a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison and a fine of $250,000.

U.S. Attorney Carpenito credited special agents of the FBI, under the direction of Special Agent in Charge Gregory W. Ehrie in Newark, with the investigation leading to today’s arrest. He also thanked the Passaic County Prosecutor’s Office, under the direction of Passaic County Prosecutor Camelia M. Valdes, the Paterson Police Department, under the direction of Paterson Police Director Jerry Speziale and Police Chief Troy Oswald, and the Paterson Police Department Office of Internal Affairs, for their assistance in the investigation.

The government is represented by Assistant U.S. Attorney Rahul Agarwal, Deputy Chief of the Criminal Division.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Description: A count of original proceedings commenced
Format: N1

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

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

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

Description: A count of original proceedings terminated
Format: N1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Data imported from FJC Integrated Database
Score:   0.5
Docket Number:   D-NJ  2:19-cr-00627
Case Name:   USA v. RAMOS
  Press Releases:
NEWARK, N.J. – A federal grand jury today charged a sergeant with the Paterson Police Department with conspiring with other officers to violate individuals’ civil rights, and submitting a false police report to conceal their illegal activity, U.S. Attorney Craig Carpenito announced.

Sergeant Michael Cheff, 49, of Paterson, New Jersey, was charged in a two-count indictment with conspiring to deprive individuals of civil rights under color of law and with falsifying a police report. Cheff was previously charged by criminal complaint in January 2020. He will be arraigned in federal court on a date to be determined.

According to documents filed in this and other cases, and statements made in court:

Eudy Ramos, Daniel Pent, Jonathan Bustios, Matthew Torres, and Frank Toledo were police officers with the Paterson Police Department. Cheff supervised their activities and approved their reports and other paperwork related to arrests and seizures of money, narcotics, and firearms. Ramos, Pent, Bustios, Torres, and Toledo, while on official duty, violated the civil rights of individuals in Paterson. They stopped and searched motor vehicles without any justification and stole cash and other items from the occupants. They also illegally stopped and searched individuals in buildings or on the streets of Paterson and seized cash from them. They concealed their activities by submitting to Cheff false reports that omitted, or lied about, their illegal activities. Cheff signed off on those false police reports, and routinely received a portion of these stolen monies from some of these officers. In 2016, Cheff told one of the officers to start “tagging,” or logging into evidence, some of the money that the officer was stealing, because effecting narcotics arrests without logging money into evidence would otherwise raise questions.

On Nov. 14, 2017, Cheff joined Bustios, Ramos, and Torres in stealing cash from an apartment in Paterson. Bustios, Ramos, and Torres stopped and arrested an individual in Paterson. Bustios stole a few hundred dollars from the individual during the arrest, then the officers went to the individual’s apartment, and were joined by Cheff. Torres stayed behind to guard the arrested individual, who was handcuffed in a police car, while Cheff, Ramos, and Bustios obtained consent to search the apartment by lying to the individual’s mother.

Cheff, Ramos, and Bustios then searched the individual’s room. Cheff located a safe inside a closet in the room and took money and narcotics from the safe. He handed a small portion of the money to Bustios and told Bustios to log it into evidence. Cheff put the rest of the money in his pocket. After the search, in a bathroom at the Paterson police station, Cheff gave Torres and Ramos a portion of the stolen money. Cheff also approved a police report that falsely stated that the officers had recovered $319 from on top of a shelf in the individual’s room.

Later that day, Bustios and Toledo exchanged text messages discussing Cheff’s theft of money. Bustios said, among other things, that Cheff “got us for over a stack today,” that “there was a safe” and that Cheff “grabbed the cash.” According to the individual whose apartment was searched, the safe contained approximately $2,700, and all of it was missing after the search was completed.

The conspiracy to violate civil rights charge carries a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison. The false records charge carries a maximum penalty of 20 years in prison. The maximum fine for each count is $250,000.

U.S. Attorney Carpenito credited special agents of the FBI, under the direction of Special Agent in Charge Gregory W. Ehrie in Newark, with the investigation leading to today’s indictment. He also thanked the Passaic County Prosecutor’s Office, under the direction of Prosecutor Camelia M. Valdes, the Paterson Police Department, under the direction of Paterson Police Director Jerry Speziale and Paterson Police Chief Ibrahim “Mike” Baycora, and the Paterson Police Department Office of Internal Affairs for their assistance in the investigation.

The government is represented by Assistant U.S. Attorney Rahul Agarwal, Deputy Chief of the Criminal Division, and Assistant U.S. Attorney Lee M. Cortes Jr., Chief of the Health Care Fraud Unit.

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

Defense counsel: John Lynch Esq., Union City

NEWARK, N.J. – A City of Paterson police officer today admitted conspiring with other officers to violate the civil rights of individuals in Paterson, using unreasonable and excessive force, and filing a false police report to conceal his criminal activity, U.S. Attorney Craig Carpenito announced.

Police Officer Daniel Pent, 32, of Paterson, New Jersey, pleaded guilty before U.S. District Judge Katharine S. Hayden in Newark federal court to an information charging him with conspiracy to violate individuals’ civil rights, using unreasonable and excessive force in violation of individuals’ civil rights, and filing a false police report.

According to documents filed in this and other cases and statements made in court:

Pent, along with Paterson police officers Eudy Ramos, Jonathan Bustios, Matthew Torres, Frank Toledo, and others, stopped and searched motor vehicles, without any justification, and stole cash and other items from the occupants. Pent and the other officers also stopped and searched individuals on the streets of Paterson, and illegally took their money. Pent and other officers arrested individuals in Paterson, seized cash from those individuals during the arrests, and split the cash proceeds among themselves. They covered up their criminal activity by filing false police reports. Pent admitted to the following illegal conduct:

• On Feb. 1, 2017, Pent and Ramos stopped and searched a vehicle in Paterson. They stole approximately $10,000 from the passenger of the vehicle and split it between themselves. Ramos and Pent then submitted an incident report to the Paterson Police Department in which they intentionally omitted any mention of the $10,000 theft.

• On May 27, 2016, Pent and Ramos arrested an individual, stole several hundred dollars in cash from the individual, and filled out a false currency seizure report that under-reported the amount of money the individual actually possessed. Pent and Ramos then applied a forged signature of the individual to the report to make it appear as though the individual had seen and agreed to the amount on the report.

While on official duty, Pent also routinely used unreasonable and excessive force in his encounters with individuals in Paterson, causing them bodily harm, including:

• Pent and other officers routinely delivered a “running tax” to individuals they arrested. If an individual ran from them, Pent and others would “tax” the individual by striking the individual multiple times, causing bodily injury.

• On Jan. 20, 2015, Pent and Ramos received a call regarding loud music coming from a vehicle on Doremus Avenue in Paterson. Pent and Ramos approached the individual in the vehicle, removed him from the vehicle and punched and kicked him. The individual suffered injuries, including eye injuries, as a result of Pent’s and Ramos’ excessive force.

The conspiracy to violate civil rights and the deprivation of civil rights charges each carry a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison. The false records count carries a maximum penalty of 20 years in prison. The maximum fine for each count is $250,000. Pent's sentencing is scheduled for Jan. 14, 2020.

Bustios pleaded guilty in December 2018 to conspiring to deprive individuals of their civil rights and to extortion under color of official right. He is awaiting sentencing. Torres pleaded guilty in May 2019 to conspiring to deprive individuals of their civil rights and to filing a false police report. His sentencing is scheduled for Nov. 20, 2019. Toledo pleaded guilty in July 2019 to conspiring to deprive individuals of their civil rights, to using unreasonable and excessive force against individuals in Paterson, and to filing a false police report. His sentencing is scheduled for Oct. 22, 2019. Ramos pleaded guilty on Sept. 9, 2019, to conspiring to deprive individuals of their civil rights, to using unreasonable and excessive force against individuals in Paterson, and to filing a false police report. His sentencing is scheduled for Jan. 8, 2020.

U.S. Attorney Carpenito credited special agents of the FBI, under the direction of Special Agent in Charge Gregory W. Ehrie in Newark, with the investigation leading to today’s guilty plea. He also thanked the Passaic County Prosecutor’s Office, under the direction of Passaic County Prosecutor Camelia M. Valdes, the Paterson Police Department, under the direction of Paterson Police Director Jerry Speziale and Police Chief Troy Oswald, and the Paterson Police Department Office of Internal Affairs, for their assistance in the investigation.

The government is represented by Assistant U.S. Attorney Rahul Agarwal, Deputy Chief of the Criminal Division.

Defense counsel: Michael Calabro Esq., Newark

NEWARK, N.J. – A City of Paterson police officer today admitted conspiring with other officers to violate the civil rights of individuals in Paterson, using unreasonable and excessive force against individuals in Paterson, and filing a false police report to conceal his criminal activity, U.S. Attorney Craig Carpenito announced.

Eudy Ramos, 32, of Paterson, New Jersey, pleaded guilty before U.S. District Judge Katharine S. Hayden in Newark federal court to Counts 1 and 7 of an indictment against him, charging him with conspiracy to violate individuals’ civil rights and filing a false police report. Ramos also pleaded guilty to an information charging him with using unreasonable and excessive force in violation of individuals’ civil rights.

According to documents filed in this and other cases and statements made in court:

Ramos, along with other Paterson police officers, including Jonathan Bustios, Daniel Pent, Matthew Torres, Frank Toledo, and others, stopped and searched motor vehicles, without justification, and stole cash and other items from the occupants. Ramos and the other officers also stopped and searched individuals on the streets of Paterson, and illegally took their money. He and other officers also arrested individuals in Paterson, seized cash from them during the arrests, and split the cash proceeds among themselves. To cover up their criminal activity, Ramos and his fellow officers then filed false police reports. Ramos admitted to the following instances of illegal conduct:

• On Feb. 1, 2017, Ramos and Pent stopped and searched a vehicle in Paterson. They stole approximately $10,000 from the passenger of the vehicle and split it between themselves. Ramos and Pent then submitted an incident report to the Paterson Police Department in which they intentionally omitted any mention of the $10,000 theft.

• On Dec. 1, 2017, Ramos and Bustios stopped and searched an individual on a street corner in Paterson and stole approximately $1,000 from the individual. After the theft, a video of a portion of the encounter was posted to Twitter by a third party.

• On Dec. 2, 2017, Ramos and Toledo arrested an individual. During the arrest, they stole $1,000 from the individual and split the proceeds.

• On Dec. 7, 2017, Torres and Ramos conducted a vehicle stop in Paterson. They searched the vehicle, the driver, and the passenger, who had approximately $3,100 and marijuana. Ramos told the passenger that instead of charging the passenger with distribution of marijuana they could take $500 from the passenger and have the passenger sign a piece of paper. Ramos then purportedly placed a call to his superior and told the passenger that the superior officer said it had to be $800. Ramos took out a piece of white paper, wrote something on it, and told the passenger to sign it. Ramos and Torres released the driver and passenger and shared the stolen cash proceeds. They did not report the stop and search of the vehicle and its occupants, or the cash seizure, to the Paterson Police Department.

• On Feb. 20, 2018, Ramos and Bustios stopped and searched a vehicle and detained the driver and passenger of the vehicle. They stole a bag containing approximately $1,800 from the car. They then agreed to meet at Peach and Plum streets in Paterson, a location with no camera, where Bustios passed a portion of the illegally seized cash to Ramos through the window of Bustios’ police car. Bustios and Ramos did not report to the Paterson Police Department the fact that they had stopped and searched the vehicle, detained and searched its occupants, and taken cash, all without legal justification.

• On March 5, 2018, Ramos and Torres stopped and searched a vehicle, without legal basis. The occupants of the encounter filmed the encounter and posted the video to Instagram. They asked Ramos his basis for conducting the vehicle stop, and Ramos responded, “Random stop.” Ramos did not locate any cash inside the vehicle and departed the scene without taking anything.

While on official duty, Ramos also routinely used unreasonable and excessive force in his encounters with individuals in Paterson, causing them bodily harm:

• Ramos and other officers routinely delivered a “running tax” to individuals they arrested. If an individual ran from them, Ramos and others would “tax” the individual by striking the individual multiple times, causing bodily injury.

• On Jan. 20, 2015, Ramos and Pent received a call regarding loud music coming from a vehicle on Doremus Avenue in Paterson. They approached an individual in the vehicle, removed him, and began punching and kicking him. The individual suffered bodily injury, including eye injuries, as a result of Ramos’ and Pent’s excessive force.

• On Sept. 7, 2016, Ramos placed a handcuffed individual in the backseat of his police car, without a seatbelt, to transport the individual to Paterson Police Department headquarters. Ramos then depressed the brakes on his police car and forced the individual to slam his head against the divider in the backseat of the police car, a tactic known as “brake-checking.” After the individual slammed his head on divider, Ramos jokingly said, “What happened, man? You gotta put your seatbelt on.” Ramos recorded a video of this incident.

• On March 2, 2017, Ramos and Bustios were dispatched to a call regarding stolen property located in a vehicle in a parking garage. The individual who had stolen the property (Individual 1) was sitting in the vehicle. The individual whose property had been stolen (Individual 2) was angry and told Ramos and Bustios that he wanted to take a swing at Individual 1. Ramos and Bustios allowed him to do so. While Ramos and Bustios watched, Individual 2 punched Individual 1, who fell to the ground and hit his head, causing bodily injury. Bustios filmed the encounter.

The conspiracy to violate civil rights and the deprivation of civil rights charges each carry a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison. The false records count carries a maximum penalty of 20 years in prison. The maximum fine for each count is $250,000. Sentencing is scheduled for Jan. 8, 2020.

Bustios pleaded guilty in December 2018 to conspiring to deprive individuals of their civil rights and to extortion under color of official right. Torres pleaded guilty in May 2019 to conspiring to deprive individuals of their civil rights and to filing a false police report. His sentencing is scheduled for Nov. 18, 2019. Toledo pleaded guilty in July 2019 to conspiring to deprive individuals of their civil rights, to using unreasonable and excessive force against individuals in Paterson, and to filing a false police report. His sentencing is scheduled for Oct. 22, 2019. On March 26, 2019, Pent was charged by complaint with conspiring to deprive individuals of their civil rights. The charge and allegations against him are merely accusations and he is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.

U.S. Attorney Carpenito credited special agents of the FBI, under the direction of Special Agent in Charge Gregory Ehrie in Newark, with the investigation leading to today’s arrest. He also thanked the Passaic County Prosecutor’s Office, under the direction of Passaic County Prosecutor Camelia M. Valdes, the Paterson Police Department, under the direction of Paterson Police Director Jerry Speziale and Police Chief Troy Oswald, and the Paterson Police Department Office of Internal Affairs, for their assistance in the investigation.

The government is represented by Assistant U.S. Attorney Rahul Agarwal, Deputy Chief of the Criminal Division of the U.S. Attorney’s Office.

Defense counsel: Miles Feinstein Esq., Clifton, New Jersey

NEWARK, N.J. – A City of Paterson police officer today admitted conspiring to violate the civil rights of individuals in Paterson, using unreasonable and excessive force, and filing a false police report to conceal his criminal activity, U.S. Attorney Craig Carpenito announced.

Police Officer Frank Toledo, 30, of Paterson, pleaded guilty before U.S. District Judge Katharine S. Hayden in Newark federal court to a three-count information charging him with conspiracy to violate individuals’ civil rights, using unreasonable and excessive force in violation of individuals’ civil rights, and filing a false police report.

“The U.S. Attorney’s Office and our law enforcement partners remain committed to identifying and prosecuting corrupt police officers who violate the civil rights of our people,” U.S. Attorney Carpenito said. “We will continue to aggressively pursue these cases, and we are grateful to our counterparts at the FBI, the Paterson Police Department and the Passaic County Prosecutor’s Office, for their dedicated assistance on this investigation.”

“The FBI has a long history of standing with and assisting our fellow law enforcement officers,” Gregory W. Ehrie, FBI Special Agent in Charge in Newark, said. “When a police department finds rogue officers who violate civil rights, we will answer the call to help rid that department of anyone who tarnishes the badge they wear.”

According to documents filed in this and other cases and statements made in court:

Toledo, along with other Paterson police officers, including Eudy Ramos, Jonathan Bustios, Daniel Pent, Matthew Torres, and others, stopped and searched motor vehicles, without any justification, and stole cash and other items from the occupants. Toledo and the other officers also stopped and searched individuals on the streets of Paterson, and illegally took their money. Toledo and other officers arrested individuals in Paterson, took cash from them, and split it among themselves. To cover up their criminal activity, Toledo and his fellow officers then filed false police reports. For example, on Dec. 2, 2017, Toledo and Ramos stopped and arrested an individual in Paterson and stole approximately $1,000, which they split. Toledo and Ramos then filed a false police report omitting that they had stolen $1,000 from the arrestee.

Toledo communicated via text message with his conspirators regarding their illegal activity. In one text message, on Nov. 16, 2017, Toledo wrote to Bustios, “everything we do is illegal.” In another, Bustios sent Toledo a text message with an animated talking pig that said, “I’m tryin’ to go mango hunting. Let’s goooo.” Toledo replied with an address and wrote “meet me here,” telling Bustios to meet him at a location where they could look to illegally seize “mangos,” a code word for cash.

While on official duty, Toledo also routinely used unreasonable and excessive force in his encounters with individuals in Paterson, causing them bodily harm. For instance, in three incidents in 2017:

• Toledo chased and apprehended a juvenile, pushed the juvenile to the ground, and punched the juvenile several times. Toledo later told Bustios, “I’ve been borderline blacking out when I catch these n[ ]” and “I beat that n[ ] like he owed me money.” Toledo also told Bustios that when he used force on the juvenile, he “was no longer a cop.”

• Toledo and Ramos chased and tackled an individual in Paterson and struck the individual several times in the body. They then released the individual without filing charges. The incident was recorded by a third party and uploaded to YouTube. Toledo told Bustios that the individual who recorded the incident “missed the best part,” which was when Toledo “laid him out.” Toledo then said, “funny shit is that we cut him” and “didn’t even lock him up.”

• Toledo and Torres arrested an individual, handcuffed him behind his back, and placed him in the backseat of their police car. During the ride to police department headquarters, Toledo depressed the brakes on his police car in order to force the individual to slam his body and head against the divider in the backseat of the police car, a tactic known as “brake-checking.” Toledo recorded the incident on his cell phone and sent it to others.

The conspiracy to violate civil rights and the deprivation of civil rights charges each carry a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison. The false records count carries a maximum penalty of 20 years in prison. The maximum fine for each count is $250,000. Sentencing is scheduled for Oct. 22, 2019.

Bustios pleaded guilty in December 2018 to conspiring to deprive individuals of their civil rights and to extortion under color of official right. Torres pleaded guilty in May 2019 to conspiring to deprive individuals of their civil rights and to filing a false police report. His sentencing is scheduled for Sept. 9, 2019.

Ramos was indicted in a nine-count indictment with conspiring to deprive individuals of their civils rights, depriving individuals of their civil rights, and filing false police reports. His case is pending before Judge Hayden. Daniel Pent was previously charged by complaint with conspiring to deprive individuals of their civil rights. His case, too, is pending. The charges and allegations against them are merely accusations, and they are presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.

U.S. Attorney Carpenito credited special agents of the FBI, under the direction of Special Agent in Charge Gregory W. Ehrie in Newark, with the investigation leading to today’s guilty plea. He also thanked the Passaic County Prosecutor’s Office, under the direction of Passaic County Prosecutor Camelia M. Valdes, the Paterson Police Department, under the direction of Paterson Police Director Jerry Speziale and Police Chief Troy Oswald, and the Paterson Police Department Office of Internal Affairs, for their assistance in the investigation.

The government is represented by Assistant U.S. Attorney Rahul Agarwal, Deputy Chief of the Criminal Division.

Defense counsel: Dennis S. Cleary Esq., West Orange, New Jersey

NEWARK, N.J. – A City of Paterson police officer today admitted conspiring with other officers to violate the civil rights of individuals in Paterson, and to filing a false police report to conceal his criminal activity, U.S. Attorney Craig Carpenito announced.

Police Officer Matthew Torres, 30, of Paterson, New Jersey, pleaded guilty before U.S. District Judge Katharine S. Hayden in Newark federal court to an information charging him with conspiracy to violate individuals’ civil rights and filing a false police report.

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

Torres, along with other Paterson police officers, including Eudy Ramos, Jonathan Bustios, Daniel Pent, and others, stopped and searched motor vehicles, without any justification, and stole cash and other items from the occupants of the motor vehicles. Torres and the other officers sometimes used fake paperwork to trick individuals into believing that the cash seizures and vehicle stops represented legitimate law enforcement encounters. Torres and the other officers also stopped and searched individuals on the streets of Paterson, and illegally took their money. To cover up their criminal activity, Torres and his fellow officers filed false police reports.

For example, on Dec. 7, 2017, while on duty, Torres and Ramos conducted a vehicle stop in Paterson. Torres and Ramos searched the vehicle, the driver, and the passenger. The passenger advised Torres and Ramos that he had a small quantity of marijuana. He also had approximately $3,100. Ramos and Torres told the passenger that they could take $500 from the passenger and have him sign a piece of paper. Ramos then placed a call, purportedly to his superior, and told the passenger that the superior officer said it had to be $800. Ramos took out a piece of white paper, wrote something on it, and told the passenger to sign it. Afterwards, Torres and Ramos released the driver and passenger. Torres and Ramos stole approximately $800 from the passenger, and they shared the stolen cash proceeds. In order to conceal their theft of monies, Torres and Ramos each omitted the encounter from their daily Paterson Police Department activity logs.

The conspiracy to violate civil rights charge carries a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison. The false records count carries a maximum penalty of 20 years in prison. The maximum fine for each count is $250,000. Sentencing is scheduled for Sept. 9, 2019.

U.S. Attorney Carpenito credited special agents of the FBI, under the direction of Special Agent in Charge Gregory W. Ehrie in Newark, with the investigation leading to today’s arrest. He also thanked the Passaic County Prosecutor’s Office, under the direction of Passaic County Prosecutor Camelia M. Valdes, the Paterson Police Department, under the direction of Paterson Police Director Jerry Speziale and Police Chief Troy Oswald, and the Paterson Police Department Office of Internal Affairs, for their assistance in the investigation.

The government is represented by Assistant U.S. Attorney Rahul Agarwal, Deputy Chief of the Criminal Division.

Defense counsel: John C. Whipple Esq., Morristown, New Jersey

NEWARK, N.J. – A City of Paterson police officer was arrested today and charged with conspiring to violate the civil rights of motor vehicle occupants and others in Paterson, New Jersey, U.S. Attorney Craig Carpenito announced.

Daniel Pent, 32, of Paterson, was arrested by special agents of the FBI on a complaint charging him with conspiring to deprive individuals of civil rights under color of law. Pent is scheduled to have his initial appearance this afternoon before U.S. Magistrate Judge Steven C. Mannion in Newark federal court.

According to documents filed in this and other cases and statements made in court:

Pent, and other Paterson police officers, including Eudy Ramos, stopped and searched motor vehicles, without any justification, and stole cash and other items from the occupants of the motor vehicles. Pent, Ramos, and others also illegally stopped and searched individuals in buildings or on the streets of Paterson and seized cash from those individuals.

On Feb. 1, 2017, Pent and Ramos stopped and searched a vehicle in Paterson, detained and handcuffed the occupants, and stole approximately $10,000 from one of the occupants. Pent told Ramos that either they should take all of the money or they should take none of it, and they chose to take all of it. They split the money between themselves. Pent and Ramos subsequently arrested the victim and charged the victim with loitering in a drug area. Pent filled out a prisoner property report for the victim that falsely stated that the victim had approximately $36 on his person. Ramos and Pent submitted an incident report in which they omitted the fact that they had located, and seized, $10,000 from the victim.

A federal grand jury indicted Ramos on March 20, 2019, for his role in the conspiracy and other civil rights and false records charges. His case is pending before U.S. District Judge Katharine S. Hayden.

The conspiracy to violate civil rights charge carries a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison and a fine of $250,000.

U.S. Attorney Carpenito credited special agents of the FBI, under the direction of Special Agent in Charge Gregory W. Ehrie in Newark, with the investigation leading to today’s arrest. He also thanked the Passaic County Prosecutor’s Office, under the direction of Passaic County Prosecutor Camelia M. Valdes, the Paterson Police Department, under the direction of Paterson Police Director Jerry Speziale and Police Chief Troy Oswald, and the Paterson Police Department Office of Internal Affairs, for their assistance in the investigation.

The government is represented by Assistant U.S. Attorney Rahul Agarwal, Deputy Chief of the Criminal Division.

NEWARK, N.J. – A federal grand jury indicted a City of Paterson, New Jersey, police officer for conspiring to violate individuals’ civil rights by stopping and searching people in their vehicles and on the street and stealing their cash, U.S. Attorney Craig Carpenito announced.

Eudy Ramos, 28, of Paterson, was charged in a nine-count indictment with conspiring to violate, and violating, the civil rights of individuals in Paterson, and with filing multiple false reports to conceal his criminal conduct. Ramos was previously charged by criminal complaint in April 2018. He will be arraigned in federal court on a date to be determined.

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

Eudy Ramos, Jonathan Bustios, and Matthew Torres were police officers with the Paterson Police Department (PPD). From at least 2016 to April 2018, they and other police officers, identified in the indictment as PPD Officer 1 and PPD Officer 2, allegedly targeted, stopped, and searched vehicles and the occupants of those vehicles and illegally seized cash from them. They also illegally stopped and searched individuals in buildings or on the streets of Paterson and seized their cash. They split the cash among themselves and submitted false reports to the PPD, omitting their illegal conduct or lying about it.

Among the methods employed to carry out the conspiracy, Ramos and the other officers used text messages to communicate about their criminal conduct. For instance, on Feb. 24, 2018 Ramos sent a text message to Bustios and Torres asking if they were in the mood for “weekend mangoes,” using the code word “mango” to refer to the illegal seizure of cash. On Feb. 25, 2018, Ramos sent a text message to Bustios, telling Bustios that Ramos was “tryna get someone in a car,” referring to Ramos’ plan to illegally steal cash from the occupants of vehicles in Paterson. On Dec. 7, 2017, Bustios sent a text message to Ramos, “83 auburn back door is open,” and Ramos responded, “On my way.” The address 83 Auburn Street was one of several locations that Ramos and others targeted for illegal cash seizures.

Some instances of Ramos’ and his conspirators illegal conduct include:

On Feb.1, 2017, Ramos and another PPD officer stopped and searched a vehicle, detained and handcuffed the occupants, and stole approximately $10,000 from one of the passengers. Ramos and his conspirator split the money between themselves and omitted any mention of the $10,000 in the PPD incident report and prisoner property report.

On Dec. 1, 2017, Ramos and Bustios stopped and searched an individual on a street corner in Paterson and stole approximately $1,000 from the individual. After the theft, a video of a portion of the encounter was posted to Twitter.

On Dec. 7, 2017, Torres and Ramos conducted a vehicle stop in Paterson. Torres and Ramos searched the vehicle, the driver, and the passenger, who had $3,100 and marijuana. Ramos told the passenger that instead of charging the passenger with distribution of marijuana they could take $500 from the passenger and have the passenger sign a piece of paper. Ramos then purportedly placed a call to his superior and told the passenger that the superior officer said it had to be $800. Ramos took out a piece of paper, wrote on it, and told the passenger to sign it. The passenger did not know what was written on the paper. Afterwards, Torres and Ramos released the driver and passenger. Torres and Ramos shared the stolen cash proceeds. Ramos and Torres did not report the stop and search of the vehicle and its occupants, or the cash seizure, to the Paterson Police Department.

The conspiracy count carries a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison and the substantive Counts 2 to 6 each carry a maximum penalty of one year in prison. The false records counts each carry a maximum penalty of 20 years in prison. The maximum fine for the felony counts is $250,000, and the maximum fine for the misdemeanor Counts 2 to 6 is $100,000.

U.S. Attorney Carpenito credited special agents of the FBI, under the direction of Special Agent in Charge Gregory W. Ehrie in Newark, with the investigation leading to today’s indictment. He also thanked the Passaic County Prosecutor’s Office, under the direction of Passaic County Prosecutor Camelia M. Valdes, the Paterson Police Department, under the direction of Paterson Police Director Jerry Speziale and Police Chief Troy Oswald, and the Paterson Police Department Office of Internal Affairs, for their assistance in the investigation.

The government is represented by Assistant U.S. Attorney Rahul Agarwal, Deputy Chief of the Criminal Division.

Defense counsel: Miles Feinstein Esq., Clifton, New Jersey

NEWARK, N.J. – A City of Paterson, New Jersey, police officer was arrested today and charged with violating the civil rights of a driver and passenger during a motor vehicle stop, U.S. Attorney Craig Carpenito announced.

Police Officer Matthew Torres, 30, of Paterson, was arrested by federal agents this morning and charged by complaint with conspiring to deprive individuals of civil rights under color of law. Torres is scheduled to have his initial appearance this afternoon before U.S. Magistrate Judge Steven C. Mannion in Newark federal court.

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

Torres and other Paterson police officers, including Eudy Ramos, have without justification stopped and searched motor vehicles and stolen cash and other items from the occupants. The officers sometimes used fake paperwork to trick individuals into believing that the cash seizures and vehicle stops were legitimate.

For example, on Dec. 7, 2017, Torres and Ramos conducted a vehicle stop in Paterson, searched the vehicle, driver, and passenger and placed the driver in one police car and the passenger in the other. The passenger told Torres and Ramos that he possessed two bags of marijuana and $3,100. Ramos took the money, placed it on the backseat of the vehicle and told the passenger that he did not care about the marijuana. Ramos told the passenger that they could not simply let him go because his activity likely had been picked up by Paterson police cameras. Ramos said he and Ramos could take $500 from the passenger, have him sign a piece of paper, and then give that paper to the narcotics division. Ramos then placed a call, purportedly to his superior, and told the passenger that the superior officer said it had to be $800. Ramos took out a piece of white paper, wrote something on it, and told the passenger to sign it. The passenger did not know what was written on the paper. Afterwards, Torres and Ramos released the driver and passenger. According to the passenger, there was $1,000 missing from his original $3,100. Torres and Ramos shared the stolen cash proceeds. They did not report the illegal cash seizure to the Paterson Police Department.

The conspiracy to violate civil rights charge carries a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison and a fine of up to $250,000.

U.S. Attorney Carpenito credited special agents of the FBI, under the direction of Special Agent in Charge Gregory Ehrie in Newark, with the investigation leading to today’s arrest. He also thanked the Passaic County Prosecutor’s Office, under the direction of Passaic County Prosecutor Camelia M. Valdes, the Paterson Police Department, under the direction of Paterson Police Director Jerry Speziale and Police Chief Troy Oswald, and the Paterson Police Department Office of Internal Affairs, for their assistance in the investigation.

The government is represented by Assistant U.S. Attorney Rahul Agarwal, Deputy Chief of the Criminal Division.

NEWARK, N.J. – A City of Paterson police officer today admitted conspiring with other officers to violate individuals’ civil rights and to personally accepting a firearm in exchange for reducing the charges on an arrestee, U.S. Attorney Craig Carpenito announced.

Police Officer Jonathan Bustios, 29, of Paterson, New Jersey, pleaded guilty before U.S. District Judge Katharine S. Hayden in Newark federal court to an information charging him with one count of conspiracy to violate individuals’ civil rights and one count of extortion under color of official right.

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

Bustios and Eudy Ramos were police officers with the Paterson Police Department. From at least 2016 to April 2018, Bustios, Ramos and others participated in a conspiracy in which they targeted and stopped certain individuals who were driving motor vehicles that they believed carried sums of money. Bustios, Ramos and others stopped the vehicles, searched the vehicles, driver, and passengers, and seized cash from the driver and passengers of the vehicles, without legal basis. They then split the cash among themselves and submitted false reports to the Paterson Police Department omitting the illegal vehicle stops and their thefts or lying about them.

In one incident, on Feb. 20, 2018, while on duty and in uniform, Bustios pulled over and stopped behind a BMW, while Ramos stopped in front of the BMW. Bustios and Ramos exited their police cars and searched the front and back of the BMW and the trunk, and Bustios and Ramos detained and searched the two occupants of the BMW. They put each of the occupants into the backseat of Ramos’s police car. Bustios then stole a bag containing approximately $1,800 from the car and left the scene, and Ramos released the two detained occupants of the BMW. Ramos drove to meet Bustios, who passed a portion of the recovered cash to Ramos through the window of Bustios’ police car. Bustios and Ramos did not report to the Paterson Police Department the fact that they had stopped and searched the BMW, detained and searched its occupants, and taken cash, all without any warrants or legal justification.

Bustios also pleaded guilty to extortion under color of official right, arising out of an incident on March 14, 2018. Bustios arrested and detained an individual and placed the individual in the backseat of his police car. Bustios told the individual that he would not charge him with resisting arrest and would allow him to keep the cash that the he had on him, in exchange for which the individual would find Bustios a firearm. Bustios said, “I ain’t gonna charge you with resisting, and I’m letting you keep your money, bro.” Bustios then told the individual, “If you don’t wanna make the deal, you don’t have to make the deal.” The individual ultimately agreed to the deal and directed Bustios to the location of a firearm. Bustios recovered the firearm and kept it without turning it in to the Paterson Police Department. As promised, he did not charge the individual with resisting arrest. Bustios also submitted an arrest report in which he failed to mention any details about having a recovered a firearm.

The conspiracy to violate civil rights count carries a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison. The extortion under color of official right count carries a maximum penalty of 20 years in prison. The maximum fine for both charges is $250,000. Sentencing is scheduled for April 9, 2019.

U.S. Attorney Carpenito credited special agents of the FBI, under the direction of Special Agent in Charge Gregory W. Ehrie in Newark, with the investigation leading to today’s guilty plea. He also thanked the Passaic County Prosecutor’s Office, under the direction of Passaic County Prosecutor Camelia M. Valdes, the Paterson Police Department, under the direction of Paterson Police Director Jerry Speziale and Police Chief Troy Oswald, and the Paterson Police Department Office of Internal Affairs, for their assistance in the investigation.

The government is represented by Assistant U.S. Attorney Rahul Agarwal, Deputy Chief of the Criminal Division.

Defense counsel: Michael Koribanics, Clifton, New Jersey

NEWARK, N.J. – Two Passaic County, New Jersey, men were arrested today for allegedly violating the civil rights of two individuals during a motor vehicle stop in Paterson, New Jersey, with one officer also being charged with extortion for personally accepting a firearm in exchange for reducing the charges on an arrestee, U.S. Attorney Craig Carpenito announced.

Jonathan Bustios, 28, and Eudy Ramos, 31, both of Paterson, New Jersey, were arrested by federal agents this morning and charged by complaint with conspiring to deprive individuals of civil rights under color of law. Bustios was also charged with one count of extortion under color of official right. Both defendants are scheduled to appear this afternoon before U.S. Magistrate Judge Michael A. Hammer in Newark federal court.

According to the complaint:

The investigation uncovered instances in which Bustios and Ramos, both officers of the Paterson Police Department, allegedly stopped motor vehicles, detained the occupants, and searched those vehicles without any justification. On certain occasions, Bustios and Ramos also took cash and other items without justification before releasing the detained occupants.

For example, on Feb. 20, 2018, while on duty, Bustios pulled over a BMW and stopped behind the vehicle, while Ramos stopped his police car in front of the vehicle. Bustios and Ramos exited their police cars and proceeded to search the front and back of the BMW and the trunk. Bustios and Ramos also detained and searched the two occupants of the BMW and put them into the backseat of Ramos’ police car.

After searching the BMW, Bustios left the scene, drove for ten minutes, then stopped his police car and took out a white plastic bag that was filled with cash. Bustios also took out a firearm. He then called Ramos, after which Ramos released the two detained occupants of the BMW and drove to meet Bustios. Bustios passed a portion of the recovered cash to Ramos through the window of Bustios’ police car.

Later that day, Bustios and Ramos turned in the firearm that they had recovered. In the offense report pertaining to the firearm, they told a false story about having recovered the firearm due to a tip by a concerned citizen. In fact, there was no tip by a concerned citizen. They did not report to the Paterson Police Department that they had stopped and searched the BMW, detained and searched its occupants, and taken cash, all without any warrants.

Bustios was also charged with extortion under color of official right for an incident that allegedly occurred on March 14, 2018. Bustios arrested and detained an individual and placed the individual in the backseat of his police car. Bustios then told the individual that Bustios would not charge the individual with resisting arrest and would allow the individual to keep the cash that the individual had on him, in exchange for the individual helping Bustios acquire a firearm. Specifically, Bustios said, “I ain’t gonna charge you with resisting, and I’m letting you keep your money bro.” Bustios then told the individual, “If you don’t wanna make the deal, you don’t have to make the deal.”

The individual ultimately agreed and directed Bustios to the location of a firearm, which Bustios allegedly recovered and kept without turning it over to the Paterson Police Department. According to Paterson Police Department records, as he had promised, Bustios did not charge the individual with resisting arrest. Bustios also submitted an arrest report in which he failed to mention any details about recovering a firearm.

The conspiracy to violate civil rights count with which Bustios and Ramos are charged carries a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison. The extortion under color of official right count with which Bustios is charged carries a maximum penalty of 20 years in prison.

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

U.S. Attorney Carpenito credited special agents of the FBI, under the direction of Acting Special Agent in Charge Bradley W. Cohen in Newark, with the ongoing investigation leading to today’s arrest. He also thanked the Paterson Police Department, under the direction of Paterson Police Director Jerry Speziale and Police Chief Troy Oswald, as well as the Paterson Police Department Office of Internal Affairs, for their assistance in the investigation.

The government is represented by Assistant U.S. Attorney Rahul Agarwal, Deputy Chief of the U.S. Attorney’s Office Criminal Division.

Docket (0 Docs):   https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Tn-haja94SVT-TQ7SAgJWyuNs2Ra2BgpcyvEyj-Km4o
  Last Updated: 2023-10-19 22:50:09 UTC
Description: The fiscal year of the data file obtained from the AOUSC
Format: YYYY

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Description: A count of original proceedings commenced
Format: N1

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

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

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

Description: A count of original proceedings terminated
Format: N1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Data imported from FJC Integrated Database
Score:   0.5
Docket Number:   aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuanVzdGljZS5nb3YvdXNhby1uai9wci91bmlvbi1jb3VudHktbWFuLXNlbnRlbmNlZC0xMC15ZWFycy1wcmlzb24tZmlyZWFybXMtb2ZmZW5zZS1jb25uZWN0aW9uLXNob290aW5n
  Press Releases:
NEWARK, N.J. – A Union County, New Jersey, man convicted of being a felon in possession of a semi-automatic submachine gun with a high capacity magazine was sentenced today to 120 months in prison, Acting U.S. Attorney Rachael A. Honig announced.

Jarrell L. Daniels, 29, of Elizabeth, New Jersey, was convicted on Feb. 21, 2020, after a two and a half-day trial before U.S. District Judge Kevin McNulty in Newark of one count of being a felon in possession of a semi-automatic submachine gun with a high capacity magazine and multiple rounds of ammunition.  

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

On the morning of April 9, 2018, Daniels was walking down Irvington Avenue in Elizabeth carrying a loaded .45 caliber Masterpiece Arms ACP submachine gun with 30 additional rounds of ammunition in an extended magazine. Daniels was wearing a disguise, as well as latex gloves. He came upon his victim and opened fire, shooting at his victim 16 times, but none of the shots struck the victim. As he fled, Daniels dropped his head covering and later stashed the gun and other items of clothing in a nearby trashcan. DNA on these items, as well as surveillance footage and ballistics evidence, ultimately enabled the authorities to identify Daniels as the shooter.

In addition to the prison term, Judge McNulty sentenced Daniels to three years of supervised release.

Acting U.S. Attorney Honig credited law enforcement officers of the Elizabeth Police Department, under the direction of Police Chief Giacomo Sacca.; the Union County Sheriff’s Office, under the direction of Sheriff Peter Corvelli; special agents of the FBI, under the direction of Special Agent in Charge George M. Crouch Jr. in Newark; special agents of the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, under the direction of Special Agent in Charge Charlie J. Patterson; and the Union County Prosecutor’s Office, under the direction of Acting Prosecutor Lyndsay V. Ruotolo, with the investigation leading to today’s sentencing.

The government was represented by Assistant U.S. Attorneys Vera Varshavsky and Sammi Malek of the Criminal Division of the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Newark.

Score:   0.5
Docket Number:   aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuanVzdGljZS5nb3YvdXNhby1uai9wci90d28tbGVhZGVycy1yZWFsLWVzdGF0ZS1pbnZlc3RtZW50LWZpcm0taW5kaWN0ZWQtNjUwLW1pbGxpb24tcG9uemktc2NoZW1lLWNvbnNwaXJhY3k
  Press Releases:
NEWARK, N.J. – The president and a top officer of a real estate investment company were charged for their roles in a scheme to defraud more than 2,000 investors in a $650 million Ponzi scheme, and with conspiring to evade $26 million in tax liabilities, U.S. Attorney Philip R. Sellinger announced today.

Thomas Nicholas Salzano, aka “Nicholas Salzano,” 64, of Secaucus, New Jersey, and Rey E. Grabato II, 43, of Hoboken, New Jersey, and the Republic of the Philippines, are charged in an 18-count indictment unsealed Oct. 12, 2022, with conspiracy to commit securities fraud, securities fraud, conspiracy to commit wire fraud, wire fraud, and conspiracy to defraud the United States. Salzano is also charged with two counts of aggravated identity theft, two counts of tax evasion, and five counts of subscribing to false tax returns.

Salzano was arrested Oct. 12, 2022, and is scheduled to appear by videoconference this afternoon before U.S. Magistrate Judge Leda Dunn Wettre. Grabato remains at large.

Also today, Arthur S. Scuttaro, 62, of Nutley, New Jersey, the former head of sales at National Realty Investment Advisors LLC (NRIA), pleaded guilty before U.S. District Judge Evelyn Padin in Newark federal court to an information charging him with one count of conspiracy to commit securities fraud in the same scheme. His sentencing is scheduled for Feb. 23, 2023.

“As charged in the indictment, these defendants schemed to create a high-pressure, fraudulent marketing campaign to hoodwink investors into believing that their bogus real estate venture generated substantial profits,” U.S. Attorney Sellinger said.  “In reality, their criminal tactics were straight out of the Ponzi scheme playbook so that they could cheat their investors and line their own pockets. Our message from today’s charges is that we remain deeply committed to rooting out all types of financial fraud schemes. These schemes undermine our markets and erode the public’s trust in investing. Together with our enforcement partners, we will continue to prioritize investigating and prosecuting financial crime in all of its forms.”   

“This case should serve as a cautionary tale to the consumer,” FBI Special Agent in Charge James E. Dennehy said. “Before you entrust your hard-earned savings to someone, do your research on the trustee and the product they are selling; become familiar with the red flags that can alert you to a fraud; don’t let dollar signs cloud your judgement; and remember the old adage that if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is. Slick pamphlets, flashy commercials, and ads that feature celebrities do not add up to the most important element – credibility. The FBI works diligently to protect the American public, arrest lawbreakers, and recoup whatever stolen funds haven’t evaporated. The sad fact is the consumer is rarely made whole. Skepticism and analysis are still the best protection.”

“This was a brazen scheme of staggering proportions,” Tammy Tomlins, IRS Criminal Investigation Acting Special Agent in Charge of the Newark Field Office, said. “These defendants prioritized their own greed, stealing $650 million from investors, while conspiring to evade $26 million in tax liabilities. The indictment sends a clear message that the IRS Criminal Investigation special agents and our law enforcement partners, remain vigilant and will vigorously pursue those who attempt to enrich themselves through fraudulent means.”

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

Grabato was president of NRIA and Salzano was the firm’s shadow chief executive officer. From February 2018 through January 2022, Salzano and Grabato defrauded investors and potential investors of NRIA Partners Portfolio Fund I LLC, a real estate fund operated by NRIA, of $650 million through lies, deception, misleading statements, and material omissions. These included false representations about NRIA’s financial position, how the defendants and their conspirators used fund investor money, and Salzano’s managerial role at NRIA and his history of fraud.

The defendants executed their scheme through an aggressive multi-year, nationwide marketing campaign that involved thousands of emails to investors; advertisements on billboards, television, and radio; and meetings and presentations to investors. Salzano led and directed the marketing campaign, which employed deception, material misrepresentations and omissions, and falsified documents to manipulate investors. The marketing campaign was intended to mislead investors into believing that NRIA was a solvent business that generated significant profits. In reality, NRIA generated little to no profits and operated as a Ponzi scheme, which was kept afloat by new investors. Despite investing almost none of their own capital into the business, the defendants misappropriated millions of dollars of investor money.

Salzano concealed his true managerial role at NRIA while using Grabato as a stand-in CEO in an effort to avoid scrutiny by investors of Salzano’s prior guilty plea to defrauding small businesses in Louisiana through a large telecommunications company. 

Salzano and Grabato also orchestrated a separate conspiracy to defraud the IRS in its effort to collect $26 million in outstanding taxes Salzano owed to the U.S. Treasury. Salzano and Grabato are alleged to have lied to the IRS, used a web of nominees, opened bank accounts in the names of phony entities, and used false and fraudulent company documents. 

The conspiracy to commit securities fraud and conspiracy to defraud the United States counts charged in the indictment both carry a maximum penalty of five years in prison and a $250,000 fine. The securities fraud count carries a maximum penalty of 20 years in prison and a $5 million fine. The wire fraud conspiracy and wire fraud counts are both punishable by a maximum penalty of 20 years in prison and a $250,000 fine. The tax evasion counts both carry a maximum penalty of five years in prison and a $100,000 fine. The subscribing to false tax return counts each carry a maximum penalty of three years in prison and a $100,000 fine. The aggravated identity theft counts carry a mandatory sentence of two years in prison, which must be served consecutively to any other sentence imposed.

In a separate civil action, the Securities and Exchange Commission filed a complaint today in the District of New Jersey against Salzano, Grabato, Scuttaro, and others based on the allegations underlying the Ponzi scheme alleged in the indictment and information.

U.S. Attorney Sellinger credited special agents of the FBI, under the direction of Special Agent in Charge James E. Dennehy in Newark, and special agents of IRS-Criminal Investigation, under the direction of Acting Special Agent in Charge Tammy Tomlins in Newark, with the investigation. He also thanked the Securities and Exchange Commission, New York Regional Office, for its cooperation and assistance during the investigation. 

The government is represented by Assistant U.S. Attorneys Jonathan Fayer, of the Economic Crimes Unit, and Lauren E. Repole, Chief of the General Crimes Unit.

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

Score:   0.5
Docket Number:   aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuanVzdGljZS5nb3YvdXNhby1uai9wci9mb3JtZXItdW5pb24tb2ZmaWNlci1hbmQtZGF1Z2h0ZXItY2hhcmdlZC1lbWJlenpsZW1lbnQ
  Press Releases:
NEWARK, N.J. – The former secretary treasurer of a Jersey City Medical Center union and her daughter made their initial appearances today on charges they embezzled $40,455 from the union’s checking and savings accounts, U.S. Attorney Craig Carpenito announced.

Linda Rogers, 71, and her daughter, Jennifer Rogers, 38, both of Jersey City, were indicted by a federal grand jury with one count each of conspiracy to embezzle and embezzlement. They allegedly embezzled $40,500 from Local 2254 of the American Federal State County and Municipal Amalgamated Transit Workers Union (AFSCME). The defendants made their initial appearances today by videoconference before U.S. Magistrate Judge Joseph A. Dickson and were released on bond. They will be arraigned Aug. 19, 2020, by videoconference before U.S. District Judge Stanley R. Chesler.

According to the indictment :

Linda Rogers was formerly employed at the Jersey City Medical Center as a medical clerk; she also held a part-time position at Local 2254 as its secretary treasurer. She had sole control over the union’s checkbook and savings account. From July 2016 through August 2017, she and her daughter, also a former employee at the hospital, deposited 112 unauthorized checks from the Local 2254’s checkbook to their joint checking and savings accounts, totaling $35,267.  From October 2016 through December 2016, Linda Rogers made six telephonic wire transfers from the Local 2254’s savings account, totaling $5,188, into her personal credit card account. None of the expenditures were authorized or for legitimate union purposes. The total loss to AFSCME Local 2254 was $40,455.

The counts of conspiracy to embezzle and embezzlement each carry a maximum penalty of five years in prison and a $250,000 fine.

U.S. Attorney Carpenito credited the investigators of the U.S. Department of Labor, Office of Labor Management Standards, under the direction of Adriana Vamvakas, Regional Director; and special agents of the Department of Labor (OIG), New York Region, under the direction of Special Agent in Charge Michael Mikulka, with the investigation leading to the charges.

The government is represented by Senior Litigation Counsel V. Grady O’Malley of the U.S. Attorney’s Office’s Organized Crime/Gangs Unit.

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

Score:   0.5
Docket Number:   aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuanVzdGljZS5nb3YvdXNhby1uai9wci9mb3JtZXItZGVwb3J0YXRpb24tb2ZmaWNlci1zZW50ZW5jZWQtc2V2ZW4teWVhcnMtcHJpc29uLWFjY2VwdGluZy1icmliZXMtaGFyYm9yaW5n
  Press Releases:
NEWARK, N.J. – A Somerset, New Jersey, man was sentenced today to 84 months in prison for accepting cash bribes and sex in exchange for providing employment authorization documents and concealing his employment of an undocumented immigrant at a hair salon he owned, Acting U.S. Attorney William E. Fitzpatrick announced.

Arnaldo Echevarria, 40, a former deportation officer with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), was previously convicted of Counts 1-6 and Counts 8 and 9 of an indictment charging him with seven counts of accepting bribes, one count of harboring an undocumented immigrant and one count of making false statements to immigration authorities. He was acquitted on Count 7, one of the bribery counts. Echevarria was convicted following a one-week trial before U.S. District Judge Esther Salas, who imposed the sentence today in Newark federal court.

According to statements made in court and evidence presented at trial:

As a deportation officer, Echevarria enforced immigration and customs laws by identifying, locating, arresting and removing undocumented immigrants from the United States and by supervising certain undocumented immigrants who had not yet been deported.  Undocumented immigrants subject to a deportation order often were able to obtain employment authorization documents which allowed them to legally work in the United States for a one-year period and which could be renewed annually. 

Between 2012 and 2014, Echevarria agreed to obtain employment authorization documents for undocumented immigrants who were not lawfully present in the country. In return, Echevarria demanded and received approximately $75,000 in cash bribes, and demanded and received sex from one individual. In order to conceal them from immigration authorities, Echevarria falsely stated that they had been granted temporary protected status, which allows nationals from certain countries experiencing environmental disaster, ongoing armed conflict, or other extraordinary conditions to lawfully remain in the United States. None of the individuals who bribed Echevarria had actually applied for, or received, temporary protected status.

In December 2012, Echevarria received permission from his superiors at ICE to open a hair salon in West Orange, New Jersey. Echevarria certified to ICE that the hair salon would not conflict with ICE matters and would not involve undocumented workers. However, Echevarria employed his girlfriend at the time, an undocumented immigrant, to manage the salon. Echevarria’s girlfriend had entered the United States illegally, using the name and identification of an individual in Puerto Rico to obtain a Pennsylvania identification card.

Echevarria knew his girlfriend resided in the United States illegally. Prior to opening the hair salon, Echevarria queried the name and date of birth of his girlfriend’s alias in various law enforcement databases. After opening the salon, Echevarria ensured that his girlfriend’s illegal status remained a secret by signing the lease for her apartment and by placing her cable and electric bills in his name. In addition to driving his girlfriend and other employees to and from the salon each day, Echevarria also paid the employees in cash and never asked them to fill out employment eligibility paperwork. 

In addition to the prison term, Judge Salas sentenced Echevarria to three years of supervised release and ordered to pay forfeiture of $75,000.

Acting U.S. Attorney Fitzpatrick credited special agents of ICE, Office of Professional Responsibility, under the direction of Special Agent in Charge Keith Barwick, with the investigation leading to today’s sentencing.

The government is represented by Assistant U.S. Attorneys Rahul Agarwal of the U.S. Attorney’s Office Special Prosecutions Division in Newark, and Barbara Llanes, Deputy Chief of the General Crimes Unit.

Defense counsel: Michael Koribanics Esq., Clifton, New Jersey

Score:   0.5
Docket Number:   aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuanVzdGljZS5nb3YvdXNhby1uai9wci9waGlsYWRlbHBoaWEtZGlzdHJpY3QtYXR0b3JuZXktcnVmdXMtc2V0aC13aWxsaWFtcy1pbmRpY3RlZC1hZGRpdGlvbmFsLWZyYXVkLWNoYXJnZXM
  Press Releases:
PHILADELPHIA – Philadelphia District Attorney Rufus Seth Williams was indicted today on additional fraud charges stemming from his alleged use of political action committee (PAC) funds and official government vehicles for his personal benefit, Acting New Jersey U.S. Attorney William E. Fitzpatrick announced.

Williams, 50, of Philadelphia, is now charged in a superseding indictment with 11 counts of travel and use of interstate facilities to promote and facilitate bribery contrary to Pennsylvania law (the “Travel Act counts”), two counts of Hobbs Act extortion under color of official right, two counts of honest services wire fraud, 12 counts of wire fraud and two counts of mail fraud.

 Williams was originally charged in a 23-count indictment on March 21, 2017. The superseding indictment now contains 29 counts, including Counts 22 to 29 regarding Williams’ use of PAC funds and official vehicles.

The Fraud Involving PAC Funds Friends of Seth Williams, a/k/a “The Committee to Elect Seth Williams,” was a political action committee that accepted contributions from individuals to support Williams’ campaigns for public office. Under applicable law, the PAC funds could only be used in relation to political campaigns.

According to the superseding indictment, from August 2010 through August 2016, Williams allegedly defrauded the PAC by using its funds for personal expenditures, which he concealed by providing false or incomplete reports to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and to the City of Philadelphia.

For instance, between August 2010 and September 2010, the PAC disbursed two checks to a political consultant totaling approximately $4,136.59. The memo line on these checks falsely stated, “Political Consulting.” Within days of the political consultant receiving the PAC checks, Williams obtained checks from the political consultant’s account and deposited them into his own bank account. In total, Williams received approximately $4,036.59 of the approximately $4,136.59 that the political consultant received from the PAC between August 2010 and September 2010. Williams used these funds for personal expenses.

In addition, from October 2011 through April 2015, Williams incurred expenses at a social club for his personal benefit, including dinner parties, lodging, and family events, none of which were incurred in connection with any election. Williams used the PAC’s debit card to pay for these expenses, including charges of $677.98 for a New Year’s Eve celebration at the social club on Dec. 31, 2013 for Williams and his girlfriend; $195.50 for a facial and massage in January 2014; $777.19 for an April 10, 2014 birthday dinner that Williams held for his girlfriend; $491.50 for a massage, facial, gift card, and fitness classes in January 2015; approximately $2,674.41 for an April 10, 2015 birthday dinner that Williams held for his girlfriend; and approximately $211.50 for massages in May 2015.

From January 2013 through May 2015, Williams incurred expenses at a health club for his own personal benefit, including massages, facials, and clothing, none of which were incurred in connection with any election. Williams also used the PAC’s debit card to pay for these expenses, including charges for massages of $222.50 in January 2013, $209 in July 2013, $251.50 in September 2013, and $90 in November 2013.

The Fraud Involving Official Government Vehicles Williams also allegedly engaged in a scheme to use official vehicles – which were provided by the City of Philadelphia and a federal narcotics law enforcement program – for his personal benefit.

 

Some of those vehicles were obtained through grants provided by the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area (HIDTA) program. The purpose of the HIDTA program was to reduce illegal drug trafficking and drug production in the United States by, among other things, facilitating cooperation among federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies. The HIDTA program provided resources and funding to enhance and promote regional drug control strategies within defined geographic areas. Each geographic area designated as a HIDTA was governed by an Executive Board comprised of federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies.

 

Williams was a member of the Executive Board for the HIDTA of Philadelphia and Camden, New Jersey. The District Attorney’s Office (DAO) assigned HIDTA vehicles to detectives in its Dangerous Drug Offender Unit (DDOU), which often conducted narcotics investigations with federal and state HIDTA partners. Vehicles owned or leased by these agencies could not be used for personal purposes.

According to the superseding indictment, Williams repeatedly used city and HIDTA vehicles for his personal use during non-working hours, including weeknights and weekends. Williams directed his security detail to leave a city or HIDTA vehicle at his home every weeknight, so that he would have access to it during all non-working hours. Williams used the vehicles to transport himself, family members, friends and other non-employees on non-DAO business, including personal trips outside of Philadelphia.

During the scheme, Williams had full-time access to city or HIDTA vehicles for nearly all of his personal vehicular needs and personally incurred almost no expenses related to the use of a personal vehicle for years, including costs of purchasing, leasing, or renting a vehicle, or paying for insurance, fuel, and maintenance.

In addition, Williams’ acquisition and use of the HIDTA vehicles, including a Nissan Armada SUV and two Chevrolet Tahoe SUVs, reduced the number of vehicles available to members of the DAO’s DDOU for undercover operations, surveillance, and other aspects of narcotics investigations.

Bribes Involving Business Owners and Fraud on a Nursing Home and Family Friends

Williams remains charged with the same three schemes that were detailed in the March 21, 2017 indictment:

• From July 2010 through May 2015, Williams allegedly had an arrangement with an individual identified in the superseding indictment as “Business Owner #1,” in which Williams, while serving as the Philadelphia District Attorney, accepted trips, money, and other things of value in exchange for performing and agreeing to perform official acts on behalf of Business Owner #1.

• From March 2012 through July 2015, Williams allegedly had an arrangement with an individual identified in the superseding indictment as “Business Owner #2,” in which Williams accepted airline tickets, money, an automobile, and other things of value in exchange for performing and agreeing to perform official acts on behalf of Business Owner #2.

• From February 2012 through November 2013, Williams allegedly diverted a relative’s pension and Social Security payments to pay for his own personal expenses instead of applying them to the relative’s nursing home costs. In addition, after accepting $10,000 from friends of his relative intended to cover expenses for the relative’s nursing home care, Williams spent the money on his personal expenses instead.

The 29-count superseding indictment presents some alterations to the original counts, without changing the substance of the above allegations. Williams was arraigned on March 22, 2017, and entered a plea of not guilty. The trial is presently set for May 31, 2017.

Each of the Travel Act counts is punishable by a maximum potential penalty of five years in prison. The Hobbs Act extortion under color of official right and the wire and mail fraud charges are each punishable by a maximum potential penalty of 20 years in prison. Each count carries a potential fine of $250,000 or twice the gross gain or loss from the offense. The indictment also seeks forfeiture of a total of approximately $64,878.22, representing the sum of approximately $33,765.52 worth of bribe proceeds and approximately $31,112.70 worth of fraud proceeds.

Acting U.S. Attorney Fitzpatrick credited special agents of the FBI, under the direction of Special Agent in Charge Michael Harpster in Philadelphia; special agents of IRS-Criminal Investigation, Philadelphia Office, under the direction of Acting Special Agent in Charge Gregory Floyd, and special agents of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s (ICE) Homeland Security Investigation (HSI) Philadelphia, under the direction of Special Agent in Charge Marlon V. Miller, with the investigation. He also thanked the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services-Office of Inspector General, under the direction of Special Agent in Charge Nick DiGiulio, for its participation in the investigation.

The U.S. Attorney in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania recused his office from the investigation involving the Philadelphia District Attorney’s Office, and the matter was assigned to the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of New Jersey. Two prosecutors from the Eastern District of Pennsylvania office were assigned to the case, subject to the supervision of prosecutors in the New Jersey office.

The government is represented by Deputy Chief Eric W. Moran of the U.S. Attorney’s Office Criminal Division in Newark and Chief of Appeals Robert A. Zauzmer and Assistant U.S. Attorney Vineet Gauri of the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Philadelphia.

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

Defense counsel: Thomas F. Burke Esq., Philadelphia.

Score:   0.5
Docket Number:   D-NJ  3:18-cr-00561
Case Name:   USA v. AMATO
  Press Releases:
TRENTON, N.J. – A former chiropractor with offices in Lakewood, New Jersey, was sentenced today to 60 months in prison for evading income taxes totaling more than half a million dollars from 2012 through 2015 and failing to report a Russian bank account, to which he wired more than $1.5 million, U.S. Attorney Craig Carpenito announced.

Carlo Amato, 57, of Beachwood, New Jersey, previously pleaded guilty before U.S. District Judge Michael A. Shipp to one count of tax evasion and one count of failure to file a report of foreign financial account (FBAR) while violating another law of the United States and as part of a pattern of illegal activity involving more than $100,000 in a 12-month period. Judge Shipp imposed the sentence today in Trenton federal court.

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

From 2012 through 2015, Amato operated a chiropractic office in Lakewood through two entities: Chiropractic Care Consultants Inc. and Accident Recovery Physical Therapy. He deposited, or caused to be deposited, checks for chiropractic services into accounts held in the names of his minor children. Amato knew that these checks were taxable as income, but he did not disclose the payments to his accountant, nor did he report them on his tax returns. Amato also failed to report as taxable income certain additional funds that were deposited into Chiropractic Care’s and Accident Recovery’s business bank accounts. For example, Amato reported $0 in taxable income and $0 in tax due on his 2014 income tax return. His taxable income for 2014 was, in fact, $561,258, and Amato admitted that the tax due and owing to the IRS for 2014 was $197,036. Amato admitted that he also evaded more than $300,000 in taxes for the tax years 2012, 2013, and 2015.

Amato, a U.S. citizen, admitted that in 2014, he had an account at UniCredit Bank in Russia. He admitted that he wired more than $1.5 million to Russian bank accounts, including the UniCredit Bank account, and that he knew that he was obligated to report any foreign bank account with an aggregate value of more than $10,000. Amato admitted that he nonetheless failed to file a report of foreign account, commonly known as an FBAR, for the year 2014. Amato also admitted that the funds he failed to report were the product of a fraudulent scheme in which Amato overbilled at least six insurance companies by more than $1 million by billing for services that were never rendered. Amato previously pleaded guilty in Ocean County Superior Court to first degree financial facilitation of criminal activity for money laundering of funds from the overbilling scheme.

In addition to the prison term, Judge Shipp sentenced Amato to three years of supervised release.

Under the terms of his plea agreement, Amato will file amended tax returns and make full restitution for the years 2012 through 2015 and file accurate FBARs for the years 2012 through 2017.

U.S. Attorney Carpenito credited special agents of the IRS-Criminal Investigation, under the direction of Special Agent in Charge John R. Tafur, with the investigation leading to today’s sentencing. U.S. Attorney Carpenito thanked the Ocean County Prosecutor’s Office, under the direction of Prosecutor Bradley D. Billhimer, and the FBI, under the direction of Special Agent in Charge Gregory W. Ehrie, for their roles in the investigation.

The government is represented by Assistant U.S. Attorney Elisa T. Wiygul of the Criminal Division in Trenton.

Defense counsel: Thomas R. Ashley Esq., Newark

TRENTON, N.J. – A former chiropractor with offices in Lakewood, New Jersey, today admitted evading income taxes totaling more than half a million dollars from 2012 through 2015 and failing to report a Russian bank account, to which he wired more than $1.5 million, U.S. Attorney Craig Carpenito announced.

Carlo Amato, 57, of Beachwood, New Jersey, pleaded guilty before U.S. District Judge Michael A. Shipp in Trenton federal court to one count of tax evasion and one count of failure to file a report of foreign financial account (FBAR) while violating another law of the United States and as part of a pattern of illegal activity involving more than $100,000 in a 12-month period.

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

From 2012 through 2015, Amato operated a chiropractic office in Lakewood through two entities: Chiropractic Care Consultants Inc. and Accident Recovery Physical Therapy. He deposited, or caused to be deposited, checks for chiropractic services into accounts held in the names of his minor children. Amato knew that these checks were taxable as income, but he did not disclose the payments to his accountant, nor did he report them on his tax returns. Amato also failed to report as taxable income certain additional funds that were deposited into Chiropractic Care’s and Accident Recovery’s business bank accounts. For example, Amato reported $0 in taxable income and $0 in tax due on his 2014 income tax return. His taxable income for 2014 was, in fact, $561,258, and Amato admitted that the tax due and owing to the IRS for 2014 was $197,036. Amato admitted that he also evaded more than $300,000 in taxes for the tax years 2012, 2013, and 2015.

Amato, a U.S. citizen, admitted that in 2014, he had an account at UniCredit Bank in Russia. He admitted that he wired more than $1.5 million to Russian bank accounts, including the UniCredit Bank account, and that he knew that he was obligated to report any foreign bank account with an aggregate value of more than $10,000. Amato admitted that he nonetheless failed to file a report of foreign account, commonly known as an FBAR, for the year 2014.  Amato also admitted that the funds he failed to report were the product of a fraudulent scheme in which Amato overbilled at least six insurance companies by more than $1 million by billing for services that were never rendered. Amato previously pleaded guilty in Ocean County Superior Court to first degree financial facilitation of criminal activity for money laundering of funds from the overbilling scheme.

The tax evasion charge to which Amato pleaded guilty carries a maximum potential penalty of five years in prison and a fine of $250,000 or twice the gain to any person or loss to any victims of the offense. The failure to file a report of foreign account charge to which Amato pleaded guilty carries a maximum potential penalty of 10 years in prison and a fine of $500,000 or twice the gain to any person or loss to any victims of the offense. Sentencing is scheduled for Jan. 9, 2019.

Under the terms of his plea agreement, Amato will file amended tax returns and make full restitution for the years 2012 through 2015 and file accurate FBARs for the years 2012 through 2017.

U.S. Attorney Carpenito credited special agents of the IRS-Criminal Investigation, under the direction of Special Agent in Charge John Tafur, with the investigation leading to today’s guilty plea. U.S. Attorney Carpenito thanked the Ocean County Prosecutor’s Office, under the direction of Prosecutor Joseph D. Coronato, and the FBI, under the direction of Special Agent in Charge Gregory W. Ehrie, for their roles in the investigation.

The government is represented by Assistant U.S. Attorney Elisa T. Wiygul of the Criminal Division in Trenton.

Docket (0 Docs):   https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/16SGm_MtgUPIk7zivoc7ZVzE8kB3HmroCM6yhaNEa2LI
  Last Updated: 2024-01-29 19:10:55 UTC
Description: The fiscal year of the data file obtained from the AOUSC
Format: YYYY

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Description: A count of original proceedings commenced
Format: N1

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

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

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

Description: A count of original proceedings terminated
Format: N1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Data imported from FJC Integrated Database
Score:   0.5
Docket Number:   D-NJ  2:19-cr-00615
Case Name:   USA v. MALTEZ
  Press Releases:
NEWARK, N.J. – A Middlesex County, New Jersey, man and woman appeared in court today after being arrested for their roles in a scheme to market and distribute misbranded and unapproved new drugs, U.S. Attorney Craig Carpenito announced.

Keith Kovaleski, 54, of South Amboy, New Jersey, and Ines Maltez, 33, of Sayreville, New Jersey, were both charged by complaint with conspiring to distribute and cause the receipt and delivery of misbranded drugs and unapproved new drugs, and to impede the functions of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). They were arrested today and appeared before U.S. Magistrate Judge Michael A. Hammer in Newark federal court. Both defendants were released on $100,000 unsecured bond.

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

The FDA is responsible for protecting the health and safety of the American public by enforcing the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA), a law intended to assure that drugs are safe, effective, and bear accurate labeling containing all required information. The FDA regulates the manufacture, labeling, and distribution of all drugs shipped or received in interstate commerce.

From 2014 to January 2019, Kovaleski was the principal of AA Peptide LLC, a/k/a All American Peptide (AAP). AAP used its website to market and distribute substances used by bodybuilders and others engaged in weight training to enhance performance and mitigate the side effects of performance-enhancing substances.   

The AAP website included a bogus legal disclaimer that its products were intended for laboratory research use only, and not as drugs or food. Kovaleski employed the bogus “research chemicals” disclaimer to conceal that he and others were distributing misbranded drugs and unapproved new drugs for use by their customers. 

Between April 2018 and December 2018, an undercover law enforcement agent made five purchases of misbranded drugs and unapproved new drugs from the AAP website. Each undercover purchase was made through the website without a prescription, and none of the substances purchased contained an “Rx-only” designation on their labels. None of the substances purchased from AAP contained adequate directions for use or warnings regarding known side-effects. Two of the purchases included pills containing tadalafil, the active ingredient in Cialis, in dosages significantly higher than the highest recommended dosage.    

Maltez participated in the scheme by packaging and mailing misbranded and unapproved drugs, and by receiving payments from customers.

The conspiracy charge carries a maximum potential penalty of up to five years in prison and a fine of up to $250,000 or twice the gross pecuniary gain or loss.

U.S. Attorney Craig Carpenito credited special agents of the FDA, under the direction of Special Agent in Charge Jeffrey J. Ebersole, FDA Office of Criminal Investigations’ New York Field Office; postal inspectors with the U.S. Postal Inspection Service, under the direction of Inspector in Charge James V. Buthorn, Newark Division, and special agents of AMTRAK Office of Inspector General, under the direction of Special Agent in Charge Michael J. Waters, Eastern Field Office, with the investigation leading to the charges. 

The government is represented by Assistant U.S. Attorneys Karen Stringer and Cari Fais of the Special Prosecutions Division.

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

Docket (0 Docs):   https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mcj0AcBNn-WzhDhjxSsoRylOmEFx7MvpK1W7XzwL4-w
  Last Updated: 2023-10-19 22:49:54 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 type of legal counsel assigned to a defendant
Format: N2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Description: The number of days from the earlier of filing date or first appearance date to proceeding date
Format: N3

Description: The number of days from proceeding date to disposition date
Format: N3

Description: The number of days from disposition date to sentencing date
Format: N3

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

Description: A code indicating the type of legal counsel assigned to a defendant at the time the case was closed
Format: N2

Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense that carried the most severe disposition and penalty under which the defendant was disposed
Format: A20

Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with TTITLE1
Format: N2

Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with TTITLE1
Format: A4

Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with TTITLE1
Format: A4

Description: A code indicating the severity associated with TTITLE1
Format: A3

Description: The code indicating the nature or type of disposition associated with TTITLE1
Format: N2

Description: The number of months a defendant was sentenced to prison under TTITLE1
Format: N4

Description: The number of months of probation imposed upon a defendant under TTITLE1
Format: N4

Description: A code indicating whether the probation sentence associated with TTITLE1 was concurrent or consecutive in relation to the other counts in the indictment or information or multiple counts of the same charge
Format: A4

Description: A period of supervised release imposed upon a defendant under TTITLE1
Format: N3

Description: The fine imposed upon the defendant at sentencing under TTITLE1
Format: N8

Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense under which the defendant was disposed that carried the second most severe disposition and penalty
Format: A20

Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with TTITLE2
Format: N2

Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with TTITLE2
Format: A4

Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with TTITLE2
Format: A4

Description: A code indicating the severity associated with TTITLE2
Format: A3

Description: The code indicating the nature or type of disposition associated with TTITLE2
Format: N2

Description: The number of months a defendant was sentenced to prison under TTITLE2
Format: N4

Description: The number of months of probation imposed upon a defendant under TTITLE2
Format: N4

Description: A code indicating whether the probation sentence associated with TTITLE2 was concurrent or consecutive in relation to the other counts in the indictment or information or multiple counts of the same charge
Format: A4

Description: A period of supervised release imposed upon a defendant under TTITLE2
Format: N3

Description: The fine imposed upon the defendant at sentencing under TTITLE2
Format: N8

Description: The total probation time for all offenses of which the defendant was convicted and probation was imposed
Format: N4

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

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

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

Description: A count of original proceedings commenced
Format: N1

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

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

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

Description: A count of original proceedings terminated
Format: N1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Data imported from FJC Integrated Database
Magistrate Docket Number:   D-NJ  2:19-mj-08001
Case Name:   USA v. KOVALESKI et al
  Press Releases:
NEWARK, N.J. – A Middlesex County, New Jersey, man and woman appeared in court today after being arrested for their roles in a scheme to market and distribute misbranded and unapproved new drugs, U.S. Attorney Craig Carpenito announced.

Keith Kovaleski, 54, of South Amboy, New Jersey, and Ines Maltez, 33, of Sayreville, New Jersey, were both charged by complaint with conspiring to distribute and cause the receipt and delivery of misbranded drugs and unapproved new drugs, and to impede the functions of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). They were arrested today and appeared before U.S. Magistrate Judge Michael A. Hammer in Newark federal court. Both defendants were released on $100,000 unsecured bond.

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

The FDA is responsible for protecting the health and safety of the American public by enforcing the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA), a law intended to assure that drugs are safe, effective, and bear accurate labeling containing all required information. The FDA regulates the manufacture, labeling, and distribution of all drugs shipped or received in interstate commerce.

From 2014 to January 2019, Kovaleski was the principal of AA Peptide LLC, a/k/a All American Peptide (AAP). AAP used its website to market and distribute substances used by bodybuilders and others engaged in weight training to enhance performance and mitigate the side effects of performance-enhancing substances.   

The AAP website included a bogus legal disclaimer that its products were intended for laboratory research use only, and not as drugs or food. Kovaleski employed the bogus “research chemicals” disclaimer to conceal that he and others were distributing misbranded drugs and unapproved new drugs for use by their customers. 

Between April 2018 and December 2018, an undercover law enforcement agent made five purchases of misbranded drugs and unapproved new drugs from the AAP website. Each undercover purchase was made through the website without a prescription, and none of the substances purchased contained an “Rx-only” designation on their labels. None of the substances purchased from AAP contained adequate directions for use or warnings regarding known side-effects. Two of the purchases included pills containing tadalafil, the active ingredient in Cialis, in dosages significantly higher than the highest recommended dosage.    

Maltez participated in the scheme by packaging and mailing misbranded and unapproved drugs, and by receiving payments from customers.

The conspiracy charge carries a maximum potential penalty of up to five years in prison and a fine of up to $250,000 or twice the gross pecuniary gain or loss.

U.S. Attorney Craig Carpenito credited special agents of the FDA, under the direction of Special Agent in Charge Jeffrey J. Ebersole, FDA Office of Criminal Investigations’ New York Field Office; postal inspectors with the U.S. Postal Inspection Service, under the direction of Inspector in Charge James V. Buthorn, Newark Division, and special agents of AMTRAK Office of Inspector General, under the direction of Special Agent in Charge Michael J. Waters, Eastern Field Office, with the investigation leading to the charges. 

The government is represented by Assistant U.S. Attorneys Karen Stringer and Cari Fais of the Special Prosecutions Division.

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

Docket (0 Docs):   https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1QIVOYhu9hzub9Y1vFyY_RtcCT8yWfbc6i8s4q1wH3gM
  Last Updated: 2023-10-19 22:18:58 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 type of legal counsel assigned to a defendant
Format: N2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Description: The number of days from the earlier of filing date or first appearance date to proceeding date
Format: N3

Description: The number of days from proceeding date to disposition date
Format: N3

Description: The number of days from disposition date to sentencing date
Format: N3

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

Description: A code indicating the type of legal counsel assigned to a defendant at the time the case was closed
Format: N2

Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense that carried the most severe disposition and penalty under which the defendant was disposed
Format: A20

Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with TTITLE1
Format: N2

Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with TTITLE1
Format: A4

Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with TTITLE1
Format: A4

Description: A code indicating the severity associated with TTITLE1
Format: A3

Description: The code indicating the nature or type of disposition associated with TTITLE1
Format: N2

Description: The number of months a defendant was sentenced to prison under TTITLE1
Format: N4

Description: The number of months of probation imposed upon a defendant under TTITLE1
Format: N4

Description: A code indicating whether the probation sentence associated with TTITLE1 was concurrent or consecutive in relation to the other counts in the indictment or information or multiple counts of the same charge
Format: A4

Description: A period of supervised release imposed upon a defendant under TTITLE1
Format: N3

Description: The fine imposed upon the defendant at sentencing under TTITLE1
Format: N8

Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense under which the defendant was disposed that carried the second most severe disposition and penalty
Format: A20

Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with TTITLE2
Format: N2

Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with TTITLE2
Format: A4

Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with TTITLE2
Format: A4

Description: A code indicating the severity associated with TTITLE2
Format: A3

Description: The code indicating the nature or type of disposition associated with TTITLE2
Format: N2

Description: The number of months a defendant was sentenced to prison under TTITLE2
Format: N4

Description: The number of months of probation imposed upon a defendant under TTITLE2
Format: N4

Description: A code indicating whether the probation sentence associated with TTITLE2 was concurrent or consecutive in relation to the other counts in the indictment or information or multiple counts of the same charge
Format: A4

Description: A period of supervised release imposed upon a defendant under TTITLE2
Format: N3

Description: The fine imposed upon the defendant at sentencing under TTITLE2
Format: N8

Description: The total probation time for all offenses of which the defendant was convicted and probation was imposed
Format: N4

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

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

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

Description: A count of original proceedings commenced
Format: N1

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

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

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

Description: A count of original proceedings terminated
Format: N1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Data imported from FJC Integrated Database
Score:   0.5
Docket Number:   D-NJ  2:19-cr-00476
Case Name:   USA v. KOVALESKI et al
  Press Releases:
NEWARK, N.J. – A Middlesex County, New Jersey, husband and wife were indicted today in connection with a scheme to market and distribute misbranded drugs and unapproved new drugs and manufacture drugs in an unregistered facility, U.S. Attorney Craig Carpenito announced.

Keith Kovaleski, 55, and Sylvia Kovaleski, 41, of South Amboy, New Jersey, each were charged with one count of conspiring to distribute and cause the receipt and delivery of misbranded drugs and unapproved new drugs, and to impede the functions of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), 10 counts of introducing misbranded drugs into interstate commerce, four counts of introducing unapproved new drugs into interstate commerce, and one count of manufacturing drugs without registering with the secretary of HHS. In January 2019, Keith Kovaleski was charged in a federal complaint with conspiracy and was released on bail. Both defendants will be arraigned at a date to be determined.   

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

The FDA is responsible for enforcing the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA), a law intended to assure that drugs are safe, effective, and bear accurate labeling containing all required information. The FDA regulates the manufacture, labeling, and distribution of all drugs shipped or received in interstate commerce.

From May 2014 to January 2019, the Kovaleskis owned and operated AA Peptide LLC, a/k/a All American Peptide (AAP). AAP used its website to market and distribute substances primarily used by bodybuilders and others engaged in weight training to enhance performance and mitigate the side effects of performance-enhancing substances.   

The AAP website included a bogus legal disclaimer that its products were intended for laboratory research use only, and not as drugs or food. The Kovaleskis employed the bogus “research chemicals” disclaimer to conceal that they and others were distributing misbranded drugs and unapproved new drugs for use by their customers. 

The Kovaleskis, though AAP, sold products including: (1) prescription drugs, such as tadalafil, the active ingredient in Cialis; (2) SARMS, used by body-builders as an alternative to steroids; (3) peptides, also used as performance-enhancing substances; and (4) other drugs that were not peptides or SARMS, and had not been approved for human use, for example, clenbuterol, a drug sold in foreign markets but not approved by the FDA. The Kovaleskis failed to provide adequate directions for use for these products, such as frequency of administration and other dosage information. 

The Kovaleskis used their South Amboy basement as a manufacturing facility to make and label AAP products, including homemade capsules containing baking soda and tadalafil.  The Kovaleskis sold tadalafil capsules that contained significantly higher dosages of the active ingredient than the highest recommended dosage.  

The Kovaleskis earned more $2.5 million through the sale of misbranded and unapproved new drugs.

The conspiracy charge carries a maximum potential penalty of up to five years in prison.  Each count of introduction of misbranded drugs in interstate commerce, introduction of unapproved new drugs in interstate commerce, and operating an unregistered drug manufacturing facility carries a maximum potential penalty of three years in prison. Each charge also carries a maximum potential fine of up to $250,000 or twice the gross pecuniary gain or loss. 

U.S. Attorney Craig Carpenito credited special agents of the Food and Drug Administration, Office of Criminal Investigations, New York Field Office, under the direction of Special Agent in Charge Jeffrey J. Ebersole,; special agents of the Amtrak Office of Inspector General, under the direction of Special Agent in Charge Michael Waters; and postal inspectors with the U.S. Postal Inspection Service, under the direction of Inspector in Charge James Buthorn, Newark Division, with the investigation leading to today’s indictment. 

The government is represented by Assistant U.S. Attorneys Karen D. Stringer and Cari Fais, of the Special Prosecutions Division.

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

NEWARK, N.J. – A Middlesex County, New Jersey, man and woman appeared in court today after being arrested for their roles in a scheme to market and distribute misbranded and unapproved new drugs, U.S. Attorney Craig Carpenito announced.

Keith Kovaleski, 54, of South Amboy, New Jersey, and Ines Maltez, 33, of Sayreville, New Jersey, were both charged by complaint with conspiring to distribute and cause the receipt and delivery of misbranded drugs and unapproved new drugs, and to impede the functions of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). They were arrested today and appeared before U.S. Magistrate Judge Michael A. Hammer in Newark federal court. Both defendants were released on $100,000 unsecured bond.

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

The FDA is responsible for protecting the health and safety of the American public by enforcing the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA), a law intended to assure that drugs are safe, effective, and bear accurate labeling containing all required information. The FDA regulates the manufacture, labeling, and distribution of all drugs shipped or received in interstate commerce.

From 2014 to January 2019, Kovaleski was the principal of AA Peptide LLC, a/k/a All American Peptide (AAP). AAP used its website to market and distribute substances used by bodybuilders and others engaged in weight training to enhance performance and mitigate the side effects of performance-enhancing substances.   

The AAP website included a bogus legal disclaimer that its products were intended for laboratory research use only, and not as drugs or food. Kovaleski employed the bogus “research chemicals” disclaimer to conceal that he and others were distributing misbranded drugs and unapproved new drugs for use by their customers. 

Between April 2018 and December 2018, an undercover law enforcement agent made five purchases of misbranded drugs and unapproved new drugs from the AAP website. Each undercover purchase was made through the website without a prescription, and none of the substances purchased contained an “Rx-only” designation on their labels. None of the substances purchased from AAP contained adequate directions for use or warnings regarding known side-effects. Two of the purchases included pills containing tadalafil, the active ingredient in Cialis, in dosages significantly higher than the highest recommended dosage.    

Maltez participated in the scheme by packaging and mailing misbranded and unapproved drugs, and by receiving payments from customers.

The conspiracy charge carries a maximum potential penalty of up to five years in prison and a fine of up to $250,000 or twice the gross pecuniary gain or loss.

U.S. Attorney Craig Carpenito credited special agents of the FDA, under the direction of Special Agent in Charge Jeffrey J. Ebersole, FDA Office of Criminal Investigations’ New York Field Office; postal inspectors with the U.S. Postal Inspection Service, under the direction of Inspector in Charge James V. Buthorn, Newark Division, and special agents of AMTRAK Office of Inspector General, under the direction of Special Agent in Charge Michael J. Waters, Eastern Field Office, with the investigation leading to the charges. 

The government is represented by Assistant U.S. Attorneys Karen Stringer and Cari Fais of the Special Prosecutions Division.

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

Docket (0 Docs):   https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1XhOVY8QmbKrISb819vjYp5CAGRD1gK1yfDB9CiaZ4dc
  Last Updated: 2023-10-19 22:41:38 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 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
Score:   0.5
Docket Number:   aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuanVzdGljZS5nb3YvdXNhby1uai9wci9mbG9yaWRhLW1hbi1jaGFyZ2VkLTE2LW1pbGxpb24tY2FyZXMtYWN0LWxvYW4tZnJhdWQtc2NoZW1l
  Press Releases:
NEWARK, N.J. – A Florida man will make his initial court appearance today on charges related to his role in a scheme to fraudulently obtain over $1.6 million in federal Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) loans and Economic Injury Disaster Loan (EIDL) payments, U.S. Attorney Philip R. Sellinger announced.

Mohamed A. Awad, 60, of Ocala, Florida, is charged by complaint with two counts of wire fraud. He was arrested July 21, 2022, in Virginia and made his initial appearance this afternoon before U.S. Magistrate Judge William E. Fitzpatrick in the Eastern District of Virginia. He was detained pending transfer to the District of New Jersey.

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

The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act is a federal law enacted on March 29, 2020, designed to provide emergency financial assistance to millions of Americans suffering the economic effects caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. One source of relief provided by the CARES Act was the authorization of up to $349 billion in forgivable loans to small businesses for job retention and certain other expenses, through the PPP. The PPP allowed qualifying small businesses and other organizations to receive loans with a maturity of two years and an interest rate of 1 percent. PPP loan proceeds must be used by businesses on payroll costs, interest on mortgages, rent, and utilities.

The CARES Act also authorized the U.S. Small Business Association to provide EIDLs of up to $2 million, through the Economic Injury Disaster Loan Program, to eligible small businesses experiencing substantial financial disruption due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Awad engaged in a scheme to illegally obtain over $1.6 million in PPP and EIDL loans through numerous misrepresentations to lenders. He submitted fraudulent loan applications that fabricated numbers of employees and misrepresented company information, to induce PPP and EIDL lenders to approve the loan applications that they otherwise would not have approved.  Awad submitted falsified tax documents in support of PPP applications. According to IRS records, none of the purported tax documents that Awad submitted were ever in fact filed with the IRS. Awad transferred the loan proceeds among various bank accounts he controlled, withdrawing significant amounts in cash and transferring at least approximately $760,000 out of the country via wire transfers to banks based in Egypt.

The charges each carry a maximum penalty of 20 years in prison and a maximum fine of $250,000 or twice the gross gain to the defendant or gross loss to the victim, whichever is greatest.

U.S. Attorney Sellinger credited special agents of the IRS-Criminal Investigation, under the direction of Acting Special Agent in Charge Tammy Tomlins; postal inspectors of the U.S. Postal Inspection Service in Newark, under the direction of Inspector in Charge Damon Wood, Philadelphia Division; special agents of the FBI, under the direction of Special Agent in Charge James E. Dennehy in Newark; special agents of the Social Security Administration, Office of the Inspector General, under the direction of Special Agent in Charge Sharon MacDermott; special agents of the Office of Inspector General for the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection, under the direction of Stephen Donnelly, Eastern Region; special agents of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation – Office of Inspector General, under the direction of Special Agent in Charge Patricia Tarasca in New York; and special agents of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of New Jersey, under the direction of Special Agent in Charge Thomas Mahoney, with the investigation leading to the charges.

The government is represented by Assistant U.S. Attorney Katherine M. Romano of the U.S. Attorney’s Office’s Health Care Fraud Unit in Newark.

Anyone with information about allegations of attempted fraud involving COVID-19 can report it by calling the Department of Justice’s National Center for Disaster Fraud Hotline at 866-720-5721 or via the NCDF Web Complaint Form at: https://www.justice.gov/disaster-fraud/ncdf-disaster-complaint-form.

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

Score:   0.5
Docket Number:   aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuanVzdGljZS5nb3YvdXNhby1uai9wci9zb3V0aC1jYXJvbGluYS1pbnZlc3RtZW50LWZ1bmQtbWFuYWdlci1hZG1pdHMtMjAtbWlsbGlvbi1zZWN1cml0aWVzLWZyYXVkLXNjaGVtZQ
  Press Releases:
NEWARK, N.J. – A South Carolina investment fund manager today admitted his role in a scheme to fraudulently obtain over $20 million from investors through misrepresentations about trading strategy and fund performance, Acting U.S. Attorney Rachael A. Honig announced.

George Heckler, 64, of Charleston, South Carolina, pleaded guilty by videoconference before U.S. District Judge Madeline Cox Arleo to an information charging him with one count of securities fraud.      

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

Heckler managed, controlled or was involved with multiple investment funds, including Conestoga Partner Holdings (Conestoga), Cassatt Short Term Trading Fund LP (Cassatt), CV Special Opportunity Fund LP (CVSO), and TA1 LLC (TA1). 

From 2014 to 2018, Heckler misrepresented to investors that he would invest their funds in particular trading strategies. Instead, he diverted their funds out of Cassatt and TA1 for purposes inconsistent with the trading strategies, including to pay out millions of dollars to other investors. Heckler also used investors’ funds to cover investment losses suffered by other funds under his management and/or control.

Heckler solicited investments from Victim-1, claiming the investments would be invested in Cassatt, which employed a “first loss” trading strategy intended to protect investors from losses. However, as of December 2013, Cassatt no longer had a brokerage account that was necessary to employ the represented trading strategy. Despite Cassatt no longer having a brokerage account, in 2014, Heckler represented to Victim-1 that Cassatt was still engaged in a first loss trading strategy and solicited Victim-1’s investment in Cassatt. In September 2014, Victim-1 invested approximately $9.1 million in Cassatt, relying on Heckler’s representation that Victim-1’s money would be invested consistent with Cassatt’s first loss trading strategy.  Heckler used $4.6 million of Victim-1’s investment to repay existing investors and the remainder to satisfy other obligations Heckler owed that were unrelated to Cassatt.

Heckler also approached Victim-2 about the possibility of creating a hedge fund that would deploy capital to first-loss traders, who would serve as the “first loss” protection for investors’ capital. In late 2015, Victim-2 formed a hedge fund, utilizing the concept proposed by Heckler (Entity-1). In 2015 and 2016, Entity-1 invested $10.1 million in TA1 via a participation agreement that provided that Entity-1’s investment would be used for an “options arbitrage dividend recapture trade,” otherwise known as the “skate trade.” In fact, none of Entity-1’s investment was used for the “skate trade.”  Entity-1’s investment was used for other purposes, including repaying others who had previously invested with Heckler.

Over the course of the scheme, Heckler sent out statements to investors that misled them into believing the value of their investments was increasing, when, in fact, the value was declining. Heckler took approximately $1 million in fees and distributions from the fraudulently obtained investments for his personal use. 

The securities fraud count carries a maximum penalty of 20 years in prison and a $5 million fine. Sentencing is scheduled for July 15, 2021.

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission has filed a civil complaint against Heckler based on the allegations underlying the securities fraud charge.

Acting U.S. Attorney Honig credited special agents of the FBI, under the direction of Special Agent in Charge Michael J. Driscoll, Philadelphia Field Office, with the investigation leading to the charge. 

The government is represented by Assistant U.S. Attorneys Catherine R. Murphy and Andrew Macurdy of the U.S. Attorney’s Office Criminal Division.

Score:   0.5
Docket Number:   D-NJ  3:19-cr-00029
Case Name:   USA v. GILMORE
  Press Releases:
TRENTON, N.J. – George Gilmore, a partner at an Ocean County law firm, was sentenced today to one year and one day in prison for his conviction on two counts of failing to pay over payroll taxes withheld from employees to the IRS and one count of making false statements on a bank loan application submitted to Ocean First Bank N.A., First Assistant U.S. Attorney Rachael A. Honig announced.

On April 17, 2019, Gilmore, 70, of Toms River, New Jersey, was acquitted of two counts of filing false tax returns for calendar years 2013 and 2014; the jury could not reach a unanimous verdict on one count of income tax evasion for calendar years 2013, 2014, and 2015. The verdicts were returned following a trial that began April 1, 2019, before U.S. District Judge Anne E. Thompson, who imposed the sentence today in Trenton federal court.

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

Gilmore worked as an equity partner and shareholder at Gilmore & Monahan P.A., a law firm in Toms River, where he exercised primary control over the firm’s financial affairs. Because he exercised significant control over the law firm’s financial affairs, Gilmore was responsible for withholding payroll taxes from the gross salary and wages of the law firm’s employees to cover individual income, Social Security and Medicare tax obligations. For the tax quarters ending March 31, 2016, and June 30, 2016, the law firm withheld tax payments from its employees’ checks, but Gilmore failed to pay over in full the payroll taxes due to the IRS.

Gilmore also submitted a loan application to Ocean First Bank containing false statements. On Nov. 21, 2014, Gilmore reviewed, signed, and submitted to Ocean First Bank a Uniform Residential Loan Application (URLA) to obtain refinancing of a mortgage loan for $1.5 million with a “cash out” provision that provided Gilmore would obtain cash from the loan. On Jan. 22, 2015, Gilmore submitted another URLA updating the initial application. Gilmore failed to disclose his outstanding 2013 tax liabilities and personal loans that he had obtained from others on the URLAs. Gilmore received $572,000 from the cash out portion of the loan.

In addition to the prison term, Judge Thompson sentenced Gilmore to three years of supervised release.

First Assistant U.S. Attorney Honig credited special agents of IRS-Criminal Investigation, under the direction of Special Agent in Charge John R. Tafur, special agents with U.S. Attorney’s Office under the direction of Supervisory Special Agent Thomas Mahoney, and special agents of the FBI Red Bank Resident Agency, under the direction of Special Agent in Charge Gregory W. Ehrie in Newark, with the investigation leading to today’s sentencing.

The government is represented by Deputy U.S. Attorney Matthew J. Skahill; Assistant U.S. Attorney Jihee G. Suh of the U.S. Attorney’s Office Special Prosecutions Division; and Trial Attorney Thomas F. Koelbl of the U.S. Department of Justice - Tax Division.

Defense counsel: Kevin H. Marino Esq., Chatham, New Jersey

TRENTON, N.J. – A federal jury today convicted George Gilmore, a partner at an Ocean County law firm, of two counts of failing to pay over to the IRS payroll taxes withheld from the firm's employees and one count of making false statements on a bank loan application submitted to Ocean First Bank N.A., First Assistant U.S. Attorney Rachael A. Honig announced.

Gilmore, 69, of Toms River, New Jersey, was acquitted of two counts of filing false tax returns for calendar years 2013 and 2014; the jury could not reach a unanimous verdict on one count of income tax evasion for calendar years 2013, 2014, and 2015. The verdicts were returned following a trial that began April 1, 2019, before U.S. District Judge Anne E. Thompson in Trenton federal court.

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

Gilmore worked as an equity partner and shareholder at Gilmore & Monahan P.A., a law firm in Toms River, where he exercised primary control over the firm’s financial affairs. Because he exercised significant control over the law firm’s financial affairs, Gilmore was responsible for withholding payroll taxes from the gross salary and wages of the law firm’s employees to cover individual income, Social Security and Medicare tax obligations. For the tax quarters ending March 31, 2016, and June 30, 2016, the law firm withheld tax payments from its employees’ checks, but Gilmore failed to pay over in full the payroll taxes due to the IRS.

Gilmore also submitted a loan application to Ocean First Bank containing false statements. On Nov. 21, 2014, Gilmore reviewed, signed, and submitted to Ocean First Bank a Uniform Residential Loan Application (URLA) to obtain refinancing of a mortgage loan for $1.5 million with a “cash out” provision that provided Gilmore would obtain cash from the loan. On Jan. 22, 2015, Gilmore submitted another URLA updating the initial application. Gilmore failed to disclose his outstanding 2013 tax liabilities and personal loans that he had obtained from others on the URLAs. Gilmore received $572,000 from the cash out portion of the loan.

The two counts of failing to collect, account for, and pay over payroll taxes each carry a maximum penalty of five years in prison, and a $250,000 fine, or twice the gross gain or loss from the offense. The count of loan application fraud carries a maximum penalty of 30 years in prison and a $1 million fine. Sentencing is scheduled for July 23, 2019.

First Assistant U.S. Attorney Honig credited special agents of IRS-Criminal Investigation, under the direction of Special Agent in Charge John R. Tafur, special agents with U.S. Attorney’s Office under the direction of Supervisory Special Agent Thomas Mahoney, and special agents of the FBI Red Bank Resident Agency, under the direction of Special Agent in Charge Gregory W. Ehrie in Newark, for the investigation leading to today’s verdicts.

The government is represented by Deputy U.S. Attorney Matthew J. Skahill; Assistant U.S. Attorney Jihee G. Suh of the U.S. Attorney’s Office Special Prosecutions Division; and Trial Attorney Thomas F. Koelbl of the U.S. Department of Justice - Tax Division.

Defense counsel: Kevin H. Marino Esq., Chatham, New Jersey

TRENTON, N.J. – A federal grand jury today indicted a partner at an Ocean County law firm for evasion of taxes totaling more than $1 million; filing false income tax returns; failing to pay over payroll taxes to the IRS; and making false statements on a bank loan application, First Assistant U.S. Attorney Rachael A. Honig announced.

George Gilmore, 69, of Toms River, New Jersey, was charged in a six-count indictment with one count of income tax evasion for calendar years 2013, 2014, and 2015; two counts of filing false tax returns for calendar years 2013 and 2014; failing to collect, account for, and pay over payroll taxes for two quarters in 2016, and making false statements on a 2015 loan application submitted to Ocean First Bank N.A.

According to documents filed in this case:

Gilmore worked as an equity partner and shareholder at Gilmore & Monahan P.A., a law firm in Toms River, where he exercised primary control over the firm’s financial affairs. Gilmore filed on behalf of himself and his spouse federal income tax returns declaring that he owed $493,526 for calendar year 2013, $321,470 for 2014, and $311,287 for 2015. Despite admitting that he owed taxes for each of these years, Gilmore made no estimated tax payments and failed to pay the federal individual income taxes that he owed. Rather, between January 2014 and December 2016, Gilmore spent more than $2.5 million on personal expenses, including substantial home remodeling costs, vacations, and the acquisition of antiques, artwork, and collectibles. By Dec. 31, 2016, based on the tax due and owing that Gilmore reported on the returns, he owed the IRS $1,520,329 in taxes, penalties, and interest. 

To evade and defeat the payment of his taxes Gilmore concealed information from the IRS and falsely classified income, made false and misleading statements to IRS personnel, and filed false tax returns that materially understated the true amount of income that he received from the law firm:

From January 2014 to December 2016, Gilmore used the law firm’s bank accounts to pay more than $2 million worth of personal expenses, including obtaining checks to cash and cash advances on a corporate credit card. Gilmore falsely classified payments as “shareholder loans” instead of income to him.

On Oct. 16, 2014, Gilmore sent the IRS a $493,526 check as payment for his 2013 taxes despite having no more than $2,500 in his personal bank account at the time. Gilmore’s check bounced and he never resubmitted payment in lieu of the bounced check. From November 2014, when he was notified by the IRS concerning the bounced check, to the end of December 2014, Gilmore spent more than $80,000 toward the construction of his home and to purchase artwork, antiques, and collectibles and more than $25,000 in mortgages and related expenses for five real estate properties that he owed.

From November 2014 to October 2015, Gilmore falsely represented to the IRS collections officer that he would make partial payments to the IRS for his outstanding tax liability, but made none.

Gilmore filed false tax returns for 2013 and 2014, which under reported his actual income from the law firm.

Because he exercised significant control over the law firm’s financial affairs, Gilmore was a person responsible for withholding payroll taxes from the gross salary and wages of the law firm’s employees to cover individual income, Social Security and Medicare tax obligations.  For the tax quarters ending March 31, 2016, and June 30, 2016, the law firm withheld tax payments from its employees’ checks, but Gilmore failed to pay over in full the payroll taxes due to the IRS. 

Gilmore also submitted a loan application to Ocean First Bank containing false statements. On Nov. 21, 2014, Gilmore reviewed, signed, and submitted to Ocean First Bank a Uniform Residential Loan Application (URLA) to obtain refinancing of a mortgage loan for $1.5 million with a “cash out” provision that provided Gilmore would obtain cash from the loan. On Jan. 22, 2015, Gilmore submitted another URLA updating the initial application. Gilmore failed to disclose his outstanding 2013 tax liabilities and personal loans that he had obtained from others on the URLAs. Gilmore received $572,000 from the cash out portion of the loan, the proceeds of which he did not apply to his unpaid taxes. 

The tax evasion count and the two counts of failing to collect, account for, and pay over payroll taxes each carry a maximum penalty of five years in prison, and a $250,000 fine, or twice the gross gain or loss from the offense. The two counts of filing a false tax return each carry a maximum penalty of three years in prison, and a $250,000 fine, or twice the gross gain or loss from the offense. The count alleging loan application fraud carries a maximum penalty of 30 years in prison and a $1 million fine. Gilmore will be arraigned at a date to be determined.

First Assistant U.S. Attorney Honig credited special agents of IRS-Criminal Investigation, under the direction of Special Agent in Charge John R. Tafur, special agents with U.S. Attorney’s Office under the direction of Supervisory Special Agent Thomas Mahoney, and special agents of the FBI Red Bank Resident Agency, under the direction of Special Agent in Charge Gregory W. Ehrie in Newark, for the investigation leading to today’s indictment.

The government is represented by Deputy U.S. Attorney Matthew J. Skahill; Assistant U.S. Attorney Jihee G. Suh of the U.S. Attorney’s Office Special Prosecutions Division; and Trial Attorney Thomas F. Koelbl of the U.S. Department of Justice - Tax Division. 

The charges and allegations in the indictment are merely accusations, and Gilmore is considered innocent unless and until proven guilty.

 

Docket (0 Docs):   https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1MW2n3dmOLUfSq9ClrYWnccQqwM9aAGfGJVTZ1eMXTno
  Last Updated: 2023-10-19 22:19:12 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 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
Score:   0.5
Docket Number:   aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuanVzdGljZS5nb3YvdXNhby1uai9wci9kZXBhcnRtZW50LWp1c3RpY2UtZmlsZXMtbmF0aW9ud2lkZS1sYXdzdWl0LWFnYWluc3QtYW1lcmlzb3VyY2ViZXJnZW4tY29ycC1hbmQ
  Press Releases:
NEWARK, N.J. – In a civil complaint filed today, the Department of Justice alleges that AmerisourceBergen Corp. and two of its subsidiaries, AmerisourceBergen Drug Corp. and Integrated Commercialization Solutions LLC (AmerisourceBergen), collectively one of the country’s largest wholesale pharmaceutical distributors and one of the largest companies in America by revenue, violated the law in connection with the distribution of controlled substances to pharmacies and other customers across the country, contributing to the prescription opioid epidemic.

The complaint alleges that this unlawful conduct resulted in at least hundreds of thousands of violations of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). The Justice Department seeks civil penalties and injunctive relief.

“For years, AmerisourceBergen put its profits from opioid sales over the safety of Americans,” U.S. Attorney for the District of New Jersey Philip R. Sellinger said. “According to the complaint, this was part of a brazen, blatant, and systemic failure by one of the largest companies in America to comply with its obligations to report suspicious opioid orders, contributing to the epidemic of opioid abuse throughout this country.”

“The Department of Justice is committed to holding accountable those who fueled the opioid crisis by flouting the law,” Associate Attorney General Vanita Gupta said. “Companies distributing opioids are required to report suspicious orders to federal law enforcement.  Our complaint alleges that AmerisourceBergen—which sold billions of units of prescription opioids over the past decade—repeatedly failed to comply with that requirement.”

“The mission of the DEA is to enforce the Controlled Substances Act, and as this complaint alleges, AmerisourceBergen violated the CSA hundreds of thousands of times,” Susan A. Gibson, Special Agent in Charge of the DEA’s New Jersey Division, said. “AmerisourceBergen was required by law to report suspicious orders to the DEA, and they failed in their obligation to do so. This failure contributed to the opioid epidemic that has plagued this country for years. This multi-year investigation and resulting lawsuit will hold AmerisourceBergen accountable for their actions.”

“AmerisourceBergen, one of the largest wholesale distributors of opioids in the world, had a legal obligation to report suspicious orders to the Drug Enforcement Administration, and our complaint alleges that the company’s repeated and systemic failure to fulfill this simple obligation helped ignite an opioid epidemic that has resulted in hundreds of thousands of deaths over the past decade,” DEA Administrator Anne Milgram said. “The men and women of the DEA will stop at nothing to hold accountable registrants that fail to uphold their responsibility of saving American lives by filing suspicious order reports.”

Pharmaceutical distributors that sell controlled substances, including AmerisourceBergen, have a longstanding legal obligation to monitor the orders that they receive from pharmacies and other customers and must inform the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) each and every time they receive a suspicious order.

The complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania alleges that over the course of nearly a decade, from 2014 through the present, AmerisourceBergen violated the CSA by failing to report at least hundreds of thousands of suspicious orders of controlled substances to the DEA as required by law. The alleged unlawful conduct includes filling and failing to report numerous orders from pharmacies that AmerisourceBergen knew were likely facilitating diversion of prescription opioids.  Today’s filing is the result of a multi-year investigation by the DEA, the District of New Jersey, the Civil Division’s Consumer Protection Branch, several other U.S. Attorneys’ Offices.

The government’s complaint specifies several pharmacies for which AmerisourceBergen allegedly was aware of significant “red flags” suggesting the existence of diversion of prescription drugs to illicit markets. The complaint asserts that AmerisourceBergen nevertheless continued to distribute drugs to the pharmacies for years and reported few suspicious orders to the DEA. These pharmacies include: a New Jersey pharmacy that has pleaded guilty to unlawfully selling controlled substances; another New Jersey pharmacy whose pharmacist-in-charge has been indicted for drug diversion; two pharmacies, one in Florida and one in West Virginia, for which AmerisourceBergen knew the drugs it distributed were likely being sold in parking lots for cash; and, a Colorado pharmacy that AmerisourceBergen knew was its largest purchaser of oxycodone in that state and specifically identified eleven patients as potential “drug addicts” whose prescriptions likely were illegitimate.

“As alleged in the complaint,” U.S. Attorney Sellinger said, “after learning of drug deals in a pharmacy parking lot – the ‘reddest of red flags’ as one AmerisourceBergen employee described – an AmerisourceBergen subsidiary went on shipping thousands of opioids order to that pharmacy and did not report a single one of them to the DEA. Another example: despite telling the DEA that it had ceased selling controlled substances to a New Jersey pharmacy, an AmerisourceBergen subsidiary used a proxy distributor – a straw – to continue funneling hundreds of opioids orders to that same pharmacy. None of those suspicious orders were reported to DEA either. These were not isolated incidents, but are indicative of AmerisourceBergen’s widespread misconduct.”

The complaint further alleges that AmerisourceBergen not only ignored red flags of diversion, but also relied on internal systems to monitor and identify suspicious orders that were deeply inadequate, both in design and implementation. These systems allegedly flagged only a tiny fraction of suspicious orders, thereby enabling diversion and AmerisourceBergen’s failure to report orders it was legally obligated to identify to the DEA.  In fact, the complaint asserts that in the midst of the opioid epidemic, AmerisourceBergen intentionally altered its internal systems to reduce the number of controlled substances reported as suspicious. Even for the small percentage of orders that AmerisourceBergen did identify as suspicious, the company routinely failed to report them to the DEA.

The government’s complaint alleges that for years AmerisourceBergen flouted its legal obligations and prioritized profits over the well-being of Americans.

If AmerisourceBergen is found liable, it could face escalating civil penalties depending on when each violation occurred and the type of controlled substance at issue. Specifically: up to $10,000 for each reporting violation before November 2015, up to $16,864 for each violation between November 2015 and October 2018 and for each violation relating to a suspicious order for a non-opioid controlled substance not reported after October 2018 , and up to $109,374 for each violation relating to a suspicious opioid order not reported after October 2018, potentially totaling billions of dollars in penalties. The court also may award injunctive relief to prevent AmerisourceBergen from committing future CSA violations.

The claims made in the complaint are allegations that the United States must prove by a preponderance of the evidence if the case proceeds to trial.

The government is represented by Assistant U.S. Attorneys Hayden M. Brockett and Jordann R. Conaboy for the District of New Jersey, Trial Attorneys Michael Wadden, Amy DeLine, and Deborah Sohn of the Department of Justice Civil Division’s Consumer Protection Branch, Assistant U.S. Attorneys Anthony D. Scicchitano and Landon Jones for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Assistant U.S. Attorneys Amanda Rocque and David Moskowitz for the District of Colorado, and Assistant U.S. Attorneys Elliot M. Schachner and Diane Leonardo for the Eastern District of New York. The DEA, under the direction of Special Agent in Charge Gibson in New Jersey, collaborated with the Department to investigate the case.

Score:   0.5
Docket Number:   aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuanVzdGljZS5nb3YvdXNhby1uai9wci9jYWxpZm9ybmlhLW1hbi1hZG1pdHMtcm9sZS01MC1taWxsaW9uLXdpcmUtYW5kLXNlY3VyaXRpZXMtZnJhdWQtc2NoZW1l
  Press Releases:
NEWARK, N.J. – A California man today admitted conspiring to commit wire and securities fraud in connection with his role in a $50 million internet-enabled fraud scheme, U.S. Attorney Philip R. Sellinger announced.

Allen Giltman, 56, of Irvine, California, pleaded guilty by videoconference before U.S. District Judge John Michael Vazquez to an information charging him with one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud and one count of conspiracy to commit securities fraud.

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

From 2012 to October 2020, Giltman and others engaged in an internet-based financial fraud scheme, which generally involved the creation of fraudulent websites to solicit funds from investors. At times, the fraudulent websites were designed to closely resemble websites being operated by actual, well-known, and publicly reputable financial institutions; at other times, the fraudulent websites were designed to resemble legitimate-seeming financial institutions that did not exist. 

Victims of the fraud scheme typically discovered the fraudulent websites via internet searches. The fraudulent websites advertised various types of investment opportunities, most prominently the purchase of certificates of deposit, or CDs. The fraudulent websites advertised higher than average rates of return on the CDs to lure potential victims.

The fraudulent websites used a variety of means to appear legitimate and to gain and maintain the trust of prospective investors, including: (a) displaying the actual names and logos of real financial institutions; (b) purporting that the institutions were members of or regulated by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA), the Securities Investor Protection Corporation, or New York Stock Exchange; (c) claiming that deposits made to the institutions associated with the fraudulent websites were FDIC-insured; and (d) using FINRA or FDIC member identification numbers issued to real financial institutions and real FINRA broker-dealers.

After discovering one of the fraudulent websites, victims would contact an individual – identified in the information as Giltman – by telephone or email as directed on the sites. During his communications with victims, Giltman impersonated real FINRA broker-dealers by using their names and FINRA Central Registration Depository numbers. He would then provide the victims with applications and wiring instructions for the purchase of a CD. The funds wired by the victims would then be moved to various domestic and international bank accounts, including accounts in Russia, the Republic of Georgia, Hong Kong, and Turkey. None of the victims received a CD after wiring the funds.

To date, law enforcement has identified at least 150 fraudulent websites created as part of the scheme. At least 70 victims of the fraud scheme nationwide, including in New Jersey, collectively transmitted approximately $50 million that they believed to be investments.

The wire fraud conspiracy charge carries a maximum penalty of 20 years and a $250,000 fine, or twice the gross amount of gain or loss from the offense, whichever is greatest. The securities fraud charge carries a maximum penalty of five years in prison and a $250,000 fine, or twice the gross amount of gain or loss from the offense, whichever is greatest.  Sentencing is scheduled for May 10, 2022.

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) also filed a civil complaint against Giltman today based on the same conduct.

U.S. Attorney Sellinger credited special agents of the FBI, under the direction of Special Agent in Charge George M. Crouch in Newark, with the investigation leading to today’s guilty plea. He also thanked the SEC for the assistance provided by its Enforcement Division.

The government is represented by Assistant U.S. Attorney Anthony P. Torntore of the U.S. Attorney’s Cybercrime Unit in Newark.

Score:   0.5
Docket Number:   D-NJ  2:19-cr-00693
Case Name:   USA v. ELLIS et al
  Press Releases:
NEWARK, N.J. – The Justice Department today announced a coordinated health care fraud enforcement action across seven federal districts in the Northeastern United States, involving more than $800 million in losses and the distribution of over 3.25 million pills of opioids in “pill mill” clinics and doctors’ offices. The takedown includes new charges and convictions by guilty plea against 54 defendants for their roles in submitting nearly $800 million in fraudulent claims made to federal payers, including 15 doctors or medical professionals, and 24 defendants are charged for their roles in diverting opioids.

The cases prosecuted by this Office in connection with the takedown reflect all of the different facets of our health care and opioids work. Doctors, marketing executives, pharmacists, and the owners and operators of a genetic testing laboratory have been charged with, or have plead guilty to a range of criminal conduct, including: the criminal prescription of highly-addictive opioid pills to patients with no medical need, the paying of kickbacks and other fraud related to unnecessary genetic testing, fraud and abuse in the compounded medicines business, and other crimes that victimize federal health care programs like Medicare and Medicaid, as well as patients across New Jersey who need medical care.

Today’s enforcement actions were led and coordinated by the Health Care Fraud Unit of the Criminal Division’s Fraud Section in conjunction with its Medicare Fraud Strike Force (MFSF), as well as the U.S. Attorney’s Offices for the District of New Jersey, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Western District of Pennsylvania, Eastern District of New York, Western District of New York, District of Connecticut, and District of Columbia. The MFSF is a partnership among the Criminal Division, U.S. Attorney’s Offices, the FBI and HHS-OIG. In addition, IRS-Criminal Investigation, DOD-DCIS, FDA-OIG, the Medicaid Fraud Control Unit, and other federal and state law enforcement agencies participated in the operation.

The charges involve individuals contributing to the opioid epidemic, including medical professionals involved in the unlawful distribution of opioids and other prescription narcotics, a particular focus for the Department. According to the Centers for Disease Control, approximately 115 Americans die every day of an opioid-related overdose.

Today’s arrests and guilty pleas come one-year after the Department of Justice announced the formation of the Newark/Philadelphia Regional MFSF, a joint law enforcement effort that brings together the resources and expertise of the Health Care Fraud Unit in the Criminal Division’s Fraud Section, the U.S. Attorney’s Offices for the District of New Jersey and the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, as well as law enforcement partners. The Strike Force focuses its efforts on aggressively investigating and prosecuting complex cases involving patient harm, large financial loss, and the illegal prescribing and distribution of opioids and other dangerous narcotics.

“Rooting out and prosecuting abuses within our health care system is a top priority for my office,” Craig Carpenito, U.S. Attorney for the District of New Jersey, said. “In New Jersey, these illegal activities run the gamut from over-prescribing dangerous opioids, to running pharmacies improperly, to mis-prescribing unnecessary medications, to tricking patients – often the elderly or vulnerable – into seeking expensive genetic testing or compounded prescriptions they don’t need. Today’s message should be clear: We are dedicated to combatting all forms of illegal activity in the health care arena. If you put patients’ health at risk with criminal intent, you will be dealt with as a criminal.”

“Physicians and other medical professionals who fraudulently bill our federal health care programs are stealing from taxpayers and robbing vulnerable patients of necessary medical care. The medical professionals and others engaging in criminal behavior by peddling opioids for profit continue to fuel our nation’s drug crisis,” said Assistant Attorney General Brian A. Benczkowski of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division. “The Department of Justice will continue to use every tool at our disposal, including data analytics and traditional law enforcement techniques, to investigate, prosecute, and punish this reprehensible behavior and protect federal programs from abuse.”

“The FBI does not care about your status in life, your professional standing, your level of income, or your personal connections when you break the law,” Assistant Special Agent in Charge Wayne Jacobs of the FBI’s Newark Field Office said. “If you try to scam the system, if you exploit your professional license just to pad your pockets, if you mortgage your morals just to inflate your bank account, you will only find yourself in deeper debt. We are committed to protecting the public; we are intent on rooting out fraud and corruption; we are duty-bound to track down and arrest anyone who is breaking our federal laws. Don’t be next.”

*********

Among those charged in the District of New Jersey are the following:

Two Doctors Mis-Prescribing Opioids

• Evangelos Megariotis, 66, of Clifton, New Jersey, an orthopedic surgeon who owns and operates Clifton Orthopedic Associates in Clifton, New Jersey. Megariotis was charged by complaint with prescribed large amounts of controlled substances, such as oxycodone, Percocet, Xanax, and promethazine with codeine outside the usual course of medical practice and without a legitimate purpose. He wrote these allegedly illegal prescriptions to patients he knew were abusing opioids. In two years, Megariotis allegedly prescribed more than 1.4 million tablets of oxycodone and over 450 gallons of promethazine with codeine cough syrup to his patients. The Government is represented by Assistant U.S. Attorney Erica Liu, Deputy Chief of the Criminal Division.

• Joseph Santiamo, 64, of Staten Island, New York, a doctor who specialized in geriatric care, was charged by complaint with prescribing powerful opioids to patients he knew were addicted. According to the complaint, Santiamo also solicited sexual favors from some patients in return for writing them an opioid prescription. In a recorded statement to agents, Santiamo admitted he knew his prescriptions were being abused, but kept writing them anyway. Just twenty of Santiamo’s patients allegedly received more than 100,000 oxycodone pills for no legitimate medical purpose. The Government is represented by Assistant U.S. Attorney Brian Urbano of the Criminal Division.

Ex-Sales Rep. Committing Compounding Fraud:

• Kent Courtheyn, of Kent, Ohio, a former medical device sales representative, indicted for his alleged role in marketing compounded (i.e. customized) medicines to patients who didn’t need them. Courtheyn allegedly steered prescriptions for these expensive compounded medications to his conspirators, and took a cut for his role. The indictment alleges that the scheme caused at least $10 million in losses to participating health care plans, at least $3.5 million of which was paid by TRICARE, the federal program that pays for health care services for veterans. The Government is represented by Assistant U.S. Attorney Erica Liu, Deputy Chief of the Criminal Division.

PrimeAid Pharmacy Indictment:

• Yana Shtindler, 44, and Samuel “Sam” Khaimov, 47, both of Glen Head, New York; Alex Fleyshmakher, 33, of Morganville, New Jersey; and Ruben Sevumyants, 36, of Marlboro, New Jersey, charged by indictment. From 2009 through August 2017, Prime Aid Pharmacies (located in Union City, New Jersey and Bronx, New York) engaged in a slew of fraudulent activities including: (a) paying illegal bribes and kickbacks to doctors and doctors’ employees in exchange for prescription referrals to Prime Aid; (b) billing health insurance providers for medications that were never actually provided to patients; and (c) opening new pharmacies and concealing the true ownership of those pharmacies to obtain lucrative contracts they otherwise would not have obtained. The scheme of billing for medications that were never dispensed to patients was so egregious that Prime Aid received reimbursement payments of over $65 million for prescription medications that it never even ordered from distributors or had in stock. In total, Prime Aid’s multiple schemes defrauded Medicare, Medicaid, and private insurers out of at least $99 million. The Government is represented by Assistant U.S. Attorneys Joshua L. Haber and Jason Gould of the Criminal Division.

Empire Pharmacy Criminal Complaint:

• Eduard “Eddy” Shtindler, 36, of Paramus, New Jersey, charged by complaint with conspiracy to commit health care fraud and conspiracy to pay illegal kickbacks to a doctor. From 2012 through at least 2017, Shtindler owned and operated Empire Pharmacy in West New York, New Jersey. For most of that time, Shtindler allegedly paid bribes to a psychiatrist in Hudson County, New Jersey, to induce the doctor to send prescriptions to Empire. On occasion, Shtindler secreted cash bribes in pill bottles that were delivered to the doctor. In exchange for these bribes, the doctor steered patients to Empire pharmacy. In addition, starting in 2015, Empire – at Shtindler’s direction – perpetrated a fraudulent scheme to induce doctors to send expensive specialty medication prescriptions to Empire. Specialty medications often required “prior authorization” before being approved for reimbursement by Medicare, Medicaid, and some private insurance providers. To receive prior authorization approval more quickly and successfully than any other pharmacies, Empire employees, including two pharmacists, repeatedly falsified prior authorization forms for medications for various conditions, including psoriasis and Hepatitis C. In total, Empire defrauded Medicare and Medicaid out of at least $2 million. The Government is represented by Assistant U.S. Attorney Joshua L. Haber of the Criminal Division.

Ark Labs Genetic Testing Indictment:

• Dr. Matthew S. Ellis, 53, of Gainesville, Florida; Edward B. Kostishion, 59, of Lakeland, Florida; Kyle D. Mclean, 36, of Arlington Heights, Illinois; Kacey C. Plaisance, 38, of Altamonte Springs, Florida; Jeremy Richey, 39, of Mars, Pennsylvania; and Jeffrey Tamulski, 46, of Tampa, Florida. Kostishion, Plaisance, and Richey operated Ark Laboratory Network LLC (Ark), a company that purported to operate a network of laboratories that facilitated genetic testing. Ark partnered with Privy Health, Inc., a company that McLean operated, and another company to acquire DNA samples and Medicare information from hundreds of patients through various methods, including offering $75 gift cards to patients, all without the involvement of a treating health care professional. Ellis, a physician based in Gainesville, served as the ordering physician who authorized genetic testing for hundreds of patients across the country that he never saw, examined, or treated. These included patients from New Jersey and various other states where Ellis was not licensed to practice medicine. Through this process, Ellis, Kostishion, Plaisance, and McLean submitted and caused to be submitted fraudulent orders for genetic tests to numerous clinical laboratories. These orders falsely certified that Ellis was the patients’ treating physician and, in many cases, contained false information indicating that a patient had a personal or family history of cancer, when, in fact, the patient had no cancer history whatsoever. In 2018 alone, Medicare paid clinical laboratories at least approximately $4.6 million for genetic tests that Ellis ordered in this manner. In addition, Kostishion, Plaisance, Richey, and Tamulski entered into kickback agreements with certain clinical laboratories under which the laboratories would pay Ark a bribe in exchange for delivering DNA samples and orders for genetic tests. The bribe payments were based on the percentage of Medicare revenue that the laboratories received in connection with the tests. Among other things, Kostishion, Plaisance, Richey, and Tamulski concealed these kickback arrangements through issuing sham invoices to laboratories that purportedly reflected services provided at an hourly rate even though the parties had already agreed upon the bribe amount, which was based on the revenue the laboratories received. In 2018, the clinical laboratories paid Ark at least approximately $1.8 million in bribes. The Government is represented by Assistant U.S. Attorney Bernard Cooney of the Criminal Division.

Doctor Pleads Guilty in Compounding Case

• Bernard Ogon M.D., 46, of Burlington, New Jersey, pleaded guilty on September 25, 2019 to one count of health care fraud conspiracy for his participation in a vast compounded medication telemedicine conspiracy. As part of the conspiracy, Ogon admittedly signed prescriptions for compounded medications (that is, medications with ingredients of a drug tailored to the needs of a particular patient) without having established a doctor-patient relationship, spoken to the patient or conducting any medical evaluation. Ogon often signed preprinted prescription forms—with patient information and medication already filled out—where all that was required was his signature. Then, instead of providing the prescription to the patient, Ogon would return the prescriptions to specific compounding pharmacies involved in the conspiracy. Ogon was paid $20 to $30 for each prescription he signed, and his participation in the conspiracy caused losses to health care benefit programs of over $24 million, including losses to government health care programs of over $7 million. The Government is represented by Assistant U.S. Attorney Jason Gould of the Criminal Division.

The Fraud Section leads the Medicare Fraud Strike Force. Since its inception in March 2007, the Medicare Fraud Strike Force, which maintains 15 strike forces operating in 24 districts, has charged nearly 4,000 defendants who have collectively billed the Medicare program for more than $14 billion. In addition, the HHS Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, working in conjunction with the HHS-OIG, are taking steps to increase accountability and decrease the presence of fraudulent providers.

U.S. Attorney Carpenito also thanked special investigators from his office for their work on these cases.

A complaint, information or indictment is merely an accusation, and all defendants are presumed innocent until and until proven guilty.

NEWARK, N.J. – A doctor based in Gainesville, Florida, was charged with conspiracy to commit health care fraud for ordering genetic tests for patients he never saw or treated, U.S. Attorney Craig Carpenito announced today.

Matthew S. Ellis, 53, of Gainesville, Florida, is charged by complaint with one count of conspiracy to commit health care fraud. Ellis made his initial appearance today before U.S. Magistrate Judge Mark Falk in Newark federal court and was released on $250,000 unsecured bond.

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

Ellis served as the chief medical officer for Ark Laboratory Network LLC, a company that purported to operate a network of laboratories that facilitated genetic testing. Two conspirators who operated Ark, Edward Kostishion, 59, and Kacey Plaisance, 37, both of Florida, were each charged by complaint on Jan. 15, 2019, with one count of conspiracy to commit health care fraud.

In October 2018, Kostishion and Plaisance contacted a clinical laboratory in New Jersey and proposed sending the laboratory 10 DNA swabs for genetic tests in return for approximately 50 percent of the total Medicare payments the laboratory received as a result of the tests. Kostishion later sent 10 test orders to the laboratory that listed Ellis as the “Ordering Physician” and contained a certification from Ellis that the tests were medically reasonable and necessary. The test requests contained fraudulent information regarding medical histories and conditions, and falsely represented that Ellis provided the patients with information regarding genetic testing.

One of the test requests, relating to “Patient 1,” indicated that Patient 1 had a personal history of breast cancer at age 44, a prerequisite for Medicare coverage of the particular test requested.  However, on Nov. 29, 2018, Patient 1 confirmed to law enforcement officials that the information on the test request was false; Patient 1 never had cancer and never told anyone about having cancer. Patient 1 also stated that Patient 1 submitted to the DNA swab after seeing an advertisement on Facebook that offered a $100 gift card for people interested in genetic testing.  Patient 1 stated that the DNA swab was not taken at a medical office, but rather in a “plain old office building” and that “some random guy” took the swab. Patient 1 confirmed never seeing or speaking to a treating physician about the genetic testing, and never saw or spoke to Ellis, the ordering physician listed on the test request. 

Ellis practices medicine in Florida, but Patient 1 was located in Oklahoma. All 10 of the patients in the test requests were located in Oklahoma, Arizona, Tennessee, or Mississippi. None of the patients were located in Florida. Additional investigation revealed that Ellis was not licensed to practice medicine in Oklahoma.  

The health care fraud count carries a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison and a maximum fine of $250,000 or twice the gross gain or loss from the offense.

U.S. Attorney Carpenito credited the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Inspector General, under the direction of Special Agent in Charge Scott Lampert; and special agents of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of New Jersey, with the investigation leading to today’s charges.

The government is represented by Assistant U.S. Attorney Bernard J. Cooney of the Health Care and Government Fraud Unit of the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Newark.

The charges and allegations against the defendants are merely accusations, and they are presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.

Docket (0 Docs):   https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1A9qJ1z8aNkBXGLQ5xpDXpft-17fP8cRbEyRcyYiWXXg
  Last Updated: 2024-03-10 23:02:09 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  2:19-mj-06194
Case Name:   USA v. ELLIS
  Press Releases:
NEWARK, N.J. – A doctor based in Gainesville, Florida, was charged with conspiracy to commit health care fraud for ordering genetic tests for patients he never saw or treated, U.S. Attorney Craig Carpenito announced today.

Matthew S. Ellis, 53, of Gainesville, Florida, is charged by complaint with one count of conspiracy to commit health care fraud. Ellis made his initial appearance today before U.S. Magistrate Judge Mark Falk in Newark federal court and was released on $250,000 unsecured bond.

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

Ellis served as the chief medical officer for Ark Laboratory Network LLC, a company that purported to operate a network of laboratories that facilitated genetic testing. Two conspirators who operated Ark, Edward Kostishion, 59, and Kacey Plaisance, 37, both of Florida, were each charged by complaint on Jan. 15, 2019, with one count of conspiracy to commit health care fraud.

In October 2018, Kostishion and Plaisance contacted a clinical laboratory in New Jersey and proposed sending the laboratory 10 DNA swabs for genetic tests in return for approximately 50 percent of the total Medicare payments the laboratory received as a result of the tests. Kostishion later sent 10 test orders to the laboratory that listed Ellis as the “Ordering Physician” and contained a certification from Ellis that the tests were medically reasonable and necessary. The test requests contained fraudulent information regarding medical histories and conditions, and falsely represented that Ellis provided the patients with information regarding genetic testing.

One of the test requests, relating to “Patient 1,” indicated that Patient 1 had a personal history of breast cancer at age 44, a prerequisite for Medicare coverage of the particular test requested.  However, on Nov. 29, 2018, Patient 1 confirmed to law enforcement officials that the information on the test request was false; Patient 1 never had cancer and never told anyone about having cancer. Patient 1 also stated that Patient 1 submitted to the DNA swab after seeing an advertisement on Facebook that offered a $100 gift card for people interested in genetic testing.  Patient 1 stated that the DNA swab was not taken at a medical office, but rather in a “plain old office building” and that “some random guy” took the swab. Patient 1 confirmed never seeing or speaking to a treating physician about the genetic testing, and never saw or spoke to Ellis, the ordering physician listed on the test request. 

Ellis practices medicine in Florida, but Patient 1 was located in Oklahoma. All 10 of the patients in the test requests were located in Oklahoma, Arizona, Tennessee, or Mississippi. None of the patients were located in Florida. Additional investigation revealed that Ellis was not licensed to practice medicine in Oklahoma.  

The health care fraud count carries a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison and a maximum fine of $250,000 or twice the gross gain or loss from the offense.

U.S. Attorney Carpenito credited the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Inspector General, under the direction of Special Agent in Charge Scott Lampert; and special agents of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of New Jersey, with the investigation leading to today’s charges.

The government is represented by Assistant U.S. Attorney Bernard J. Cooney of the Health Care and Government Fraud Unit of the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Newark.

The charges and allegations against the defendants are merely accusations, and they 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
Format: YYYY

Data imported from FJC Integrated Database
Magistrate Docket Number:   D-NJ  2:19-mj-04015
Case Name:   USA v. KOSTISHION et al
Description: The fiscal year of the data file obtained from the AOUSC
Format: YYYY

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Description: Case type associated with a magistrate case if the current case was merged from a magistrate case
Format: A2

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

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

Description: The docket number originally given to a case assigned to a magistrate judge and subsequently merged into a criminal case
Format: A7

Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a magistrate case
Format: A3

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Description: A count of original proceedings commenced
Format: N1

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

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

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

Description: A count of original proceedings terminated
Format: N1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Data imported from FJC Integrated Database
Score:   0.5
Docket Number:   aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuanVzdGljZS5nb3YvdXNhby1uai9wci9idXJsaW5ndG9uLWNvdW50eS1idXNpbmVzc21hbi1hZG1pdHMtZGVmcmF1ZGluZy1vdmVyLTc1LXZpY3RpbXMtbW9yZS0yNy1taWxsaW9uLXNjaGVtZQ
  Press Releases:
CAMDEN, N.J. – A Burlington County, New Jersey, man today admitted selling $2.7 million worth of pesticides he claimed were registered with the Environmental Protection Agency as being effective against coronavirus, U.S. Attorney Philip R. Sellinger and Assistant Attorney General Todd Kim of the Environment and Natural Resources Division of the U.S. Department of Justice, announced.

Paul Andrecola, 63, of Maple Shade, New Jersey, pleaded guilty before U.S. District Court Judge Robert B. Kugler in Camden federal court to an information charging him with one count of knowingly distributing or selling an unregistered pesticide in violation of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), one count of wire fraud, and one count of presenting false claims to the United States.

“Paul Andrecola’s scheme profited on the fears of the American people during the height of concerns about transmission of COVID-19,” U.S. Attorney Sellinger said. “Our office is dedicated to protecting public health and prosecuting to the full extent of the law those who commit such egregious criminal acts.”

“Andrecola not only cheated dozens of people out of millions of dollars, but also endangered the health of those who relied on his fraudulent virucidal products,” said Assistant Attorney General Todd Kim of the Justice Department’s Environment and Natural Resources Division. “The Department of Justice is committed to prosecuting such crimes to the fullest extent possible.”

“This announcement represents the largest pandemic fraud case related to the sale of unregistered pesticides charged nationwide,” Special Agent in Charge Tyler Amon of EPA’s Criminal Investigation Division in New Jersey said. “This case underscores EPA’s commitment with our law enforcement partners to hold violators accountable when they undercut the level playing field used by law abiding companies to ensure the integrity and safety of their products.” 

"The EPA Office of Inspector General is pleased to have contributed to this investigation by focusing on falsified records purporting to have been produced by the EPA," Special Agent in Charge Nic Evans of EPA's Office of Inspector General said.

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

FIFRA regulates the distribution, sale, and use of pesticides to ensure that pesticides sold in the United States are safe, effective, and bear labeling containing true and accurate information. The EPA is responsible for regulating the manufacture, labeling, and distribution of all pesticides shipped or received in interstate commerce.

Under FIFRA, all pesticides must be registered with the EPA before the pesticide can be sold or distributed, and no person may distribute or sell a pesticide that has not been registered with the EPA. Before pesticide products can legally make claims that they can kill a particular pathogen, such as SARS-CoV-2 (coronavirus), the claim must be authorized by EPA based on a review of data. In March 2020, at the beginning of the global pandemic, the EPA created a list of EPA-registered products that it deemed to be effective against coronavirus, titled “List N: Disinfectants for Use Against SARS-CoV-2.” The EPA has continued to update this list since its creation.

Andrecola, who controls two companies and is employed by a third company, all based in in Mount Laurel, manufactured various disinfectant products, including liquids and wipes, under the brand name “GCLEAN.” GCLEAN products were unregistered pesticides under FIFRA and none of the products were on EPA’s List N. Andrecola placed another company’s EPA registration numbers on his company’s products and falsely marketed that his products were EPA-approved to kill coronavirus by creating numerous false documents to support his claims.  Andrecola, or others at his behest, would provide this falsified documentation to potential customers representing that various sanitizer and wipe products in the names GCLEAN or GC200 were EPA-registered products List N to persuade them to purchase the unregistered pesticide products.  

From March 2020 through May 2021, Andrecola used these fraudulent representations to make more than 150 sales of unregistered pesticides for a profit of more than $2.7 million. The purchasers of these unregistered pesticides included a police department in Delaware, a fire department in Virginia, a medical clinic in Georgia, a janitorial supply company in New York, a school district in Wisconsin, and numerous U.S. Government agencies, including the U.S. Marshal’s Service, Moody Air Force Base, the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, and the National Forest Service.   

The count of illegal sale of an unregistered pesticide carries a statutory maximum prison sentence of one year, and a fine of up to $25,000. The charge of wire fraud is punishable by a maximum potential penalty of 20 years in prison and the count of false claims against the United States is punishable by a maximum potential penalty of five years in prison. Both the charges of wire fraud and false claims against the United States are each also subject to fines of $250,000, twice the gross profits to Andrecola, or twice the gross loss suffered by the victims, whichever is greatest. Sentencing is scheduled for Oct. 11, 2022.

As part of the plea agreement, Andrecola agreed to forfeit $2.74 million – the proceeds from the sale of the illegal product, and to make full restitution for all losses resulting from his commission of the charged crimes.   

U.S. Attorney Sellinger credited special agents of the U.S. EPA Criminal Investigation Division, under the direction of Special Agent in Charge Amon with the investigation leading to today’s plea. He also thanks the U.S. EPA Office of the Inspector General Eastern Region under the direction of Special Agent in Charge Nicolas Evans; Homeland Security Investigations Newark Field Office under the direction of Special Agent in Charge Jason J. Molina; Defense Criminal Investigative Service Northeast Field Office under the direction of Special Agent in Charge Patrick Hegarty; Naval Criminal Investigative Service Northeast Field Office under the direction of Special Agent in Charge Michael Wiest; and the Mount Laurel Police Department under the direction of Chief Stephen Riedener, for their assistance in this investigation.

The government is represented by Special Assistant U.S. Attorney Jason P. Garelick of the U.S. Attorney’s Economic Crimes Unit in Newark and Trial Attorneys Adam C. Cullman and Matthew D. Evans of the Environmental Crimes Section of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Score:   0.5
Docket Number:   aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuanVzdGljZS5nb3YvdXNhby1uai9wci9zaXgtcGVvcGxlLWNoYXJnZWQtZnJhdWR1bGVudGx5LW9idGFpbmluZy1sb2Fucy1tZWFudC1oZWxwLXNtYWxsLWJ1c2luZXNzZXMtZHVyaW5nLWNvdmlk
  Press Releases:
NEWARK, N.J. – Six Essex County, New Jersey, residents were arrested today for scheming to fraudulently obtain Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) loans, U.S. Attorney Philip R. Sellinger announced.

Nyan Terry, aka “Racks,” 23, of Irvington; Samir Jefferson, aka “Tank Jeffe,” 23, of Newark; and Nasir Williams, aka “Harlem Pete,” 29, Hymeen Reynolds, aka “Meen,” 21, Brian Brown, aka “Bizz,” 40, and Cadece Lapread, 35, all of East Orange, are each charged by complaint with one count of bank fraud. Terry, Reynolds, Brown, Lapread, and Jefferson are also charged with one count each of bank fraud conspiracy. The defendants made their initial appearances today before U.S. Magistrate Judge Jessica S. Allen.

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

The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act is a federal law enacted in March 2020 and was designed to provide emergency financial assistance to the millions of Americans suffering the economic effects caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. One source of relief provided by the CARES Act was the authorization of hundreds of billions of dollars in forgivable loans to small businesses for job retention and certain other expenses, through the PPP.

To obtain a PPP loan, a qualifying small business was required to apply and provide information on its operations, including the number of employees and expenses. In addition, businesses generally had to provide supporting documentation.

In April and May 2021, Terry, Jefferson, Williams, Reynolds, Brown, and Lapread schemed to defraud PPP lenders by submitting fraudulent PPP loan applications in the names of nonexistent small businesses, along with forged tax forms. Based on the defendants’ misrepresentations, lenders approved at least three fraudulent PPP loans and disbursed more than $62,000 in federal COVID-19 emergency relief funds.

The counts of bank fraud and bank fraud conspiracy each carry a maximum penalty of 30 years in prison and a maximum fine of $1 million.

U.S. Attorney Sellinger credited special agents of the FBI, under the direction of Special Agent in Charge Jesse Levine in Newark; special agents of the Department of Homeland Security, Homeland Security Investigations, under the direction of Special Agent in Charge Jason J. Molina in Newark; and special agents of IRS-Criminal Investigation, under the direction of Acting Special Agent in Charge Tammy Tomlins, with the investigation leading to the charges. He also thanked the Bloomfield Police Department, the Essex County Sheriff’s Office, the Essex County Prosecutor’s Office, and the Newark Department of Public Safety for their assistance in the investigation.

The government is represented by Special Assistant U.S. Attorney Timothy Shaughnessy and Assistant U.S. Attorney Sarah A. Sulkowski of the U.S. Attorney’s Organized Crime/Gangs Unit in Newark.

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

Score:   0.5
Docket Number:   aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuanVzdGljZS5nb3YvdXNhby1uai9wci9zb21lcnNldC1jb3VudHktd29tYW4tY2hhcmdlZC0xLW1pbGxpb24tcGF5Y2hlY2stcHJvdGVjdGlvbi1wcm9ncmFtLWFuZC1lY29ub21pYy1pbmp1cnk
  Press Releases:
NEWARK, N.J. – A Somerset County, New Jersey, woman was charged for her role in fraudulently obtaining over $1 million in federal Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) loans and Economic Injury Disaster Loans (EIDL), U.S. Attorney Philip R. Sellinger announced today.

Nivah Garcis, 51, of North Plainfield, New Jersey, is charged by complaint with one count of bank fraud and one count of money laundering. She made her initial appearance by videoconference today before U.S. Magistrate Judge Edward S. Kiel and was released on $100,000 unsecured bond.

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

Garcis submitted two fraudulent PPP loan applications to a lender on behalf of two purported businesses and three fraudulent EIDL loan applications to the Small Business Administration (SBA) on behalf of three purported businesses.

The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act is a federal law enacted on March 29, 2020, designed to provide emergency financial assistance to the millions of Americans suffering the economic effects caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. One source of relief provided by the CARES Act was the authorization of up to $349 billion in forgivable loans to small businesses for job retention and certain other expenses, through the PPP. In April 2020, Congress authorized over $300 billion in additional PPP funding.

The PPP allows qualifying small businesses and other organizations to receive loans with a maturity of two years and an interest rate of 1 percent. PPP loan proceeds must be used by businesses on payroll costs, interest on mortgages, rent, and utilities. The PPP allows the interest and principal on the PPP loan to be forgiven if the business spends the loan proceeds on these expense items within a designated period of time after receiving the proceeds and uses at least a certain percentage of the PPP loan proceeds on payroll expenses.

The applications Garcis submitted each allegedly contained fraudulent representations to the lender – a Federal Home Loan Bank member – and the SBA, including bogus federal tax documents purportedly from the IRS. Garcis also fabricated the existence of employees and wages paid through the purported businesses. According to IRS records, however, none of the purported tax documents that Garcis submitted in support of her loan applications were ever in fact filed with the IRS. Based on Garcis’s alleged misrepresentations, her loan applications for her purported businesses were approved for approximately $1.05 million in federal COVID-19 emergency relief funds meant for distressed small businesses. Garcis then used the proceeds for various personal expenses, including a BMW SUV.

The count of bank fraud carries a maximum penalty of 30 years in prison and a $1 million fine. The count of money laundering carries a maximum potential penalty of 10 years in prison and a maximum fine of $250,000 or twice the gross gain to the defendant or gross loss to the victim, whichever is greatest.

U.S. Attorney Sellinger credited special agents of the Social Security Administration, Office of the Inspector General, under the direction of Special Agent in Charge Sharon MacDermott; special agents of IRS – Criminal Investigation, under the direction of Special Agent in Charge Michael Montanez; special agents of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of New Jersey, under the direction of Special Agent in Charge Thomas Mahoney; postal inspectors of the U.S. Postal Inspection Service, under the direction of Acting Inspector in Charge Raimundo Marrero; special agents of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, Office of Inspector General, under the direction of Special Agent in Charge Robert Manchak; special agents of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Office of Inspector General, under the direction of Acting Special Agent in Charge Stephen Donnelly; special agents of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation – Office of the Inspector General, under the direction of Special Agent in Charge Patricia Tarasca in New York; and special agents of the Department of Homeland Security, Homeland Security Investigations, under the direction of Jason J. Molina in Newark, with the investigation leading to the charges.

The government is represented by Assistant U.S. Attorneys Katherine M. Romano and David E. Dauenheimer of the U.S. Attorney’s Office’s Government Fraud Unit in Newark.

Anyone with information about allegations of attempted fraud involving COVID-19 can report it by calling the Department of Justice’s National Center for Disaster Fraud Hotline at 866-720-5721 or via the NCDF Web Complaint Form at: https://www.justice.gov/disaster-fraud/ncdf-disaster-complaint-form.

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

Score:   0.5
Docket Number:   aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuanVzdGljZS5nb3YvdXNhby1uai9wci9uZXcteW9yay1kb2N0b3ItYWRtaXRzLWJ1eWluZy1hbmQtc2VsbGluZy1vbmNvbG9neS1tZWRpY2F0aW9uLXByb2ZpdA
  Press Releases:
NEWARK, N.J. – A New York doctor today admitted using his medical license – and allowing others to use his medical license – to purchase prescription oncology medications under false pretenses for the purpose of selling them for profit, U.S. Attorney Philip R. Sellinger announced.

Jon Paul Dadaian, 53, of New York, a board-certified anesthesiologist and pain management specialist, pleaded guilty before U.S. District Judge Susan D. Wigenton to an information charging him with unlawfully selling prescription cancer medication, which had been previously purchased using his medical license and under the representation that such medication was to be used to treat his patients.

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

While operating his medical practice in Elmwood, New Jersey, Dadaian befriended two individuals who owned and operated two businesses that were wholesale distributors of prescription drugs. At the request of these individuals, and in return for approximately $130,500 in payments, Dadaian used his medical license – and allowed others to use it – to purchase expensive prescription drugs, primarily, cold-chain biologic infusion medications that typically are used to treat cancers, macular degeneration, and autoimmune diseases. By recruiting and using Dadaian and his medical license to purchase the drugs, the two individuals were able to obtain prescription drugs from the pharmaceutical manufacturers’ authorized distributors that they would not otherwise have been permitted to purchase. They were then able to sell them at a profit through their two businesses. By using Dadaian and his medical license to purchase their prescription drugs, these two individuals also obtained discounted community physician pricing for the prescription drugs with respect to some of the drug purchases. The discounted community physician pricing was based upon specialized discounts that the pharmaceutical manufacturers only offered to treating physicians and others similarly situated. The two individuals and their businesses would not have been qualified to receive this favorable pricing if they had attempted to purchase the prescription drugs directly from the pharmaceutical manufacturers.

In purchasing the drugs, Dadaian and the two individuals made numerous false and misleading representations to the pharmaceutical manufacturers and authorized distributors, including that Dadaian purchased the drugs to use to treat his patients, and that the drugs would not be resold or redistributed. In actuality, none of the drugs were administered to Dadaian’s patients, but were ultimately sold to customers of the two businesses for a profit. The scheme ran from June 2012 through April 2018, during which tens of millions in prescription drugs were purchased in Dadaian’s name and using his medical license.

The sale of prescription drugs purchased by a healthcare entity is punishable by a maximum of three years in prison and a $10,000 fine. In his plea agreement, Dadaian also agreed to make restitution for the full amount of any loss resulting from his offense. Sentencing for Dadaian is scheduled for Sept. 20, 2022.

U.S. Attorney Sellinger credited special agents of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s Office of Criminal Investigations New York Field Office, under the direction of Acting Special Agent in Charge Brian G. McClune; and special agents of U.S. Attorney’s Office, under the direction of Special Agent in Charge Thomas Mahoney, with the investigation leading to today’s guilty plea.

The government is represented by Assistant U.S. Attorneys Diana Vondra Carrig and Sara Aliya Aliabadi of the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Camden.

Score:   0.5
Docket Number:   aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuanVzdGljZS5nb3YvdXNhby1uai9wci9zb21lcnNldC1jb3VudHktd29tYW4tYWRtaXRzLTEtbWlsbGlvbi1wYXljaGVjay1wcm90ZWN0aW9uLXByb2dyYW0tYW5kLWVjb25vbWljLWluanVyeQ
  Press Releases:
NEWARK, N.J. – A Somerset County, New Jersey, woman today admitted fraudulently obtaining over $1 million in federal Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) loans and Economic Injury Disaster Loans (EIDL), U.S. Attorney Philip R. Sellinger announced.

Nivah Garcis, 51, of North Plainfield, New Jersey, pleaded guilty before U.S. District Judge Peter G. Sheridan in Trenton federal court to an information charging her with one count of conspiracy to commit bank fraud, three counts of wire fraud, and one count of money laundering.

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

Garcis conspired with at least one individual to submit two fraudulent PPP loan applications to a lender on behalf of two purported businesses that she controlled, and further submitted three fraudulent EIDL loan applications to the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) on behalf of these businesses and another business that she owned. She then engaged in financial transactions with the loan proceeds, including for the purchase of property.

The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act is a federal law enacted on March 29, 2020, designed to provide emergency financial assistance to the millions of Americans suffering the economic effects caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. One source of relief provided by the CARES Act was the authorization of up to $349 billion in forgivable loans to small businesses for job retention and certain other expenses, through the PPP. In April 2020, Congress authorized over $300 billion in additional PPP funding.

The applications Garcis submitted each contained fraudulent representations to the lender, a Federal Home Loan Bank member, and the SBA, including bogus federal tax documents purportedly from the IRS. Garcis also fabricated the existence of employees and wages paid through the purported businesses. According to IRS records, however, none of the purported tax documents that Garcis submitted in support of her loan applications were ever in fact filed with the IRS. Based on Garcis’ misrepresentations, her loan applications for her purported businesses were approved for approximately $1.05 million in federal COVID-19 emergency relief funds meant for distressed small businesses. Garcis then used the proceeds to purchase property and for various personal expenses.

The count of conspiracy to commit bank fraud carries a maximum penalty of 30 years in prison and a $1 million fine. The counts of wire fraud each carry a maximum penalty of 20 years in prison and a maximum fine of $250,000. The count of money laundering carries a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison and a maximum fine of $250,000. Sentencing is scheduled for Jan. 31, 2023.

U.S. Attorney Sellinger credited special agents of IRS – Criminal Investigation, under the direction of Acting Special Agent in Charge Tammy L Tomlins; special agents of the Social Security Administration, Office of the Inspector General, under the direction of Special Agent in Charge Sharon MacDermott; special agents of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of New Jersey, under the direction of Special Agent in Charge Thomas Mahoney; postal inspectors of the U.S. Postal Inspection Service in Newark, under the direction of Acting Inspector in Charge Raimundo Marrero, Philadelphia Division; special agents of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, Office of Inspector General, under the direction of Special Agent in Charge Robert Manchak; special agents of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Office of Inspector General, under the direction of Acting Special Agent in Charge Stephen Donnelly; special agents of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation – Office of the Inspector General, under the direction of Special Agent in Charge Patricia Tarasca in New York; and special agents of the Department of Homeland Security, Homeland Security Investigations, under the direction of Acting Special Agent in Charge Richard. W. Reinhold, in Newark, with the investigation leading to today’s guilty plea.

The government is represented by Assistant U.S. Attorneys Katherine M. Romano and David E. Dauenheimer of the U.S. Attorney’s Office’s Health Care Fraud Unit in Newark.

Anyone with information about allegations of attempted fraud involving COVID-19 can report it by calling the Department of Justice’s National Center for Disaster Fraud Hotline at 866-720-5721 or via the NCDF Web Complaint Form at: https://www.justice.gov/disaster-fraud/ncdf-disaster-complaint-form.

Score:   0.5
Docket Number:   aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuanVzdGljZS5nb3YvdXNhby1uai9wci9mb3JtZXItcmVzaWRlbnQtYmVyZ2VuLWNvdW50eS1hZG1pdHMtcm9sZS0xNS1taWxsaW9uLWludmVzdG1lbnQtZnJhdWQtc2NoZW1l
  Press Releases:
NEWARK, N.J. – A former New Jersey resident today admitted participating in an investment scheme through which he fraudulently obtained $1.525 million from at least three families from 2017 through 2019, U.S. Attorney Craig Carpenito announced.

Matthew Benjamin, 53, formerly of Englewood, New Jersey, and now of New York, pleaded guilty by videoconference before U.S. District Judge Claire C. Cecchi to an information charging him with one count of wire fraud and one count of securities fraud. 

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

From May 2017 through August 2019, Benjamin falsely represented to at least three families that his company, Clear Solutions Group LLC, had lucrative contracts to purchase closeout or excess cosmetic inventory from Company A, which he would then resell at a mark-up to Company B. Benjamin told the victims that he had access to these closeout goods through his contacts in the cosmetics and fragrance industry, which he purportedly made through his work at his family’s cosmetic wholesale and distribution business prior to starting Clear Solutions Group. Benjamin induced the victims to provide him with money to purchase the inventory from Company A and promised significant profits in return. Instead of investing the money as he promised, Benjamin misappropriated the investor’s money for his own use and benefit.

Benjamin provided the victims with falsified documents, including fake purchase orders, invoices, promissory notes and bank records showing inflated assets of Clear Solutions Group. To lull victims and induce them to continue investing, Benjamin provided them with documents that purported to detail the investors’ profits.

Benjamin misrepresented to certain investors that portions of their profits on the investment contracts were being reinvested in additional deals to purchase and sell cosmetics, which in turn would generate more profits. From time to time, Benjamin made payments to the investors that were purportedly their profits on certain cosmetics contracts.

In reality, Benjamin misappropriated the investors’ money by making payments to other investors in Clear Solutions Group, which were characterized as those investors’ profits from the nonexistent cosmetic contracts, thereby enabling Benjamin to continue to perpetuate his fraudulent scheme; and by funding Benjamin’s and his family’s lifestyle, including paying for car and house rental payments, food, international travel, legal fees, technology equipment, and summer camp tuition for his family members.

The wire fraud counts are each punishable by a maximum of 20 years in prison and a fine of $250,000, or twice the gross amount of gain or loss from the offense, whichever is greater. The securities fraud count is punishable by a maximum of 20 years in prison and a fine of $5 million.  Sentencing is scheduled for March 24, 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, with the investigation leading to today’s guilty plea. He also thanked the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission’s New York Regional Office, under the direction of Director Richard R. Best, for its assistance. The SEC also filed a civil complaint based on the same conduct when Benjamin was arrested July 1, 2020; that complaint remains pending.

The government is represented by Assistant U.S. Attorney Jennifer S. Kozar of the U.S. Attorney’s Office Economic Crimes Unit in Newark.

Score:   0.5
Docket Number:   aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuanVzdGljZS5nb3YvdXNhby1uai9wci9idXJsaW5ndG9uLWNvdW50eS1idXNpbmVzc21hbi1zZW50ZW5jZWQtZml2ZS15ZWFycy1wcmlzb24tZGVmcmF1ZGluZy1vdmVyLTc1LXZpY3RpbXMtbW9yZQ
  Press Releases:
CAMDEN, N.J. – A Burlington County, New Jersey, man who sold more than $2.7 million worth of pesticides he falsely claimed were registered with the Environmental Protection Agency as being effective against coronavirus, was sentenced today to 60 months in prison, U.S. Attorney Philip R. Sellinger and Assistant Attorney General Todd Kim of the Justice Department’s Environment and Natural Resources Division announced.

Paul Andrecola, 63, of Maple Shade, New Jersey, previously pleaded guilty before U.S. District Court Judge Robert B. Kugler in Camden federal court to an information charging him with one count each of knowingly distributing or selling an unregistered pesticide in violation of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), wire fraud, and presenting false claims to the United States. Judge Kugler imposed the sentence today in Camden federal court.

“Paul Andrecola’s scheme profited on the fears of the American people during the height of concerns about transmission of COVID-19,” U.S. Attorney Sellinger said. “Our office is dedicated to protecting public health and prosecuting to the full extent of the law fraudsters who commit such egregious criminal acts.”

“The defendant committed a brazen fraud in the midst of a global pandemic and sought to profit from people’s fears of contracting the coronavirus,” Assistant Attorney General Todd Kim of the Justice Department’s Environment and Natural Resources Division (ENRD) said. “This sentence shows that these crimes are serious and will be vigorously prosecuted by the Department of Justice.”

“Today’s sentence holds the defendant accountable for perpetrating the largest pandemic fraud case related to the sale of unregistered pesticides charged nationwide,” Special Agent in Charge Tyler Amon of EPA’s Criminal Investigation Division in New Jersey said. “This case underscores EPA’s commitment to hold violators accountable for placing the public at risk by failing to ensure the integrity and safety of their products.” 

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

FIFRA regulates the distribution, sale, and use of pesticides to ensure that pesticides sold in the United States are safe, effective, and bear labeling containing true and accurate information. The EPA is responsible for regulating the manufacture, labeling, and distribution of all pesticides shipped or received in interstate commerce.

Under FIFRA, all pesticides must be registered with the EPA before the pesticide can be sold or distributed, and no person may distribute or sell a pesticide that has not been registered with the EPA. Before pesticide products can legally make claims that they can kill a particular pathogen, such as SARS-CoV-2 (coronavirus), the claim must be authorized by EPA based on a review of data. In March 2020, at the beginning of the global pandemic, the EPA created a list of EPA-registered products that it deemed to be effective against coronavirus, titled “List N: Disinfectants for Use Against SARS-CoV-2.” The EPA has continued to update this list since its creation.

Andrecola, who controls two companies and is employed by a third company, all based in in Mount Laurel, New Jersey, manufactured various disinfectant products, including liquids and wipes, under the brand name “GCLEAN.” GCLEAN products were unregistered pesticides under FIFRA and none of the products were on EPA’s List N. Andrecola placed another company’s EPA registration numbers on his company’s products and falsely marketed that his products were EPA-approved to kill coronavirus by creating numerous false documents to support his claims. Andrecola, or others at his behest, would provide this falsified documentation to potential customers representing that various sanitizer and wipe products in the names GCLEAN or GC200 were EPA-registered products List N to persuade them to purchase the unregistered pesticide products.

From March 2020 through May 2021, Andrecola used these fraudulent representations to make more than 150 sales of unregistered pesticides for a profit of more than $2.7 million. The purchasers of these unregistered pesticides included a police department in Delaware, a fire department in Virginia, a medical clinic in Georgia, a janitorial supply company in New York, a school district in Wisconsin, and numerous U.S. Government agencies, including the U.S. Marshal’s Service, Moody Air Force Base, the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, and the National Forest Service.

In addition to the prison term, Judge Kugler sentenced Andrecola to three years of supervised release and forfeiture of $2.74 million – the proceeds from the sale of the illegal product. The defendant is also responsible to make full restitution for all losses resulting from his commission of the charged crimes.

U.S. Attorney Sellinger credited special agents of the U.S. EPA Criminal Investigation Division, under the direction of Special Agent in Charge Tyler Amon with the investigation leading to today’s sentencing. He also thanks the U.S. EPA Office of the Inspector General Eastern Region under the direction of Special Agent in Charge Nicolas Evans; Homeland Security Investigations Newark Field Office under the direction of Special Agent in Charge Ricky J. Patel; Defense Criminal Investigative Service Northeast Field Office under the direction of Special Agent in Charge Patrick Hegarty; Naval Criminal Investigative Service Northeast Field Office under the direction of Special Agent in Charge Michael Wiest; and the Mount Laurel Police Department under the direction of Chief Stephen Riedener, for their assistance in this investigation.

The government is represented by Special Assistant U.S. Attorney Jason P. Garelick of the U.S. Attorney’s Economic Crimes Unit in Newark and Trial Attorneys Adam C. Cullman and Matthew D. Evans of the Environmental Crimes Section of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Score:   0.5
Docket Number:   aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuanVzdGljZS5nb3YvdXNhby1uai9wci90d28tcGF0ZXJzb24tcG9saWNlLW9mZmljZXJzLWNoYXJnZWQtYXNzYXVsdGluZy12aWN0aW0tYW5kLWZpbGluZy1mYWxzZS1wb2xpY2UtcmVwb3J0
  Press Releases:
NEWARK, N.J. – Two Paterson Police Officers are facing civil rights and obstruction of justice charges for allegedly assaulting a victim in Paterson and then lying about it, Acting U.S. Attorney Rachael A. Honig announced.

Paterson Police Officers Kevin Patino, 29, of Paterson New Jersey, and Kendry Tineo-Restituyo, 28, also of Paterson, New Jersey are both charged by complaint with depriving a victim of his Constitutional right to be free from the use of unreasonable force by law enforcement officers and with filing a false police report. Patino surrendered this morning and Tineo-Restituyo is expected to surrender later this morning. The defendants are scheduled to appear by videoconference this afternoon before U.S. Magistrate Judge André M. Espinosa.

“Police officers who abuse their positions to exert power over and injure the citizens they are supposed to protect violate our Constitution and erode trust in our public institutions,” Acting U.S. Attorney Honig said. “The U.S. Attorney’s Office is committed to working closely with the FBI and our state partners to investigate and prosecute these civil rights violations and restore the public trust.” 

“Civil rights violations are one of the FBI’s highest priorities, particularly when the allegations involve members of law enforcement,” George M. Crouch Jr., Special Agent in Charge of the FBI, Newark Division, said. “We rely on the police to protect the public. The few who take advantage of this public trust, at any level, will be investigated by the FBI and prosecuted to the full extent of the law.”

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

At approximately 12:30 a.m. on December 14, 2020, in Paterson, Patino and Tineo-Restituyo approached the victim, who was walking with his hands in his pockets. Patino grabbed hold of the victim. When the victim attempted to separate himself, Patino struck the victim in the face and body numerous times. While Patino was striking the victim, Tineo-Restituyo picked the victim up and threw him to the ground. Patino and Tineo-Restituyo then repeatedly struck the victim while he was on the ground.      

Patino and Tineo-Restituyo then filed a police report regarding the arrest of the victim, which contained numerous false statements and omissions. For instance, the police report falsely stated that the victim had walked towards the officers “screaming profanities” and “acting belligerent” and that the victim had struck Patino with a closed fist in the chest. None of this was true. The report also omitted the fact that Patino and Tineo-Restituyo continued to strike the victim after the victim was on the ground.

The violation of civil rights count carries a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison. The false records count carries a maximum penalty of 20 years in prison. The maximum fine for each of the charges is $250,000.

Acting U.S. Attorney Honig credited special agents of the FBI, under the direction of Special Agent In Charge George M. Crouch Jr. in Newark; the New Jersey Attorney General’s Office, under the direction of Attorney General Gurbir Grewal; the Passaic County Prosecutor’s Office, under the direction of Passaic County Prosecutor Camelia M. Valdes; and the North Jersey Public Corruption Task Force, composed of members of FBI and New Jersey State Police, with the investigation leading to the charges.

The government is represented by Senior Civil Rights Counsel Joseph Gribko of the U.S. Attorney’s Office’s Criminal Division in Newark.

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

Score:   0.5
Docket Number:   aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuanVzdGljZS5nb3YvdXNhby1uai9wci9wYXNzYWljLWNvdW50eS1tYW4td2hvLW9wZXJhdGVkLWNsaWZ0b24tbmV3LWplcnNleS1hbWJ1bGFuY2UtY29tcGFueS1kZXNwaXRlLWJhbg
  Press Releases:
NEWARK, N.J. – A Clifton, New Jersey, man was sentenced today to 216 months in prison for health care fraud, obstructing a federal audit, and other charges associated with his illegal operation of an ambulance company despite having been banned from participating in federal health care programs, U.S. Attorney Paul J. Fishman announced.

 

Imadeldin Awad Khair, a/k/a “Nadr Awad,” 57, was previously convicted of all 17 counts of an indictment charging him with health care fraud, obstructing a federal audit, tax evasion, and money laundering. He was convicted following a nine-day bench trial before U.S. District Judge Susan D. Wigenton, who imposed the sentence today in Newark federal court.

 

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

 

In 2004, as a result of his conviction on a New Jersey state health care fraud charge, Khair was excluded from participating in any capacity in Medicare, Medicaid, or other federal health care programs for a minimum of 11 years. After realizing that he would be excluded from federal health care programs, Khair began operating a business named K&S Invalid Coach in his brother’s name. Since the date of his exclusion, Medicare and Medicaid paid over $9 million in claims submitted by K&S, none of which would have been paid had Medicare and Medicaid known that Khair was operating the business.

Khair’s plan to defraud Medicare and Medicaid began almost immediately after he was excluded by authorities from participating in federal health care programs. In 2004 and 2005, Khair recruited a business associate to tell authorities that Khair was his full-time employee so that Khair could continue running K&S in violation of his exclusion. Khair also used fraudulent paystubs provided by his business associate to convince authorities that he was not violating the terms of his exclusion.

In 2014, when special agents with the FBI and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Inspector General, executed a search warrant at K&S’s offices, Khair’s top managers directed employees via group text message to tell the agents that Khair’s brother was really in charge at K&S. In addition, on the first day of trial, Khair tried to influence a government witness just outside of the courtroom by claiming that he had over two dozen employees who were going to testify that his brother had really been in charge at K&S.

Khair also paid numerous K&S employees, including nearly all of the employees’ overtime wages, “off the books” and without withholding the necessary payroll taxes. To carry out the tax evasion scheme, Khair paid the wages in cash or handwritten check and directed K&S employees to keep two separate sets of books. Khair then directed company employees to send only the fraudulent set of books to the company’s payroll accountant.

In response to a U.S. Department of Labor audit of K&S in 2014, Khair held an employee meeting in which he directed K&S employees to lie to the Department of Labor by stating that they never worked more than 80 hours in a biweekly pay period. Khair also directed K&S employees to alter and falsify K&S timekeeping records to match the false amounts previously reported to the company’s payroll accountant.

The money laundering counts arose from K&S checks that were written and endorsed by Khair and made payable to “cash” or Khair himself, which were used to pay the undisclosed wages and enrich Khair personally.

In addition to the prison term, Judge Wigenton ordered Khair to serve three years of supervised release and pay restitution of $8.8 million.

 

U.S. Attorney Fishman credited special agents of the FBI, under the direction of Special Agent in Charge Timothy Gallagher in Newark; special agents of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Inspector General, under the direction of Special Agent in Charge Scott J. Lampert; and special agents of IRS-Criminal Investigation, under the direction of Special Agent in Charge Jonathan D. Larsen, with the investigation leading to today’s sentencing.

The government is represented by Assistant U.S. Attorneys Danielle M. Corcione and Osmar J. Benvenuto of the U.S. Attorney’s Office Criminal Division in Newark.

U.S. Attorney Fishman reorganized the health care fraud practice shortly after taking office, creating a stand-alone Health Care and Government Fraud Unit to handle both criminal and civil investigations and prosecutions of health care fraud offenses. Since 2010, the office has recovered more than $1.32 billion in health care fraud and government fraud settlements, judgments, fines, restitution and forfeiture under the False Claims Act, the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act and other statutes.

 

Defense counsel: Harvey R. Poe Esq., Roseland, New Jersey

Score:   0.5
Docket Number:   aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuanVzdGljZS5nb3YvdXNhby1uai9wci9uYXNzYXUtY291bnR5LW5ldy15b3JrLW1hbi1zZW50ZW5jZWQtNTctbW9udGhzLXByaXNvbi1kZWZyYXVkaW5nLW11bHRpcGxlLXJlc2lkZW50aWFs
  Press Releases:
TRENTON, N.J. – The sole proprietor of a purported loan modification consulting company was sentenced today to 57 months in prison for fraudulently billing clients more than $400,000 for services that were never performed, U.S. Attorney Craig Carpenito announced.

Jeffrey Halpern, 63, of Hewlett, New York, previously pleaded guilty before U.S. District Judge Peter G. Sheridan to an information charging him with one count of wire fraud. Judge Sheridan imposed the sentence today in Trenton federal court.

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

Between 2009 and 2016, Halpern operated JCK Marketing and solicited business from individuals who were seeking home loan modifications on their residential mortgages. Halpern told these individuals that, for a fee, he would negotiate loan modifications on their behalf.

In actuality, Halpern pocketed the funds but performed little or no actual services in connection with the purported loan modifications. Halpern also repeatedly demanded money for “bank fees” from his victims, even though none of the related financial institutions charged fees for loan modifications. During the relevant time period, Halpern defrauded at least 26 victims of more than $400,000.



In addition to the prison term, Judge Sheridan sentenced Halpern to three years of supervised release and ordered to pay $411,000 in restitution.

U.S. Attorney Carpenito credited investigators with the U.S. Attorney’s Office and special agents of the FBI, under the direction of Special Agent in Charge Gregory W. Ehrie in Newark, with the investigation leading to today’s sentencing. He also thanked the New York State Department of Financial Services, under the direction of Superintendent Maria T. Vullo; the Federal Housing Finance Agency Office of the Inspector General, under the direction of Mark Higgins; and the Nassau County District Attorney’s office, under the direction of District Attorney Madeline Singas, for their assistance.

The government is represented by Assistant U.S. Attorney Sammi Malek of the U.S. Attorney’s Office Criminal Division in Newark.

Defense counsel: Mitchell C. Elman Esq., Port Washington, New York

Score:   0.5
Docket Number:   aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuanVzdGljZS5nb3YvdXNhby1uai9wci9zb21lcnNldC1jb3VudHktbWFuLWFkbWl0cy04NTAwMDAtcGF5Y2hlY2stcHJvdGVjdGlvbi1wcm9ncmFtLWZyYXVkLXNjaGVtZQ
  Press Releases:
TRENTON, N.J. – A Somerset County, New Jersey, man admitted fraudulently obtaining over $850,000 in federal Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) loans U.S. Attorney Philip R. Sellinger, announced today.

Butherde Darius, 50, of North Plainfield, New Jersey, pleaded guilty before U.S. District Judge Peter G. Sheridan in Trenton federal court on Nov. 21, 2022, to an information charging him with one count of conspiracy to commit bank fraud, and one count of money laundering.

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

Darius conspired with at least one individual to submit a fraudulent PPP loan application to a lender on behalf of a purported business that he controlled, obtaining over $850,000. He engaged in various financial transactions with the fraudulently obtained loan proceeds. The application Darius and his conspirator submitted contained fraudulent representations to the lender – a Federal Home Loan Bank member – and the SBA, including bogus federal tax documents purportedly from the IRS. Darius also fabricated the existence of employees and wages paid through the purported businesses. According to IRS records, however, none of the purported tax documents that were submitted in support of the loan applications were ever filed with the IRS. Darius loan application for his purported business was approved for approximately $852,000 in federal COVID-19 emergency relief funds meant for distressed small businesses.  Darius then used a portion of the proceeds for various personal expenses.

The count of conspiracy to commit bank fraud carries a maximum penalty of 30 years in prison and a $1 million fine. The count of money laundering carries a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison and a maximum fine of $250,000. Sentencing is scheduled for March 6, 2023.

U.S. Attorney Sellinger credited special agents of IRS – Criminal Investigation, under the direction of Acting Special Agent in Charge Tammy L Tomlins; special agents of the Social Security Administration, Office of Inspector General, under the direction of Special Agent in Charge Sharon MacDermott; special agents of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of New Jersey, under the direction of Special Agent in Charge Thomas Mahoney; postal inspectors of the U.S. Postal Inspection Service in Newark, under the direction of Acting Inspector in Charge Raimundo Marrero, Philadelphia Division; special agents of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, Office of Inspector General, under the direction of Special Agent in Charge Robert Manchak; special agents of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Office of Inspector General, under the direction of Acting Special Agent in Charge Stephen Donnelly; special agents of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation – Office of Inspector General, under the direction of Special Agent in Charge Patricia Tarasca in New York; and special agents of the Department of Homeland Security, Homeland Security Investigations, under the direction of Special Agent in Charge Ricky J. Patel in Newark, with the investigation leading to the guilty plea.

The government is represented by Assistant U.S. Attorneys David E. Dauenheimer and Katherine M. Romano of the U.S. Attorney’s Office’s Health Care Fraud Unit in Newark.

Anyone with information about allegations of attempted fraud involving COVID-19 can report it by calling the Department of Justice’s National Center for Disaster Fraud Hotline at 866-720-5721 or via the NCDF Web Complaint Form at: https://www.justice.gov/disaster-fraud/ncdf-disaster-complaint-form.

Score:   0.5
Docket Number:   D-NJ  2:21-cr-00114
Case Name:   USA v. OSORIO
Docket (0 Docs):   https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1HE2fn0FlQx4flL-BT6Q8_COGYJPHqokFKyKtjFfTyXI
  Last Updated: 2023-11-08 10:38:07 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 number of days from the earlier of filing date or first appearance date to proceeding date
Format: N3

Description: The number of days from proceeding date to disposition date
Format: N3

Description: The number of days from disposition date to sentencing date
Format: N3

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

Description: A code indicating the type of legal counsel assigned to a defendant at the time the case was closed
Format: N2

Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense that carried the most severe disposition and penalty under which the defendant was disposed
Format: A20

Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with TTITLE1
Format: N2

Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with TTITLE1
Format: A4

Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with TTITLE1
Format: A4

Description: A code indicating the severity associated with TTITLE1
Format: A3

Description: The code indicating the nature or type of disposition associated with TTITLE1
Format: N2

Description: The number of months a defendant was sentenced to prison under TTITLE1
Format: N4

Description: The number of months of probation imposed upon a defendant under TTITLE1
Format: N4

Description: A code indicating whether the probation sentence associated with TTITLE1 was concurrent or consecutive in relation to the other counts in the indictment or information or multiple counts of the same charge
Format: A4

Description: A period of supervised release imposed upon a defendant under TTITLE1
Format: N3

Description: The fine imposed upon the defendant at sentencing under TTITLE1
Format: N8

Description: The total probation time for all offenses of which the defendant was convicted and probation was imposed
Format: N4

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

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

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

Description: A count of original proceedings commenced
Format: N1

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

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

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

Description: A count of original proceedings terminated
Format: N1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Data imported from FJC Integrated Database
Magistrate Docket Number:   D-NJ  2:19-mj-08059
Case Name:   USA v. Osorio
  Press Releases:
NEWARK N.J. – A Bergen County, New Jersey, man was charged today with making false declarations in relation to a bankruptcy proceeding, U.S. Attorney Craig Carpenito announced.

Victor Osorio, 40, of Cresskill, New Jersey, is charged by complaint with two counts of bankruptcy fraud. He is scheduled to make his initial appearance this afternoon before U.S. Magistrate Judge Steven C. Mannion in Newark federal court.

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

On Feb. 16, 2017, Osorio filed a voluntary petition for relief under Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code in U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Jersey. Osorio signed the bankruptcy petition under penalty of perjury, declaring that the information provided was true and correct.

In the petition, Osorio stated that none of his affiliates had a pending bankruptcy case, failing to disclose that a business in which he had an interest, “Business 1,” had a bankruptcy case pending at the time in U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York.

Osorio also filed Schedules of Assets and Liabilities, signed under penalty of perjury, in which he stated that he did not own or have an interest in any incorporated or unincorporated businesses. Osorio failed to disclose that he had an ownership interest in Business 1 – and he had declared approximately seven months earlier in Business 1’s bankruptcy documents that he was its sole owner – and had an ownership interest in another business, Business 2.

In the Schedules, Osorio also stated that he did not own or have an interest in any checking, savings or other financial accounts, failing to disclose a bank account with a bank based in the Dominican Republic in which he had an interest.

On Feb. 24, 2017, Osorio filed amendments to the schedules, disclosing a partial ownership interest in Business 1. However, the amendments still failed to disclose an ownership interest in Business 2 and the bank account in the Dominican Republic.

The bankruptcy fraud charge carries 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 New York City Police Department detectives, under the direction of New York City Police Department Commissioner Paul P. O’Neill, assigned to the Homeland Security Investigations Border Security Enforcement Task Force (BEST); and special agents of HSI-New York, under the direction of Special Agent in Charge Angel M. Melendez, assigned to HSI/NY BEST, with the investigation leading to today’s charge.

The government is represented by Assistant U.S. Attorney Dara Govan, Chief of the U.S. Attorney’s Office Public Protection Unit in Newark; Assistant U.S. Attorney Sean M. Sherman, of the Public Protection Unit; and Special Assistant U.S. Attorney Ben Teich of the Economic Crimes Unit.

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

Docket (0 Docs):   https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/15GvkP9NOXLPXFhS5wOJHSl0eNf8kF9V-7cYdc0GDD5U
  Last Updated: 2023-10-12 23:41:19 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: 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 number of days from the earlier of filing date or first appearance date to proceeding date
Format: N3

Description: The number of days from proceeding date to disposition date
Format: N3

Description: The number of days from disposition date to sentencing date
Format: N3

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

Description: A code indicating the type of legal counsel assigned to a defendant at the time the case was closed
Format: N2

Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense that carried the most severe disposition and penalty under which the defendant was disposed
Format: A20

Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with TTITLE1
Format: N2

Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with TTITLE1
Format: A4

Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with TTITLE1
Format: A4

Description: A code indicating the severity associated with TTITLE1
Format: A3

Description: The code indicating the nature or type of disposition associated with TTITLE1
Format: N2

Description: The number of months a defendant was sentenced to prison under TTITLE1
Format: N4

Description: The number of months of probation imposed upon a defendant under TTITLE1
Format: N4

Description: A code indicating whether the probation sentence associated with TTITLE1 was concurrent or consecutive in relation to the other counts in the indictment or information or multiple counts of the same charge
Format: A4

Description: A period of supervised release imposed upon a defendant under TTITLE1
Format: N3

Description: The fine imposed upon the defendant at sentencing under TTITLE1
Format: N8

Description: The total probation time for all offenses of which the defendant was convicted and probation was imposed
Format: N4

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

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

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

Description: A count of original proceedings commenced
Format: N1

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

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

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

Description: A count of original proceedings terminated
Format: N1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Data imported from FJC Integrated Database
Score:   0.5
Docket Number:   aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuanVzdGljZS5nb3YvdXNhby1uai9wci9mb3JtZXItZGVwb3J0YXRpb24tb2ZmaWNlci1jb252aWN0ZWQtYWNjZXB0aW5nLWJyaWJlcy1oYXJib3JpbmctdW5kb2N1bWVudGVkLWltbWlncmFudA
  Press Releases:
NEWARK, N.J. – A Somerset, New Jersey, man was convicted by a federal jury today of accepting cash bribes and sex in exchange for providing employment authorization documents and concealing his employment of an undocumented immigrant at a hair salon he owned, U.S. Attorney Paul J. Fishman announced.

Arnaldo Echevarria, 39, a former deportation officer with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), was convicted of Counts 1-6 and Counts 8 and 9 of an indictment charging him with seven counts of accepting bribes, one count of harboring an undocumented immigrant and one count of making false statements to immigration authorities. He was acquitted on Count 7, one of the bribery counts. Echevarria was convicted following a one-week trial before U.S. District Judge Esther Salas in Newark federal court. The jury deliberated for one day before returning the guilty verdict.

According to statements made in court and evidence presented at trial:

As a deportation officer, Echevarria enforced immigration and customs laws by identifying, locating, arresting and removing undocumented immigrants from the United States and by supervising certain undocumented immigrants who had not yet been deported. Undocumented immigrants subject to a deportation order often were able to obtain employment authorization documents which allowed them to legally work in the United States for a one-year period and which could be renewed annually.

Between 2012 and 2014, Echevarria agreed to obtain employment authorization documents for undocumented immigrants who were not lawfully present in the country. In return, Echevarria demanded and received approximately $75,000 in cash bribes, and demanded and received sex from one individual. In order to conceal them from immigration authorities, Echevarria falsely stated that they had been granted temporary protected status, which allows nationals from certain countries experiencing environmental disaster, ongoing armed conflict, or other extraordinary conditions to lawfully remain in the United States. None of the individuals who bribed Echevarria had actually applied for, or received, temporary protected status.

In December 2012, Echevarria received permission from his superiors at ICE to open a hair salon in West Orange, New Jersey. Echevarria certified to ICE that the hair salon would not conflict with ICE matters and would not involve undocumented workers. However, Echevarria employed his girlfriend at the time, an undocumented immigrant, to manage the salon. Echevarria’s girlfriend had entered the United States illegally, using the name and identification of an individual in Puerto Rico to obtain a Pennsylvania identification card.

Echevarria knew his girlfriend resided in the United States illegally. Prior to opening the hair salon, Echevarria queried the name and date of birth of his girlfriend’s alias in various law enforcement databases. After opening the salon, Echevarria ensured that his girlfriend’s illegal status remained a secret by signing the lease for her apartment and by placing her cable and electric bills in his name. In addition to driving his girlfriend and other employees to and from the salon each day, Echevarria also paid the employees in cash and never asked them to fill out employment eligibility paperwork.

The six bribery counts on which Echevarria was convicted each carry a maximum potential penalty of 15 years in prison and a $250,000 fine, or twice the gross gain or loss from the offense, or three times the monetary equivalent of the things of value accepted by the defendant. The charges of harboring and making false statements are each punishable by a maximum potential penalty of five years in prison and $250,000 fine, or twice the gross gain or loss arising from the offense. Echevarria’s sentencing is scheduled for June 19, 2017.

U.S. Attorney Fishman credited special agents of ICE, Office of Professional Responsibility, under the direction of Special Agent in Charge Keith Barwick, with the investigation leading to today’s guilty verdict.

The government is represented by Assistant U.S. Attorneys Rahul Agarwal of the U.S. Attorney’s Office Special Prosecutions Division in Newark, and Barbara Llanes, Deputy Chief of the General Crimes Unit.

Score:   0.5
Docket Number:   aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuanVzdGljZS5nb3YvdXNhby1uai9wci90d28tY2hhcmdlZC0xLW1pbGxpb24tZW1iZXp6bGVtZW50LXNjaGVtZQ
  Press Releases:
NEWARK, N.J. – Two New Jersey residents were charged for their participation in a multi-year $1 million embezzlement scheme, U.S. Attorney Craig Carpenito announced today.

Ruby Baroni, 53, of Lyndhurst, New Jersey, and Rolando Veloso, 41, of Haskell, New Jersey, were each charged by a criminal complaint unsealed today in Newark federal court with one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud. They made their initial appearances today by videoconference before U.S. Magistrate Judge Edward S. Kiel.

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

Between October 2010 and August 2016, Baroni and Veloso conspired with others to carry out a large-scale, multifaceted scheme to embezzle funds from an area guided-tour company. In some instances, Baroni, who served as the company’s accounting manager, cut checks drawn against the company’s checking accounts made out to either other company employees or fictitious individuals and then cashed those checks herself. In other instances, Baroni cut checks made out to various shell business entities formed by Veloso, none of which ever performed any services for the company; Veloso then deposited or cashed those checks for his personal use. Veloso also made substantial charges for his shell business entities on a company credit card issued to another conspirator, none of which reflected any actual work performed for the company by any of those entities. In all, Baroni, Veloso, and their conspirators embezzled over $1 million from the company.

The charge of conspiracy to commit wire fraud carries a maximum penalty of 20 years in prison and a $250,000 fine.

U.S. Attorney Carpenito credited inspectors of the U.S. Postal Inspection Service, under the direction of Inspector in Charge James V. Buthorn, 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. Attorney Andrew M. Trombly of the U.S. Attorney’s Office Cybercrime Unit in Newark.

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

Score:   0.5
Docket Number:   aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuanVzdGljZS5nb3YvdXNhby1uai9wci9vbmUtb2ZmaWNlci10d28tc2VyZ2VhbnRzLWFuZC1saWV1dGVuYW50LWNoYXJnZWQtY29ubmVjdGlvbi1hc3NhdWx0LWZlZGVyYWwtcHJldHJpYWw
  Press Releases:
NEWARK, N.J. – One Essex County correctional officer, two sergeants, and one lieutenant were indicted for civil rights violations in connection with the assault of a federal pretrial detainee, Acting U.S. Attorney Rachael A. Honig announced today.

Officer Damion James, 41, was charged with assaulting the pretrial detainee in violation of his civil rights. Sgt. Herman Pride, 51, Sgt. Jennifer Whitley, 38, and Lt. Nicholas Palma, 46, were charged with failing to intervene to stop the assault. Sgt. Whitley was additionally charged with submitting a false report to cover up the assault. All four defendants will be arraigned on a date to be determined. 

According to documents filed in this case:

On the evening of Aug. 17, 2020, a federal pretrial detainee at Essex County Correctional Facility (ECCF) squirted a mixture of urine, yogurt, and milk onto a correctional officer. The detainee subsequently was transported to a disciplinary cell, where James assaulted the detainee, striking him multiple times in the body and face. Pride, Whitley, and Palma watched the assault, but none of them intervened to stop it.  

Two days after the assault, the detainee was taken to the emergency room at University Hospital in Newark. He was diagnosed with large swelling and tenderness in the right side of his face and discoloration and bruising around his right eye.

The defendants all were required to submit documentation regarding their use of force.  None of them submitted any such reports. Instead, Whitley submitted a report falsely indicating that no force had been used, when, in fact, Whitley, Pride, and Palma had watched James repeatedly assault the pretrial detainee. Officer Angel Chaparro previously pleaded guilty to his role in the submission of the false report. 

Acting U.S. Attorney Honig credited special agents of the FBI, under the direction of Special Agent in Charge George M. Crouch Jr. in Newark; and the Essex County Correctional Facility Internal Affairs Bureau, under the direction of Director Alfaro Ortiz and the Office of the Warden, with the investigation leading to the charges.

The government is represented by Acting Principal Assistant U.S. Attorney Rahul Agarwal.

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

Score:   0.5
Docket Number:   aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuanVzdGljZS5nb3YvdXNhby1uai9wci9zb3V0aC1jYXJvbGluYS1pbnZlc3RtZW50LWZ1bmQtbWFuYWdlci1zZW50ZW5jZWQtNjMtbW9udGhzLXByaXNvbi0yMC1taWxsaW9uLXNlY3VyaXRpZXM
  Press Releases:
NEWARK, N.J. – A South Carolina investment fund manager was sentenced today to 63 months in prison for his role in a scheme to fraudulently obtain over $20 million from investors through misrepresentations about trading strategy and fund performance, Acting U.S. Attorney Rachael A. Honig announced.

George Heckler, 65, of Charleston, South Carolina, previously pleaded guilty by videoconference before U.S. District Judge Madeline Cox Arleo to an information charging him with one count of securities fraud. Judge Arleo imposed the sentence today in Newark federal court.

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

Heckler managed, controlled or was involved with multiple investment funds, including Conestoga Partner Holdings (Conestoga), Cassatt Short Term Trading Fund LP (Cassatt), CV Special Opportunity Fund LP (CVSO), and TA1 LLC (TA1). 

From 2014 to 2018, Heckler misrepresented to investors that he would invest their funds in particular trading strategies. Instead, he diverted their funds out of Cassatt and TA1 for purposes inconsistent with the trading strategies, including to pay out millions of dollars to other investors. Heckler also used investors’ funds to cover investment losses suffered by other funds under his management and/or control.

Heckler solicited investments from Victim-1, claiming the investments would be invested in Cassatt, which employed a “first loss” trading strategy intended to protect investors from losses. However, as of December 2013, Cassatt no longer had a brokerage account that was necessary to employ the represented trading strategy. Despite Cassatt no longer having a brokerage account, in 2014, Heckler represented to Victim-1 that Cassatt was still engaged in a first loss trading strategy and solicited Victim-1’s investment in Cassatt. In September 2014, Victim-1 invested approximately $9.1 million in Cassatt, relying on Heckler’s representation that Victim-1’s money would be invested consistent with Cassatt’s first loss trading strategy.  Heckler used $4.6 million of Victim-1’s investment to repay existing investors and the remainder to satisfy other obligations Heckler owed that were unrelated to Cassatt.

Heckler also approached Victim-2 about the possibility of creating a hedge fund that would deploy capital to first-loss traders, who would serve as the “first loss” protection for investors’ capital. In late 2015, Victim-2 formed a hedge fund, utilizing the concept proposed by Heckler (Entity-1). In 2015 and 2016, Entity-1 invested $10.1 million in TA1 via a participation agreement that provided that Entity-1’s investment would be used for an “options arbitrage dividend recapture trade,” otherwise known as the “skate trade.” In fact, none of Entity-1’s investment was used for the “skate trade.” Entity-1’s investment was used for other purposes, including repaying others who had previously invested with Heckler.

Over the course of the scheme, Heckler sent out statements to investors that misled them into believing the value of their investments was increasing, when, in fact, the value was declining. Heckler took approximately $1 million in fees and distributions from the fraudulently obtained investments for his personal use. 

In addition to the prison term, Judge Arleo sentenced Heckler to three years of supervised release and ordered forfeiture of $19.25 million.

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission has filed a civil complaint against Heckler based on the allegations underlying the securities fraud charge.

Acting U.S. Attorney Honig credited special agents of the FBI, under the direction of Special Agent in Charge Michael J. Driscoll, Philadelphia Field Office, with the investigation leading to today’s sentencing. 

The government is represented by Assistant U.S. Attorney Catherine R. Murphy of the U.S. Attorney’s Office Criminal Division.

Score:   0.5
Docket Number:   D-NJ  2:20-cr-00051
Case Name:   USA v. MANOR et al
  Press Releases:
NEWARK, N.J. – An Essex County, New Jersey, woman and a Canadian man were indicted today for their roles in a securities fraud scheme that induced victims to invest $30 million worth of cash and cryptocurrency based on fraudulent misrepresentations, U.S. Attorney Craig Carpenito announced.

Edith Pardo, 68, of Bloomfield, New Jersey, and Boaz Manor, 46, of Toronto, Canada, are each charged with one count of conspiring to commit wire fraud, three counts of wire fraud, and one count of securities fraud in connection with a blockchain technology company. Pardo was arrested today by special agents of the FBI and is scheduled to appear this afternoon before U.S. Magistrate Judge Steven C. Mannion in Newark federal court. Manor remains at large.

According to the indictment:

In 2003, Manor co-founded and managed a hedge fund based in Toronto, Canada. In connection with his work at that hedge fund, Manor pleaded guilty in Canada to one count of transferring monies in breach of trust and one count of disobeying a court order. He was sentenced to four years in prison.

Following his release from prison, Manor founded a business, CG Blockchain Inc., and began creating a product called ComplianceGuard, which was purportedly designed provide hedge funds with a blockchain-based auditing tool. While raising money for CG Blockchain, Manor hid his true identity and criminal past from investors and others by using a variety of aliases, including “Shaun MacDonald.” He also changed his appearance by darkening his hair and growing a beard.

Manor secured a significant portion, if not all, of the initial seed money in CG Blockchain from a close family member. In order to conceal the source of this money, Manor recruited Pardo to act as a conduit for the money. The defendants misrepresented to potential CG Blockchain investors that Pardo was an independently wealthy investor who provided millions of dollars in seed money to CG Blockchain.

The defendants also misrepresented that 20 hedge funds were using ComplianceGuard and were each paying CG Blockchain a $1 million yearly fee. In reality, none of the 20 hedge funds paid fees to CG Blockchain, and many of the hedge funds did not receive or use ComplianceGuard at all.

In 2017, CG Blockchain launched an “Initial Coin Offering” (ICO), and began marketing its new product – “Blockchain Terminal” – to potential investors. CG Blockchain described Blockchain Terminal as a computer terminal that allowed hedge funds and financial institutions to trade and manage cryptocurrency. Manor actively marketed the token to investors, while failing to disclose his true identity or his role at CG Blockchain. The defendants also misrepresented to ICO investors that the Blockchain Terminal had “Actual Clients” and was “installed at 20 hedge funds.”

In 2018, CG Blockchain publicly announced that it had raised $30 million from its ICO. Following the ICO, CG Blockchain investors learned of Manor’s true identity and criminal past. When confronted by an investor, Manor admitted that he had hidden his real identity and criminal past because disclosure of that information would have resulted in “the company being destroyed.”

The conspiracy and wire fraud counts in the indictment carry a maximum potential penalty of 20 years in prison and $250,000 fine, or twice the gross gain or loss from the offense. The securities fraud count carries a potential penalty of 20 years in prison and a $5 million fine.

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) also filed a civil complaint against Manor and Pardo today based on the same conduct.

U.S. Attorney Craig Carpenito credited special agents of the FBI, under the direction of Special Agent in Charge Gregory W. Ehrie in Newark, with the investigation leading to today’s charges. He also thanked the SEC for the assistance provided by its Enforcement Division.

The government is represented by Assistant U.S. Attorneys Vijay Dewan and Catherine R. Murphy of the U.S. Attorney’s Office Economic Crimes Unit.

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

Docket (0 Docs):   https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1KewydAht1FojBg0VWa1QsboHRnSVBP3sAPKO0vJ9KRk
  Last Updated: 2024-02-25 21:33:47 UTC
Description: The fiscal year of the data file obtained from the AOUSC
Format: YYYY

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Description: The 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
Score:   0.5
Docket Number:   aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuanVzdGljZS5nb3YvdXNhby1uai9wci90d28tZXNzZXgtY291bnR5LXdvbWVuLWNoYXJnZWQtc2hhbS1tYXJyaWFnZS1pbW1pZ3JhdGlvbi1zY2hlbWU
  Press Releases:
NEWARK, N.J. – Two Essex County, New Jersey, women were indicted today in connection with a scheme to arrange sham marriages between U.S. citizens and non-citizens seeking to stay in the United States unlawfully, U.S. Attorney Philip R. Sellinger announced.

Sisters Andrea Torres, 55, and Regina Johnson, 57, of Newark, were both charged by indictment with one count of conspiracy to encourage and induce non-citizens to remain in the United States illegally. They had been previously charged by complaint with the same offense. Torres and Johnson will be arraigned at a later date.

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

From September 2016 to July 2019, Torres and Johnson devised and participated in a fraudulent scheme to arrange and facilitate sham marriages for non-citizens who wished to remain in the United States despite lacking legal status or the proper documentation. They recruited U.S. citizen as potential spouses and paid them a fee in exchange for those U.S. citizens entering into sham marriages with Torres’ and Johnson’s non-citizen clients. Torres and Johnson arranged for the “couples” to obtain fraudulent marriage licenses and even arranged and charged their clients for wedding ceremonies and afterparties that were staged to make the sham marriages appear legitimate. Torres and Johnson advised their clients on ways to make their marriage appear legitimate on paper, including the opening of joint bank accounts and frequent meetings with their U.S. spouses – where they were advised to take pictures in a variety of locations and in different clothing – to document the relationship and give the appearance of cohabitation, even though none of the clients ever resided or intended to reside with their U.S. spouses. Torres and Johnson then helped their non-citizen clients fill out immigration forms to obtain permanent residency on the basis of materially false misrepresentations.

The charge in the indictment carries a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison and a fine of $250,000, or twice the pecuniary gain or loss resulting from the offense, whichever is greatest.

U.S. Attorney Sellinger credited special agents of the Department of Homeland Security, Homeland Security Investigation, under the direction of Special Agent in Charge Jason J. Molina in Newark, with the investigation leading to today’s indictment.

The government is represented by Assistant U.S. Attorney Sammi Malek of the National Security Unit in Newark.

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

Score:   0.5
Docket Number:   aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuanVzdGljZS5nb3YvdXNhby1uai9wci9uZXctamVyc2V5LWRvY3Rvci1hZG1pdHMtYnV5aW5nLWFuZC1zZWxsaW5nLW9uY29sb2d5LW1lZGljYXRpb24tcHJvZml0
  Press Releases:
NEWARK, N.J. – A New Jersey doctor today admitted using his medical license – and allowing other to use his medical license – to purchase prescription oncology medications under false pretenses for the purpose of selling them for profit, U.S. Attorney Philip R. Sellinger announced.

Joel Lerner, 62, of Warren, New Jersey, a board-certified podiatrist and operator of a medical supply group purchasing organization, pleaded guilty by videoconference before U.S. District Judge Susan D. Wigenton to an information charging him with unlawfully selling prescription cancer medication, which had been previously purchased using his medical license and under the representation that such medication was to be used to treat his patients.

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

While working in his medical practice’s offices in various locations in New Jersey, Lerner was recruited by an individual who owned a pharmacy and also owned and operated two businesses that were wholesale distributors of prescription drugs. At the request of this individual and others working with him, and in return for commissions and discounts on other medical supplies purchased by Lerner for his group purchasing organization, Lerner used his medical license – and allowed others to use it – to purchase expensive prescription drugs, primarily, cold-chain biologic infusion medications that typically are used to treat cancers, macular degeneration, and autoimmune diseases. By recruiting and using Lerner and his medical license to purchase the drugs, these individuals were able to obtain prescription drugs from the pharmaceutical manufacturers’ authorized distributors that they would not otherwise have been permitted to purchase. They were then able to sell them at a profit through their two businesses.

In purchasing the drugs, Lerner and the two individuals made numerous false and misleading representations to the pharmaceutical manufacturers and authorized distributors, including that Lerner purchased the drugs to use to treat his patients, and that the drugs would not be resold or redistributed. In actuality, none of the drugs were administered to Lerner’s patients, but were ultimately sold to customers of the two businesses for a profit. In an effort to obscure the fact that he was illegally buying and selling prescription drugs purchased under his medical license, Lerner sold and transferred the prescription drugs in the name of his group purchasing organization. The scheme ran from December 2014 through November 2018, during which more than $1.2 million in prescription drugs were purchased in Lerner’s name and using his medical license.

The sale of prescription drugs purchased by a healthcare entity is punishable by a maximum of three years in prison and a $10,000 fine. In his plea agreement, Lerner also agreed to make restitution for the full amount of any loss resulting from his offense. Sentencing is scheduled for July 18, 2023.

U.S. Attorney Sellinger credited special agents of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s Office of Criminal Investigations New York Field Office, under the direction of Special Agent in Charge Fernando P. McMillan; and special agents of U.S. Attorney’s Office, under the direction of Special Agent in Charge Thomas Mahoney, with the investigation leading to today’s guilty plea.

The government is represented by Assistant U.S. Attorneys Diana Vondra Carrig and Sara A. Aliabadi of the U.S Attorney’s Office in Camden.

Score:   0.5
Docket Number:   D-NJ  1:20-cr-00356
Case Name:   USA v. VALENTIN
  Press Releases:
CAMDEN, N.J. – A South Jersey woman who owns a tax preparation business admitted today to helping her clients file falsified tax returns, U.S. Attorney Craig Carpenito announced.

Gloria Valentin, 48, of Cherry Hill, New Jersey, pleaded guilty by teleconference before U.S. District Judge Renee Marie Bumb in Camden federal court to an information charging her with one count of aiding and assisting in the preparation of false income tax returns.

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

Valentin owned, operated and approved all of the income tax returns filed by GNG Business Solutions in Cinnaminson. She admitted that she prepared approximately 60 income tax returns for 27 tax clients during tax years 2013 through 2016. Those tax returns contained similar patterns of false and fictitious Schedule A itemized deductions and unreimbursed employee business expenses. Valentin and her employees fabricated Schedule A, unreimbursed employee business expenses when none were incurred. Those false expenses resulted in substantially reduced income tax liabilities and resulted in larger refunds for her clients and caused a tax loss of $201,896 to the government.

The charges to which Valentin pleaded guilty carry a maximum potential penalty of three years in prison and a $250,000 fine. Sentencing is scheduled for Sept. 8, 2020.

U.S. Attorney Carpenito credited special agents of IRS-Criminal Investigation, under the direction of Acting Special Agent in Charge Laura J. Perry, with the investigation leading to today’s guilty plea.

The government is represented by Senior Trial Counsel Jason M. Richardson of the U.S. Attorney=s Office Criminal Division in Camden.

 

Docket (0 Docs):   https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ZrlN_jRWOPUdNFu6Vcr6IpySRDJ5jK4UVt5BirLiiQo
  Last Updated: 2023-10-23 21:25:54 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 FIPS code used to indicate the county or parish where an offense was committed
Format: A5

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Description: A count of original proceedings commenced
Format: N1

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

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

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

Description: A count of original proceedings terminated
Format: N1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Data imported from FJC Integrated Database
Score:   0.5
Docket Number:   aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuanVzdGljZS5nb3YvdXNhby1uai9wci9mb3JtZXItbW9ubW91dGgtY291bnR5LXJlc2lkZW50cy1jaGFyZ2VkLTMzLW1pbGxpb24tcGF5Y2hlY2stcHJvdGVjdGlvbi1wcm9ncmFtLWZyYXVk
  Press Releases:
NEWARK, N.J. – Two former residents of Monmouth County, New Jersey, now residing in Frisco, Texas, were arrested today for their roles in fraudulently obtaining over $3 million in federal Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) payments, U.S. Attorney Philip R. Sellinger announced.

Jean E. Rabbitt, 51, formerly of Farmingdale, New Jersey, is charged by complaint with bank fraud, conspiracy to engage in monetary transactions in property derived from specified unlawful activity and engaging in monetary transactions in property derived from specified unlawful activity. Kevin Aguilar, 51, formerly of Farmingdale, is charged by complaint with conspiracy to engage in monetary transactions in property derived from specified unlawful activity and engaging in monetary transactions in property derived from specified unlawful activity. Rabbitt and Aguilar are scheduled to make their initial appearances by videoconference on March 3, 2022, before U.S. Magistrate Judge Kimberly C. Priest Johnson in the Eastern District of Texas.

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

The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act is a federal law enacted on March 29, 2020, designed to provide emergency financial assistance to the millions of Americans suffering the economic effects caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. One source of relief provided by the CARES Act was the authorization of up to $349 billion in forgivable loans to small businesses for job retention and certain other expenses, through the PPP. In April 2020, Congress authorized over $300 billion in additional PPP funding.

The PPP allows qualifying small businesses and other organizations to receive loans with a maturity of two years and an interest rate of 1 percent. PPP loan proceeds must be used by businesses on payroll costs, interest on mortgages, rent, and utilities. The PPP allows the interest and principal on the PPP loan to be forgiven if the business spends the loan proceeds on these expense items within a designated period of time after receiving the proceeds and uses at least a certain percentage of the PPP loan proceeds on payroll expenses.

Rabbitt submitted fraudulent PPP loan applications on behalf of four businesses that she controlled. The applications contained fraudulent representations to the lenders, including a Federal Home Loan Bank member, and the Small Business Administration (SBA), including fraudulent payroll records and tax records and false certifications as to the number of employees and gross revenue of Rabbitt’s businesses. According to IRS records, none of the purported tax documents that Rabbitt submitted to the PPP lenders were, in fact, filed with the IRS. Other government records showed that, contrary to the fraudulent payroll records and certifications, Rabbitt’s businesses had not in fact paid wages to any employees. Based on Rabbitt’s alleged misrepresentations in the loan applications, Rabbitt’s businesses received approximately $3.33 million in federal COVID-19 emergency relief funds meant for distressed small businesses.

After Rabbitt’s businesses received the PPP loans through the fraudulent applications, Aguilar created sham payroll companies. Rabbitt then wrote checks from Rabbitt’s businesses to the sham payroll companies, falsely indicating on each check that the payments were for payroll. Rabbitt and Aguilar then transferred funds from the sham payroll companies to other companies that Aguilar created. Aguilar and Rabbitt then used the funds to purchase residential properties in Sherman, Texas, and to pay for personal expenses.

Rabbitt also made false and fraudulent statements and used falsified and fraudulent documents in support of applications for forgiveness of certain of the PPP loans. Based on Rabbitt’s false and fraudulent certifications and documents, the SBA paid more than $2 million dollars to lenders in connection with the fraudulent PPP loans Rabbitt obtained.

Each count of bank fraud carries a maximum penalty of 30 years in prison and a fine of $1 million. Each count of conspiracy to engage in monetary transactions in property derived from specified unlawful activity and engaging in monetary transactions in property derived from specified unlawful activity carries a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison. The conspiracy to engage in monetary transactions in property derived from specified unlawful activity and engaging in monetary transactions in property derived from specified unlawful activity carry a maximum fine of $250,000 or twice the gross gain to the defendant or gross loss to the victim, whichever is greatest. The court may impose an alternate fine of not more than twice the amount of the criminally derived property involved in the transaction.

U.S. Attorney Sellinger credited special agents of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation – Office of the Inspector General, under the direction of Special Agent in Charge Patricia Tarasca in New York; IRS – Criminal Investigation, under the direction of Special Agent in Charge Michael Montanez; special agents of the Social Security Administration, Office of the Inspector General, under the direction of Special Agent in Charge Sharon MacDermott; postal inspectors of the U.S. Postal Inspection Service, under the direction of Acting Inspector in Charge Raimundo Marrero; special agents of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, Office of Inspector General, under the direction of Special Agent in Charge Robert Manchak; and special agents of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of New Jersey, under the direction of Special Agent in Charge Thomas Mahoney.

The government is represented by Assistant U.S. Attorneys Olajide Araromi and David V. Simunovich of the U.S. Attorney’s Office’s Government Fraud Unit, in Newark.

On May 17, 2021, the Attorney General established the COVID-19 Fraud Enforcement Task Force to marshal the resources of the Department of Justice in partnership with agencies across government to enhance efforts to combat and prevent pandemic-related fraud. The Task Force bolsters efforts to investigate and prosecute the most culpable domestic and international criminal actors and assists agencies tasked with administering relief programs to prevent fraud by, among other methods, augmenting and incorporating existing coordination mechanisms, identifying resources and techniques to uncover fraudulent actors and their schemes, and sharing and harnessing information and insights gained from prior enforcement efforts. For more information on the Department’s response to the pandemic, please visit https://www.justice.gov/coronavirus.

Anyone with information about allegations of attempted fraud involving COVID-19 can report it by calling the Department of Justice’s National Center for Disaster Fraud Hotline at 866-720-5721 or via the NCDF Web Complaint Form at: https://www.justice.gov/disaster-fraud/ncdf-disaster-complaint-form.

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

Score:   0.5
Docket Number:   aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuanVzdGljZS5nb3YvdXNhby1uai9wci9mb3JtZXItcmVzaWRlbnQtYmVyZ2VuLWNvdW50eS1zZW50ZW5jZWQtMjktbW9udGhzLXByaXNvbi0xNS1taWxsaW9uLWludmVzdG1lbnQtZnJhdWQ
  Press Releases:
NEWARK, N.J. – A former New Jersey resident was sentenced today to 29 months in prison for his role in an investment scheme through which he fraudulently obtained more than $1.52 million from at least three families from 2017 through 2019, U.S. Attorney Philip R. Sellinger announced.

Matthew Benjamin, 54, formerly of Englewood, New Jersey, and now of New York, previously pleaded guilty before U.S. District Judge Claire C. Cecchi to an information charging him with one count of wire fraud and one count of securities fraud. Judge Cecchi imposed the sentence today in Newark federal court.

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

From May 2017 through August 2019, Benjamin falsely represented to at least three families that his company, Clear Solutions Group LLC, had lucrative contracts to purchase closeout or excess cosmetic inventory from a company, which he would then resell at a mark-up to a second company. Benjamin told the victims that he had access to these closeout goods through his contacts in the cosmetics and fragrance industry, which he purportedly made through his work at his family’s cosmetic wholesale and distribution business prior to starting Clear Solutions Group. Benjamin induced the victims to provide him with money to purchase the inventory from the first company and promised significant profits in return. Instead of investing the money as he promised, Benjamin misappropriated the investors’ money for his own use and benefit.

Benjamin provided the victims with falsified documents, including fake purchase orders, invoices, promissory notes and bank records showing inflated assets of Clear Solutions Group. To lull victims and induce them to continue investing, Benjamin provided them with documents that purported to detail the investors’ profits.

Benjamin misrepresented to certain investors that portions of their profits on the investment contracts were being reinvested in additional deals to purchase and sell cosmetics, which in turn would generate more profits. From time to time, Benjamin made payments to the investors that were purportedly their profits on certain cosmetics contracts.

In reality, Benjamin misappropriated the investors’ money by making payments to other investors in Clear Solutions Group, which were characterized as those investors’ profits from the nonexistent cosmetic contracts, thereby enabling Benjamin to continue to perpetuate his fraudulent scheme and funding Benjamin’s lifestyle, including paying for car and house rental payments, food, international travel, legal fees, technology equipment, and summer camp tuition for his family members.

In addition to the prison term, Judge Cecchi sentenced Benjamin to three years of supervised release and ordered forfeiture of $1.53 million and restitution of $909,539.

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission has filed a civil complaint against Benjamin based on allegations underlying the securities fraud charge. 

U.S. Attorney Sellinger credited special agents of the FBI, under the direction of Special Agent in Charge George M. Crouch Jr. in Newark, with the investigation leading to today’s sentencing.

The government is represented by Assistant U.S. Attorney Jennifer S. Kozar and Catherine R. Murphy, Chief of the Economic Crimes Unit of the U.S. Attorney’s Office.

Score:   0.5
Docket Number:   aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuanVzdGljZS5nb3YvdXNhby1uai9wci9iZXJnZW4tY291bnR5LW1hbi1hcnJlc3RlZC0xNS1taWxsaW9uLWludmVzdG1lbnQtZnJhdWQtc2NoZW1l
  Press Releases:
NEWARK, N.J. – A Bergen County, New Jersey, man was arrested today for his alleged role in an investment scheme that fraudulently obtained $1.525 million from at least three families from 2017 through 2019, U.S. Attorney Craig Carpenito announced.

Matthew Benjamin, 53, of Englewood, New Jersey, is charged by complaint with two counts of wire fraud and one count of securities fraud. He is scheduled to make his initial appearance today by videoconference before U.S. Magistrate Judge Cathy L. Waldor.

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

From May 2017 through August 2019, Benjamin falsely represented to at least three families that his company, Clear Solutions Group LLC, had lucrative contracts to purchase closeout or excess cosmetic inventory from Company A, which he would then resell at a mark-up to Company B. Benjamin told the victims that he had access to these closeout goods through his contacts in the cosmetics and fragrance industry, which he purportedly made through his work at his family’s cosmetic wholesale and distribution business prior to starting Clear Solutions Group. Benjamin induced the victims to provide him with money to purchase the inventory from Company A and promised significant profits in return. Instead of investing the money as he promised, Benjamin misappropriated the investor’s money for his own use and benefit.

Benjamin provided the victims with falsified documents, including fake purchase orders, invoices, promissory notes and bank records showing inflated assets of Clear Solutions Group. To lull victims and induce them to continue investing, Benjamin provided them with documents that purported to detail the investors’ profits.

Benjamin misrepresented to certain investors that portions of their profits on the investment contracts were being reinvested in additional deals to purchase and sell cosmetics, which in turn would generate more profits. From time to time, Benjamin made payments to the investors that were purportedly their profits on certain cosmetics contracts. 

In reality, Benjamin did not purchase or sell cosmetics with the money invested by the victims. Instead, Benjamin misappropriated the investors’ money by making payments to other investors in Clear Solutions Group, which were characterized as those investors’ profits from the nonexistent cosmetic contracts, thereby enabling Benjamin to continue to perpetuate his fraudulent scheme; and by funding Benjamin’s and his family’s lifestyle, including paying for car and house rental payments, food, international travel, legal fees, technology equipment, and summer camp tuition for his family members. The victims’ losses from the fraud perpetrated by Benjamin collectively totaled approximately $1 million.

The wire fraud counts are each punishable by a maximum of 20 years in prison and a fine of $250,000, or twice the gross amount of gain or loss from the offense, whichever is greater. The securities fraud count is punishable by a maximum of 20 years in prison and a fine of $5 million.

U.S. Attorney Carpenito credited special agents of the FBI, under the direction of Acting Special Agent in Charge Joe Denahan in Newark, with the investigation leading to today’s charges.

The government is represented by Assistant U.S. Attorney Jennifer Kozar of the Economic Crimes Unit in Newark.

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

Score:   0.5
Docket Number:   aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuanVzdGljZS5nb3YvdXNhby1uai9wci9vd25lci1kaXZpbmctc2Nob29sLWFkbWl0cy13aXJlLWZyYXVk
  Press Releases:
CAMDEN, N.J. – The president and CEO of a commercial diving school today admitted fraudulently obtaining funding from the U.S. Department of Education (DOE) and the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) for the school and its students, Acting U.S. Attorney Rachael A. Honig announced.

Tamara Brown, 57, of Haddon Heights, New Jersey, pleaded guilty by videoconference before U.S. District Judge Joseph H. Rodriguez to an information charging her with one count of wire fraud.

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

From January 2012 through July 2018, Brown owned a private, for-profit commercial diving school, which offered educational programs in commercial diving and underwater welding and salvage. As a for-profit institution, the diving school was required to be accredited through an approved accreditation body to be eligible to receive tuition funds from the DOE’s Higher Education Act’s programs. The VA also relies upon the accreditation in evaluating the eligibility of veteran students to receive student aid funding. Given that more than 80 percent of the diving school’s students received financial assistance from the Department of Education, the school stood to lose its largest source of tuition funding for its students if it lost its accreditation.

Prior to 2012, the diving school had been properly accredited. However, when renewing the diving school’s accreditation that year, Brown submitted fraudulent information to the accrediting authority. For example, Brown reported rates of employment of the school’s graduates of between 81 to 84 percent, when the employment rates were closer to 50 to 60 percent, significantly lower than the rate required to maintain accreditation. Brown also provided fraudulent information pertaining to the school’s holding of “advisory board” meetings required for accreditation to ensure that the school’s curriculum would educate students to meet the current demands of the industry and prospective employers. In the school’s accreditation application, Brown reported holding advisory board meetings on various dates and also submitted what purported to be minutes of nine such board meetings. The diving school did not have a formal advisory board and did not regularly conduct meetings as required. Brown submitted wholly fabricated meeting minutes for at least six of the nine dates listed in the school’s accreditation application and, therefore, did not satisfy the minimum accreditation requirements. The diving school nonetheless continued to regularly receive DOE funds via wire transfers, including a wire transfer which occurred on Jan. 18, 2017.

The wire fraud charge to which Brown pleaded guilty carries a maximum potential penalty of 20 years in prison and a $250,000 fine, or twice the gross gain or loss resulting from the offense. Under the terms of the plea agreement, Brown must pay restitution of $1.1 million. Sentencing is scheduled for Aug. 30, 2021.

Acting U.S. Attorney Honig credited agents of the FBI’s South Jersey Resident Agency, under the direction of Special Agent in Charge Michael J. Driscoll in Philadelphia, the Philadelphia Resident Agency of the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Inspector General, under the direction of Special Agent in Charge Terry V. Harris, and the Northeast Field Office of the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs Office of Inspector General, under the direction of Special Agent in Charge Christopher F. Algieri, with the investigation leading to today’s guilty plea.

The government is represented by Assistant U.S. Attorney Diana Vondra Carrig of the U.S Attorney’s Office in Camden.

Score:   0.5
Docket Number:   aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuanVzdGljZS5nb3YvdXNhby1uai9wci9iZXJnZW4tY291bnR5LW5ldy1qZXJzZXktbWFuLXNlbnRlbmNlZC00Ni1tb250aHMtcHJpc29uLTE1LW1pbGxpb24tcG9uemktc2NoZW1l
  Press Releases:
NEWARK, N.J. – A Lyndhurst, New Jersey, man was sentenced today to 46 months in prison for fraudulently obtaining over $1.5 million from approximately 100 victims prior to high-profile initial public offerings (IPOs), Acting U.S. Attorney William E. Fitzpatrick announced.

Omar Hafez, 25, previously pleaded guilty before U.S. District Judge William H. Walls to an information charging him one count of wire fraud. Judge Walls imposed the sentence today in Newark federal court.

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

From July 2014 through December 2015, Hafez operated an investment fraud scheme in which he and others created a number of entities, including Lotus Global. Several of these entities had websites and social media pages listing Hafez as the CEO and advertising themselves as successful wealth management companies.

In order to deceive victim investors, Hafez represented that he had access to shares of various companies prior to their initial public offerings and could use that access to provide significant profits to investors. However, bank records for accounts controlled by Hafez and certain Lotus Global entities revealed that none of the money provided by victim investors was used to purchase shares or invest in any of the pre-IPO companies.

Instead, Hafez used the funds for his own benefit, including several large purchases at luxury car dealerships, including an approximately $87,000 purchase at Prestige Motors, an approximately $24,160 purchase at Signature Car Collections, and an approximately $8,690 purchase at Dream Cars National LLC. In addition, Hafez purchased numerous luxury goods, including an approximately $17,250 purchase at Tourneau Inc., an approximately $5,613 purchase at Louis Vuitton, and an approximately $3,000 purchase at Tiffany & Co., as well as airplane tickets and hotel stays for a single trip to Chicago totaling approximately $10,000.

Hafez employed numerous strategies to maintain the victims’ confidence and induce further investments. For example, bank records showed that Hafez occasionally used money from earlier victim investors in order to pay future victims “lulling” payments. In classic Ponzi scheme fashion, Hafez lied to investors and told them that these payments were returns on their investments.

As funds began to run out and investors demanded their money with increasing frequency, Hafez provided certain victim investors with checks for thousands of dollars, claiming that they represented investment returns or a refund of initial investments. When victim investors attempted to deposit or cash these checks, the checks were rejected due to insufficient funds because Hafez and others had already spent the victims’ money.

In addition to the prison term, Judge Walls sentenced Hafez to three years of supervised release. Hafez must also pay restitution of $1.5 million.

Acting U.S. Attorney Fitzpatrick credited special agents of the FBI, under the direction of Special Agent in Charge Timothy Gallagher, and postal inspectors of the U.S. Postal Inspection Service, under the direction of Inspector in Charge James V. Buthorn, with the investigation leading to today’s sentence.

The government is represented by Assistant U.S. Attorney Courtney A. Howard of the U.S. Attorney’s Office Criminal Division in Newark.

Defense counsel: Joseph D. Rotella Esq., Newark

 

Score:   0.5
Docket Number:   aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuanVzdGljZS5nb3YvdXNhby1uai9wci9vd25lci1kaXZpbmctc2Nob29sLXNlbnRlbmNlZC0yNy1tb250aHMtcHJpc29uLXdpcmUtZnJhdWQ
  Press Releases:
CAMDEN, N.J. – The president and CEO of a commercial diving school was sentenced today to 27 months in prison for fraudulently obtaining funding from the U.S. Department of Education (DOE) and the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) for the school and its students, U.S. Attorney Philip R. Sellinger announced.

Tamara Brown, 58, of Haddon Heights, New Jersey, previously pleaded guilty by videoconference before U.S. District Judge Joseph H. Rodriguez to an information charging her with one count of wire fraud. Judge Rodriguez imposed the sentence today by videoconference.

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

From January 2012 through July 2018, Brown owned a private, for-profit commercial diving school, which offered educational programs in commercial diving and underwater welding and salvage. As a for-profit institution, the diving school was required to be accredited through an approved accreditation body to be eligible to receive tuition funds from the DOE’s Higher Education Act’s programs. The VA also relies upon the accreditation in evaluating the eligibility of veteran students to receive student aid funding. Given that more than 80 percent of the diving school’s students received financial assistance from the Department of Education, the school stood to lose its largest source of tuition funding for its students if it lost its accreditation.

Prior to 2012, the diving school had been properly accredited. However, when renewing the diving school’s accreditation that year, Brown submitted fraudulent information to the accrediting authority. For example, Brown reported rates of employment of the school’s graduates of between 81 to 84 percent, when the employment rates were closer to 50 to 60 percent, significantly lower than the rate required to maintain accreditation. Brown also provided fraudulent information pertaining to the school’s holding of “advisory board” meetings required for accreditation to ensure that the school’s curriculum would educate students to meet the current demands of the industry and prospective employers. In the school’s accreditation application, Brown reported holding advisory board meetings on various dates and also submitted what purported to be minutes of nine such board meetings. The diving school did not have a formal advisory board and did not regularly conduct meetings as required. Brown submitted wholly fabricated meeting minutes for at least six of the nine dates listed in the school’s accreditation application and, therefore, did not satisfy the minimum accreditation requirements. The diving school nonetheless continued to regularly receive DOE funds via wire transfers, including a wire transfer which occurred on Jan. 18, 2017.

In addition to the prison term, Judge Rodriguez sentenced Brown to three years of supervised release, fined her $50,000 and ordered restitution of $1.1 million.

U.S. Attorney Sellinger credited agents of the FBI’s South Jersey Resident Agency, under the direction of Special Agent in Charge Jacqueline Maguire in Philadelphia; the Philadelphia Resident Agency of the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Inspector General, under the direction of Special Agent in Charge Terry V. Harris, and the Northeast Field Office of the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs Office of Inspector General, under the direction of Special Agent in Charge Christopher F. Algieri, with the investigation leading to today’s sentencing.

Students who can show that their school misled them or engaged in other misconduct in violation of certain state laws may be eligible for the discharge of some or all federal student loan debt under certain circumstances pursuant to the Borrower Defense Loan Discharge program. Former students of Divers Academy International who wish to seek federal loan forgiveness may apply at www.studentaid.gov/borrower-defense/.

The government is represented by Assistant U.S. Attorney Diana Vondra Carrig of the U.S Attorney’s Office in Camden.

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